An Academic Treatment of the American-Israeli Alliance

We haven't given up on this, James and I. How people find time to "blog" on a daily basis, I'll never know. I was working full-time with Mathematica Policy Research out of Princeton, NJ in the spring and summer and now am back in college, at the University of Richmond. To give you a sample of what we work on in our daily lives, I'll present you with a paper I turned in which shows how our values permeate every aspect of what we do. The following was written for a public policy class. It's long--but I'd like to think it's worth a glance.
-----
With Friends Like These: A Re-thinking of the Israeli-American Relationship
By Anthony G. Galasso, Jr.

Introduction and Overview

American foreign policy in the Middle East is multi-faceted, involving a wide range of interests and dangers that need to be kept balanced in order to protect American national interests. The two major American interests in the Middle East are both fundamental and dire. They are national security and economic security: security against those in the region that undertake violent reprisals against America’s advancement of its interests; and security to keeping the oil flowing which runs through the veins of the American economy itself. In such a precarious situation, any matter of policy that hurts the United States in the region should be examined and reconsidered. To determine which initiatives are beneficial, and which are harmful, none should be spared from close scrutiny. The stakes are too high and the risk too great to continue along any course which endangers the balance that protects these vital American interests.

The United States’ longstanding policy of support for the State of Israel is one that requires such an examination. The alliance between the two nations has made itself open to criticism on several points. First, there is the fact that the United States is the primary arbitrator in the dispute between the Palestinians and the Israelis over the creation of an independent Palestinian state, and some view America’s relationship with Israel as rendering the impartiality necessary in such a role impossible. In addition, Arab resentment against Israel caused by that conflict is seen to lead to a “linking” of the United States with Israel, forcing the United States to bear a larger brunt of the hostility directed towards Israel in the region. Finally, there is also the argument that the alliance has become one-sided; Israel’s strategic importance has lessened since the end of the Cold War, continuing to arm the Israelis causes only instability in the region, which exacts to high of a cost for the United States in the context of American national security.

The Existence of American-Israeli Linkage

In testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Robert Malley, the Middle East Program Director of the International Crisis Group, summed up the problems the relationship between America and Israel has posed for America in the Arab world. In his eyes, America is hurt by “the perpetuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the perpetuation of the perception, right or wrong, of excessive U.S. disengagement and excessive U.S. bias¹.” In other words, the failure of the United States to broker a lasting peace between Palestine and Israel has led to widespread resentment among Arabs, fuelled by an idea it is America’s favoritism towards Israel that has stalled Palestine’s attempts at freedom.

Malley is not alone in these assessments. Mahmood Monshipouri, chairman of the political science department at Quinnipiac University voiced similar concerns in a paper detailing what he termed the “paradoxes” of American foreign policy in the Arab world². The breed of radical Islam that the United States finds itself at war with currently has its roots in Arab defeats at the hands of Israelis in wars in which Israel was the recipient of vast amounts of American aid³. This extreme religious and political ideology is only intensified by what is seen as “contradictory U.S. diplomacy” in mediating between Israel and Palestine, where the failure of the peace process has created “enormous credibility problems for the United States”⁴. It appears to be the case that, due to American support for Israel, the United States is abetting the Palestinians’ plight while attempting to free them⁵. American stature in the region is wounded by forcing allied Arab nations, for instance the Gulf States and Egypt, to be silently complicit in this “double standard.”⁶ The difficulty is summed up by Monshipouri thusly: “With the United States playing the dual role of principal mediator of the conflict as well as [that of] the chief diplomatic, financial and military supporter of Israeli occupation forces, U.S. policy is mired in contradiction.”⁷

A Pew Research Center poll of “influential people in politics, media, business, culture and government” from around the world, including Islamic and Middle Eastern countries, seems to show that these views are widespread. 95% said “yes” when asked “Has the United States been too supportive of Israel?” 57% considered US support for Israel a major reason for dislike of America in their respective countries, while 33% considered it a minor reason⁸.

This linking of American and Israeli interests in the Arab mind jeopardizes other American initiatives in the region. In September of 2005, Pakistan and Israel held their first formal talks in history when Khurshid Kasuri, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan met Silvan Shalom, the Israeli Foreign Minister, in Turkey. What would seem to be a major step forward has caused civil unrest in Pakistan. Quasi Hussain Ahmed, the head of Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), the main opposition group to General Pervez Musharraf’s Pakistani government, publicly called for the “overthrow [of] the Musharraf government.” Another MMA leader warned that “steps taken towards recognition of Israel will be stopped by force.” Most troubling to American interests, however, is the fact that a protest against Israel sparked by Pakistan opening up diplomatically towards Israel doubled as a protest against the United States. American and Israeli flags were burned together. As protestors claimed “Israelis are murderers of Palestinians” and that “[t]he meeting was an insult to the sentiments of 150 million people in Pakistan,” Musharraf was denounced as a “stooge of…President George [W.] Bush,” and protesters maintained “[f]riends of Jews are foes of Muslims.”⁹

The confusing of the United States and Israel in the public mind in a place like Pakistan is dangerous. The United States has become increasingly reliant on Pakistan’s cooperation in its efforts to destroy global terrorism. To potentially lose Pakistan’s cooperation as a result of a wave of popular resentment would be a major setback; to have it happen due to Israeli actions where America and Israel have become inseparable in the public mindset is far worse. America’s position is tenuous enough in places like Pakistan due to the “war on terror;” the United States needs to be mindful of policy decisions which would make it even more precarious than it already is.

These opinions do not necessarily indicate that there is actually a double standard in American policy; they do, however, demonstrate that American efforts to promote peace in the Middle East are having the opposite of their intended affect. Instead of mitigating radical Islam, American policy is giving it strength. Why have the fortunes of Israel and the United States become so closely tied together in the Middle East? In order to answer that question, a deeper look at the American-Israeli alliance is in order.

The American-Israeli Alliance

The growth of the ties between the United States and Israel has been termed as moving “from handshake to embrace.”¹⁰. At the outset, the United States kept its distance from Israel, but beginning in the 1960s America began to offer military aid and view Israel as a strategic asset. By 1976, Israel was the largest recipient of American aid worldwide. In 1987, Israel was declared a “major non-NATO ally.”¹¹ Today the relationship is as strong as ever. What prompted this massive American investment in Israel? What value does the United States see in maintaining this alliance? And, are the answers to the previous questions still relevant in the face of a changing world?

Israel has, since the beginning of its existence, has depended on foreign aid for its national defense and sought a relationship with the United States¹². The United States hesitated in the first decade of Israel’s existence to deal them arms directly¹³. Mordechai Gazit, a Fellow of the Harry S Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace and the Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations at Hebrew University, relates an exchange between Prime Minister David Ben Gurion of Israel and American President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1955 and 1956, following the Egyptian arms deal with the Soviet Union. Ben Gurion directly asked for American arms, fearing a tipping of the balance of power with the new influx of Soviet weaponry into Egypt and that a lack of American aid would “leave Israel without adequate capacity for its self defence [sic]”¹⁴. Eisenhower refused, stating that “[w]e are trying to prevent an arms race in the region.” Eisenhower believed that Israel, because of its size and position, should not seek military equity with its Arab neighbors, but rather peace¹⁵. In response, Israel “completely rejected [Eisenhower’s] analysis” and sought a country who would sell them arms; they eventually reached an agreement with France that would last for a decade¹⁶. Gazit considers this episode to be “forgotten,” and with the changes that would come in the United States’ treatment of Israel, he would seem to be correct¹⁷.

The coming of the 1960s saw the United States change from a policy preventing arms races in the Middle East, to a policy of arms balance¹⁸. The change came with the Presidency of John F. Kennedy, who made the first direct arms sale to Israel in 1962¹⁹. Kennedy was also the first one to speak of a “special relationship” between the United States and Israel, making the claim to Golda Meir in 1962 “that in case of an invasion, the US would come to the support of Israel.”²⁰

Between 1962 and 1973, three important events would cement the newfound American-Israeli “special” relationship. First, in 1967, France would terminate arms sales to Israel, and Israel would prevail in the Six Day War. American military support to Israel increased 450% in the next year²¹. In 1970, the “Black September” crisis occurred in Jordan, which is considered the time Israel “proved its worth” to the United States²². Black September occurred when fighting broke out in Jordan between Palestinians there and the Jordanian army. Israel claimed at the time that Syria had invaded Jordan to aid the Palestinians. They were prepared to invade Jordan to repel the Syrians, but in the end the Jordanians prevailed²³. Israeli leaders such as the late Yitzhak Rabin claimed credit in preserving the Jordanian regime and proving to the United States that they and Israel had a common interest in the region²⁴. However, former US Ambassador to Qatar and political and economic consultant Andrew I. Killgore counters that claim. According to Killgore, Israel actually “did nothing” during the Black September crisis, and that the reaction of the United States was not so much gratitude, but fear that Israel would, in President Richard Nixon’s own words, “have demolished the Syrians and gone right on to Damascus.”²⁵ Still, Israel became to be seen as a “means to combat Soviet influence in [the] Arab world.”²⁶

Finally, in 1973, the third and strongest bond between Israel and the United States was formed in the Yom Kippur War. A surprise attack by Syria and Egypt took a heavy toll on Israeli forces, who were caught unaware and found to have severe strategic disadvantages in terms of manpower and readiness²⁷. President Nixon, to counter Soviet aid to Egypt and Syria, had American forces stationed in Europe open an “air bridge” to strengthen Israel.²⁸ Israel was bolstered enough to reverse their fortunes and eventually secured victory. During the Yom Kippur War, military aid from the United States to Israel increased 800%.²⁹ The commitment to Israel became a contentious issue, both because of the cost to American taxpayers and because of growing “Arab resentment over favoritism towards Israel.”³⁰ As Killgore phrases it, a “pattern” began to emerge: “Israeli ‘victories’ were being won at ever increasing cost to the United States.”³¹

Since 1976, Israel has been the largest recipient of aid from the United States, despite the fact that the amount of aid has tapered off slightly since it peaked at 4 billion dollars under the Carter administration in 1979³². The planned foreign operations spending bill for the fiscal year 2006, approved by the House and soon to pass the Senate, would include 2.3 billion dollars for Israel³³. To contrast, Egypt would receive $1.3 billion from the bill; Afghanistan, $430 million; Pakistan, $300 million; and the West Bank and Gaza Strip $150 million, which would not go directly to the Palestinian Authority but rather towards US Agency for International Development concerns.³⁴

In this thirty year time span, the United States and Israel have developed mutual strategic initiatives and held joint military maneuvers. American economic assistance to Israel was converted from grants to loans in 1981, Israel was named the “largest foreign participant” in President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, and in 1989 the United States agreed to keep a stockpile of military supplies available to Israel in the event of a crisis³⁵. In 2005, looking forward, not much has changed. President George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004 was hailed by Israeli newspapers: “The Friend Stays On,” and “Bush is Good For Israel” headlines read, and the opinion in the press seemed confident that “[t]he president will continue back up Israel’s military moves in the territories and supporting Sharon’s disengagement plan.”³⁶ Israel also sees America’s longstanding criticism of Iran as favorable, since Israel considers Iran its greatest threat in the Middle East.³⁷ President Bush seems to be on the same page. On February 18, 2005, the Daily Telegraph in London reported that when asked if he would support Israeli attempts to disrupt the Iranian nuclear program, Bush answered:

“Clearly, if I was the leader of Israel and I’d listening to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I’d be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well. And in that Israel is our ally, and in that we’ve made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if her security is threatened.”³⁸

As different as the world is in 2005 when compared to 1976, one thing that has not changed is America’s commitment to Israel. Even with the end of the Cold War and the change of American worries in the Middle East from being caused by aggressive Arab nationalism to the threat of sub-national religion-inspired terrorism, the course of history and the stance of the current administration do not seem to indicate that any reduction in American support is forthcoming. With the violent ramifications of the linkage of America and Israel so readily apparent in the Islamic world, it comes time to take a look at this “special relationship” in another context.

The Question of National Security

At this point, it is apparent that in the Islamic world, America and Israel are seen as one and the same, with a common interest and common goals that are widely considered injurious to Arab and Muslim interests. This view comes from over 40 years of American support for Israel, which has only ever increased during that span of time. Even if the monetary figure of actual aid given was reduced, as it was in the early eighties, the level of military investment and the extent to which Israel’s existence was a priority for the United States reasonably justifies the opinion that where and when Israel moves, the United States moves also. However, the world is a very different place now than when the Israeli-American relationship began. The Soviet Union is no longer there to funnel arms to Arab states. With the overthrow of the Iraqi government, Israel no longer faces a conventional military threat from an Arab neighbor. The problem, for both Israel and the United States, involves sub-national terrorist groups who use unconventional warfare to further intermingled political and religious goals. The power of these groups is such that they’ve struck American interests worldwide, most dramatically on American soil itself. The question that American foreign policymakers should ask themselves is: with the world as different as it is now, and with the United States facing the threats it does, is the relationship with Israel worth the investment, when viewed in terms of our national security?

Indeed, some critics would argue that the United States has always put more into the alliance than it has received in return. There has often been tumult between Israel and the United States. In the fight for Israeli independence, the Soviet Union, and not the United States, was Israel’s first target for an arms supplier. Israel triumphed in large part to arms procured from Soviet satellite Czechoslovakia. In the words of historians Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas Brinkley, “Israel was born, thanks in large part to Russian military support and American negotiating skill.”³⁹ Russian support for Israel would be sacrificed within the decade when Nasser’s Egypt became the Soviet Union’s foothold in the Middle East.⁴⁰ In 1967, during the Six Day War, Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty, which was in international waters off the coast of Gaza. Thirty-four sailors were killed, and 174 others were wounded. Israel claimed they mistook the ship for an Egyptian ship and that the ship was inside of the war zone, claims that are disputed by the surviving sailors themselves and government officials such as former Secretary of State Dean Rusk⁴¹. Also, in the late seventies and early eighties, Israel repeatedly used weapons sold to them by the United States for defensive purposes in offensive operations, in violation of US law: in Lebanon in 1978, 1979, and 1982, and against an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.⁴² More recently, the United States has been put in the awkward position of having to allow Israel to act in violation of UN Security Council resolutions while at the same time attempting to uphold them by force in places such as Iraq⁴³. In all cases, however, the United States did not allow these difficulties to prevent the relationship from growing. The importance which the United States has placed in Israel throughout the years has allowed Israel a degree of American indulgence few other nations enjoy.

The net effect of this deep but troubling relationship has been threats against American security, both in terms of safety and economics. The oil producing nations of the Middle East, whom the United States depends on for energy and who depend on the United States for defense, are faced with populations who see the Palestinian struggle as their own and are fiercely anti-Israeli. Also, American policy towards Israel since the Kennedy administration has focused on arms balance between Israel and its Arab neighbors. However, with the changes that have occurred since that time, that arms buildup has actually contributed to instability in the region. Arms sales, both to Israel and Arab states, has militarized the region and stifled democratic change by reinforcing power-driven regimes⁴⁴. Now that Israel stands alone in terms of conventional military might, the Israeli nuclear arsenal, unacknowledged officially but believed to exist, has served as a pretext for other states to develop weapons of mass destruction to counter, such as Iran and previously Iraq⁴⁵. In short, the American bolstering of Israel has caused two major threats to two fundamental foreign policy goals: national security is threatened by the unrest, instability, and militarization of the region, and economic security is threatened by the precarious position of the oil states, caught between the pro-Israel United States and their anti-Israel populations.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In short, the United States’ long and checkered history with Israel has jeopardized our interests in the region and threatened our national security. President Eisenhower’s “forgotten” recommendation to avoid a Middle Eastern arms race—forgotten certainly by Israel and Eisenhower’s successors—seems to take on new relevance in the current context.

What can be done? Total abandonment of Israel would be an unwise and shortsighted solution. The immediate answer for the United States is to bring about a fair, equitable two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, recognized this in a February 2004 Senate hearing on the Israeli peace process entitled The Middle East: Rethinking the Road Map :

Conflict in the Middle East is one of our most intractable foreign policy problems. It has brought not only bloodshed and suffering to the people of Israel and Palestine, it has contributed to the poisoned ideology of radical Islamic extremists who have perpetuated terrorist acts on people in countries all over the world. American national security would be dramatically improved by the achievement of an Arab-Israeli peace agreement.⁴⁶

Mahmood Monshipouri agrees, not just in terms of national security, but also in terms of economic security: “Many oil experts concur that the best way to preserve stability would be to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”⁴⁷

What can be done that has not been attempted before? Robert Malley put a new direction in his testimony before the Senate on the future of the “Road Map to Peace” between Israel and Palestine. He places the blame for failures to broker peace in the conflict as due to a “lack of engagement” and a “lack of resolve.” This peace process should become America’s number one foreign policy priority. First, the United States and Israel would not be making the decisions alone, but in concert with Arab leadership and the European Union. They will collaborate in a plan that will not attempt to bring about peace in incremental steps, as has already been done, but within a larger framework with definite goals that would be publicly supported by Arab leadership. From there, mutual security guarantees from Palestine and Israel would be given to the multi-national group. This group will then oversee the transfer of power to the Palestinians and ensure a orderly exit of Israeli forces. This would prevent the shock and disorder than an immediate withdrawal and turnover to the Palestinian Authority would create. And third, and most crucially, the plan would be submitted to both the Israelis and the Palestinians in a referendum, as both parties have come to accept the two-state solution.⁴⁸

Malley goes on to add that a change in Palestinian leadership should not be a condition of any peace plan. Also, the territory allotted to the Palestinians needs to be contiguous and enough to make a viable state. The Palestinian authority would have to guarantee security during Israeli pull-outs, and Israel should not make up for land lost in Gaza with harsh countermeasures in the West Bank.⁴⁹

Malley’s plan is important because it includes measures that have been lacking in previous attempts in the peace process: first, it brings in Arab and European states to minimize the stigmatized appearance of the United States and Israel existing in opposition to the Arab world and Europe. Second, it allows for Palestinian popular sovereignty and legitimacy of Palestinian leadership, making it seem like a truly impartial, mutually achieved agreement. Third, it includes the support of Arab leadership, which will increase the legitimacy of the plan among the Arab people, who are extremely sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. And, fourth, and most importantly, Israel would be restrained from repressive security measures and attempts at land grabs from Palestinian territories, which fuel Palestinian unrest, thanks to international guarantees.

The plan would require a serious commitment of American patience and diplomatic effort, but the potential for a peaceful and just solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would improve the United States’ position in the region, by reducing the plight of the Palestinians and restoring some measure of credibility to American diplomacy. It would be much more beneficial for American security and economic interests than the status quo ever has been or ever will be.

In the long run, the best course of action for American foreign policy in the United States would be a reappraisal of our relationship with Israel. The principle behind it would be undoing the years of arms buildup, and focusing on equity in terms of prosperity instead of armaments. Of the $2.3 billion that will be appropriated to Israel in 2006, $240 million of it consists of purely economic assistance. By contrast, of the $1.3 billion that will be given to Egypt, $495 million will be purely economic assistance.⁵⁰ Israel receives more money for its military, while Egypt receives a greater share for economics. If future foreign policy focused on reducing military aid while sustaining or increasing limits of economic aid, three positives would occur: first, Israel would lose its position as the largest recipient of American aid due to reasons of need alone. This would weaken negative American-Israeli linkage while at the same time in no way constituting an abandonment of Israel. Second, Arab nations would receive aid based on their great need, increasing Arab prosperity through American investment while at the same time reducing the arms buildup in the region. Third, the overall cost to the American tax payer would be reduced, while at the same time the amount of funding being devoted to positive ends is increased. America will no longer be spending vast amounts of money simply to endanger itself.

In short, Israel was seen as a means to an end: to serve as a counterbalance in the region to Soviet arms and Arab nationalism. However, as Israel grew, strengthened by a singular outpouring of American aid over the course of decades, it became too powerful and ended up tipping the balance of power in its favor after initially being seen as disadvantaged. The price of Israel’s success has been high for the United States, both monetarily and in terms of prestige and security in the Middle East. The cost is simply too much as far as America’s national security is concerned. The world has changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War and policy needs to be able to adapt. The lessons learned from the American-Israeli experience should be that promoting regional stability through an arms race has backfired. The initial goal of American policy in the region, peaceful co-habitation, should be revisited. To do so would create a better life for all parties involved, and contribute more in terms of security and success to American interests. America’s wealth and influence could very easily serve as a peacemaker, instead of an arms dealer. While this shift will require a new redoubling of effort and many risks, our national security is too important to continue gambling on the status quo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:

1. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee of Foreign Relations, Hearing on the Middle East: Rethinking the Road Map, Panel Two, 108^th Cong., 2^nd sess., 2004. Lexis-Nexis Academic (29 November 2005).

2. Mahmood Monshipouri, “The Paradoxes of U.S. Policy in the Middle East,” Middle East Policy 9, no. 3 (2002): 65. Expanded Academic ASAP, InfoTrac (29 November 2005).

3. Monshipouri, 67.

Andrew I. Killgore, “Israel: No Strategic Asset,” Journal of Palestine Studies 14, no. 2 (1985): 223. JSTOR (29 November 2005).

Martha Wenger, “US Aid to Israel: From Handshake to Embrace,” Middle East Report, no. 164/165 (1990): 14-15. JSTOR (29 November 2005).

4. Monshipouri, 67-68.

5. Monshipouri, 68-69.

6. Monshipouri, 68.

7. Monshipouri, 69.

8. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, “Has the United States been too supportive of Israel or don’t you think so?” Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 19 December 2001. Polling the Nations, (29 November 2005).

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, “Do you think each of the following is a major reason, a minor reason, or not much of a reason that some people in our country dislike the US? Support of Israel,” Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 19 December 2001. Polling the Nations, (29 November 2005).

9. Agence France Presse, “US and Israeli Flags Torched in Pakistan Protests over Bilateral Talks,” Agence France Presse—English, 2 September 2005. Lexis Nexis Academic (1 December 2005).

10. Wenger, 14.

11. Wenger, 14-15.

12. Mordechai Gazit, “The Genesis of the US-Israeli Military Strategic Relationship and the Dimona Issue,” Journal of Contemporary History 35, no. 3 (2000), 413. JSTOR (29 November 2005).

13. Wenger, 14.

14. Gazit, 413.

15. Gazit, 413-414.

16. Gazit, 414.

17. Gazit, 413.

18. Gazit, 414.

19. Wenger, 14.

20. Gazit, 414-415.

21. Wenger, 14.

22. Wenger, 14.

Killgore, 223.

23. Killgore, 223-224.

24. Killgore, 224.

25. Killgore, 224.

26. Wenger, 14.

27. Killgore, 222-223

28. Encylopaedia Britannica, online ed., s.v. “Israel.” Encyclopaedia Britannica Online <http://search.eb.com/eb/article-219432> (1 December 2005).

Killgore, 222-223.

29. Wenger, 14.

30. Killgore, 223.

31. Killgore, 223.

32. Wenger, 14.

33. Marty Speck, “Senate Set to Clear Foreign Operations,” CQ Weekly, November 2004. Lexis-Nexis Academic (30 November 2005).

34. Speck.

35. Wenger, 15.

36. Agence France Presse, “Israeli Press Hails Election Victory for Close Friend Bush,” Agence France Presse—English, 4 November 2005. Lexis Nexis Academic (1 December 2005).

37. Agence France Presse, “Israeli Press.”

38. Francis Harris, “America Would Back Israeli Attack on Iran,” London Daily Telegraph, 18 February 2005, 16. Lexis-Nexis Academic (1 December 2005).

39. Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938 (New York: Penguin, 1997), 100-101.

40. Ambrose and Brinkley, 157-158.

41. Jim Ennes and Joe Meadors, USS Liberty Memorial, 2005, (1 December 2005).

42. Wenger, 14-15.

43. Monshipouri, 72.

44. Monshipouri, 73.

45. Monshipouri, 74.

46. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee of Foreign Relations, Hearing on the Middle East: Rethinking the Road Map, Panel One, 108^th Cong., 2^nd sess., 2004. Lexis-Nexis Academic (29 November 2005).

47. Monshipouri, 70.

48. U.S. Congress, Panel Two.

49. “Statement of Robert Malley, Middle East and North African Program Director, International Crisis Group,” Hearing on the Middle East: Rethinking the Road Map, 108^th Cong., 2^nd sess., 2004. Lexis-Nexis Academic (29 November 2005).

50. Speck.

Reagan Contra Lincoln - and Harry Jaffa

Professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo calls it "Lincoln's Specatular Lie" - Abraham Lincoln's claim that the states do not possess sovereignty because the federal government preceeded and therefore created the states. In reality, the exact opposite is true: the states preceeded and created the Union.

With the Declaration of Independence - which DiLorenzo correctly describes as a declaration of secession from the British Empire - the thirteen colonies seceded as individual states. This sovereignty was later affiirmed in the precursor to the Constitution - the Articles of Confederation, a governing system created by the thirteen states for their common defense.

In ratifying the Constitution itself, the states entered the compact individually. Morton Borden, editor of a 1965 edition of the Antifederalist papers claims that "the people" of the states as a whole ratified the Constitution and that it was the intent of the Framers to establish a "sovereign whole" separate from the thirteen states. However, this runs against the original understanding entirely, as DiLorenzo documents:

No less a figure than James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist 39 that the Constitution as to be ratified by the people "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong" (emphasis added).

Lincoln admirer and neoconservative Harry Jaffa of the Claremont Institute has fashioned a career out of perpetuating Lincoln's logic and the concept of "secession as treason" in general.

In the midst of the War in Iraq, neoconservatives like Jaffa have invoked the name of Ronald Reagan to justify our war of "global democratic revolution," implying that the Gipper would have supported such an attack. When folks like Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes trot out this point on Fox News it is never challenged - not that that this is surprising considering the utter lack of right-leaning voices on Fox that aren't neoconservatives.

While the late President Reagan has been recast in the popular mind - particulary among young conservatives - as a full-fledged neoconservative, it is interesting to note that Reagan disagreed with Lincoln - and by extension Harry Jaffa - about what (the states or the federal government) created what first. In his First Inaugural Address, Reagan declared explicitly:

It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government. (emphasis mine)

There you have it: Reagan contra Lincoln - and Jaffa.

The Jury is Still Out on John Roberts and Other Court Thoughts

Perhaps out of relief that President Bush did not nominate someone like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, conservatives throughout the country seem to be in a state of euphoria over the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Alas, celebration to me, at this point, seems premature.

Those who hope to overturn Roe v. Wade have latched onto a legal brief Roberts signed off on as a member of George H. W. Bush's Administration to argue that the pro-life movement should throw their lot in behind the nomination. However, during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003, Roberts dutifully pledged to uphold the Roe precedent saying, "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." In light of this evidence, my friend Aakash Raut, prudently argues for conservatives to proceed with caution:

Whoa there - Let's slow down, guys...

The thing is, I don't recall having heard of Judge Roberts before tonight. And I know I'm not the only one... Many of his positions are unknown, especially since he doesn't have very many of his views on the official record. He did inveigh against Roe, but only as a representative of his then-client, the Bush 41 administration. Same goes for his filing in favor of the Playboy Channel's First Amendment "rights." I just saw the interim president of Planned Parenthood on Scarborough Country, who said: "This may surprise you, but we're [not taking a position on Roberts]"... They just don't know enough about him. Neither do we.

I think that conservatives need to be very careful before getting excited about this nominee... And we have to be wary of basing our reactions to his nomination upon the fact that liberals will be opposing him.

Despite the intense protest coming from the likes of the National Abortion Rights Action League, raising the specter of Roberts joining a Court majority that would overturn Roe, all evidence points to that decision remaining a staple of American law for many years to come. Assuming - and that is a very large and completely unsubstantiated assumption at this point - that Roberts would vote to overturn Roe, a 5-4 pro-Roe majority consisting of Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, Kennedy, and Breyer would still reign.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the entire controversy surrounding the Court is how accepted the philosophy of judicial supremacy has become in American politics. Specifically, I'm referring to the concept - popular on the right and left - of appealing to the Court as the highest authority in the land on Constitutional issues. Want to strike a blow for the pro-life movement? Do you oppose affirmative action? How do you feel about the use of medical marijuana? All you have to do is get the right people on the Supreme Court to have your political views imposed on the entire country.

For more than thirty years now, conservatives have adopted a strategy of "capturing the Court" to rescind the advances of a cultural revolution hostile to traditional morality and the Christian religion in particular. They have marched hand-in-hand with the Republican Party, donated large amounts of time and money to the partisan cause, and urged the election of GOP presidents in the hope overturning decisions like Roe. What has it gotten them? A Court - 7 of 9 justices of which were appointed by Republicans - that rules in favor of race preferences in the name of "diversity," overturns state sodomy laws, and is generally deferential to federal power.

"American conservatism is a failure," wrote the late Dr. Sam Francis in his 1993 book Beautiful Losers. "Virtually every cause to which conservatives have attached themselves for the past three generations has been lost, and the tide of political and cultural is not likely to anytime soon." Twelve years hence, it is difficult to look back and not agree with Dr. Francis' assessment. One of the biggest reasons for this failure - particularly the failure of cultural conservatives - is the Court takeover strategy.

The startling fact is that Congress, under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, has the power to overturn Roe v. Wade by simply asserting its authority to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This would, in effect, return the issue of abortion to where it was decided from the founding of the country to 1973 - to the people of the several states. Adopting a strategy of persuading the Congress to exercise this power would be infinitely more wise and efficient than playing the Supreme Court game.

It's Been a While

It's been over two months since I've written in this space - a consequence of the time restraints 15 credit hours of summer classes places on you.

During my hiatus, Aakash Raut was kind enough to invite me to guest blog over at his excellent University Blog. My sole entry focused on the Old Right and the importance of resurrecting it in order to roll back the size and scope of the federal leviathan.

Speaking of that Leviathan...

... it continues to grow and morph into something the Framers of our Constitution could hardly imagine. And, as is case for the bulk of the modern era, this latest expansion was aided and abetted by the Supreme Court of the United States.

In early June, the Court struck down California's statute legalizing medical marijuana by a 6-3 vote (Gonzales v. Raich). The constitutional reasoning for this assertion of federal police power: the interstate commerce clause.

The Constitution's interstate commerce clause (Article I, Section 8) gives Congress the power to "regulate interstate commerce." Originally intended to set up a free-trade zone amongst the states, the commerce clause has been used time and time again by the Supreme Court to justify expansion of the role of the federal government in the lives of American citizens.

In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Court upheld the constitutionality of federal regulation of locally grown wheat for personal consumption as stipulated by the Agricultural Adjustment Act - a legislative item part of FDR's New Deal agenda of central economic planning via cartels and price controls. Wickard provided a direct template for Bush Administration lawyers to argue the case for - and for the Supreme Court to ultimately justify - overturning the will of the people of California while authorizing criminal prosecutions of doctors who dare prescribe marijuana to patients in debilitating pain suffering from terminal illnesses.

The reaction of the political left to this decision has been interesting to watch. In my post on Aakash's blog I noted the sudden resurgence of interest among progressives in federalism and states' rights. Progressive concerns center around the Bush Administration and a Republican Congress using the power of the federal government to ease environmental regulations and generally threaten left-wing public policies in states like New York and California. While I applaud this nostalgia for Jeffersonian Republicanism within the Democratic Party, I can't help but believe it to be at best inconsistent if not disingenuous - especially in the light of modern American history.

In the 1940s, liberals were among FDR and the New Deal's biggest champions and they praised Wickard as a departure from the conservative jurisprudence offered by the Court throughout the 1930s. On a related historical point, it is interesting to note that during this time period it was the political left - led by FDR - that complained about an "activist" Supreme Court that was declaring many parts of the New Deal unconstitutional. Indeed, Franklin D. Roosevelt spearheaded an effort to appoint additional justices to the Court, thereby giving the Court a decisive progressive majority. Ultimately, Roosevelt's scheme to pack the Court would be one of his largest political setbacks as he watched the US Senate shoot down his proposal by a 70-20 vote and his New Dealers lose seats to Republicans in the 1938 midterm election.

Perhaps as a response to Roosevelt's Court packing campaign, the Supreme Court abruptly shifted its positions on the constitutionality of New Deal programs, ultimately leading directly to Wickard. Our historical detour aside, the main point here is that the political left cannot have it both ways. It cannot on one hand praise federal intrusion into the local affairs of rural farming communities in the name of command and control economics and condemn the specter of the Drug Enforcement Agency carrying off doctors who prescribe marijuana at the same time. The road to Gonzales v. Raich goes directly through Wickard.

The Court and Religion

In late June the Court upheld another honored modern usurpation of the Bill of Rights and the Tenth Amendment - the encroachment of the federal government on the rights of states and local jurisdictions to self-government on the issues of church-state relations, ruling that displays of the Ten Commandments are legal on state capitol grounds if they are accompanied by other secular symbols and illegal in state courthouses. Since Everson v. Board of Education (1947), legal commentators, professors, and ACLU attorneys have pounded an ahistorical view of the American Founding and the original intent of the First Amendment to the Constitution - a view the Court's decision was based on.

In Everson, Justice Hugo Black, writing for the Court's slim 5-4 majority, cited Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists calling for a "separation of church and state" along with Jefferson and James Madison's support for disestablishing Virginia's state supported church to lay the foundation for all modern jurisprudence on these issues. With regards to the classic left-wing claim that our Constitution is "alive" or "living" and that we should interpret it according to the "morality of the times" as opposed to the fashion in which the document was originally intended, it is important to point out that Black's legal reasoning is shrouded in an original intent analysis - the problem is Black and the Court completely maligned the original intent of the First Amendment and the establishment clause which was explicitly to forbid "Congress" (the federal government) from establishing a national religion thereby protecting the states and local jurisdictions from central government encroachment.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, being two of the biggest champions of states' rights and political decentralization in the early American Republic would have been horrified by Black's legal reasoning. So when Black cites Jefferson and Madison supporting the revocation of tax support for the established church in Virginia, it is vitally important to keep in mind that theirs was a position on state and not national policy. Neither Jefferson, nor Madison, nor anyone in the entire founding generation questioned the constitutional right of states to conduct their own religious affairs. Indeed, this is precisely what took place in early American history - Vermont had an established church as did the state of Massachusetts on into the 1830s. And again, no one questioned the legality of this arrangement nor did the federal government attempt to intervene.

Do not misunderstand my argument against Everson and modern church-state jurisprudence in general as an approval of state sponsored religion - it is not. I cite the actual record of American history to demonstrate how far the Court, contrary to its claims, has strayed from "original intent" and how ridiculous lawsuits against states and small towns that display religious symbols like the Ten Commandments are when the entire founding generation recognized the right of the people in their states to manage their own religious affairs - even to the point of establishing state churches.

While many ACLU attorneys like to speak of the "right to choose" when it comes to abortion, they wholly deny the rights of local democratic bodies and city councils to choose to represent the religious tradition of those peoples in the public square. If citizens in Boise, Idaho want a display of the Ten Commandments in city hall, why does that profoundly affect me? If citizens of Vermont do not want them in the state capitol, then so be it - let local bodies decide. That is not, however, what many members of the ACLU want. While endlessly praising the virtues of "multicultralism" and "diversity" they seek to impose a rigid, nationalized, secular uniformity by bringing to bear the full power of the federal state, thereby eviscerating exactly the sort of "choice" the Bill of Rights sought to preserve - the right of the people to govern themselves.

Benedict XVI on War

Due to academic obligations, I have not had an opportunity to post here in a good while. The school year is winding down and only final exams stand between myself and summer.

On April 23, I submitted the following letter to the editor of Raleigh's News and Observer regarding an article by the American Enterprise Institute's pro-Iraq war Catholic theologian Michael Novak:

Michael Novak is partially correct when he writes that the label of “neoconservative” is a “peculiar” one for Pope Benedict XVI. Inactuality, Cardinal Ratzinger’s views on issues of war and peace arediametrically opposed to an ideology that calls for a “global democratic revolution” brought about by the force of American arms.

During the run-up to the Iraq war, Novak and fellow neoconservative William Bennett traveled to the Vatican in an attempt to sway Rome from its opposition to the US invasion. Their arguments were heard and politely rejected. Pope John Paul II went on to call the war “a defeat for humanity” drawing the ire of neoconservative websites and publications. Cardinal Ratzinger also spoke out against the Iraq war; forcefully arguing that it did not meet the “just war” criterion enunciated by the Christian church from Augustine to Aquinas.

Ratzinger, as Novak correctly points out, is no theological "liberal." Benedict XVI's theology is a classical conservative one, not only on right to life issues, but also on war in particular. Ratzinger's choice of naming himself after Benedict XV who urged for a peaceful and immediate end to another war "to make the world safe for democracy” (a crusade, I might add, that was thoroughly supported by promulgators of the "social gospel" and many within liberal Christianity in general) further demonstrates the new pope’s dedication to the historic principles of the Christian church in the face of calls from Novak and his ideological ilk to recognize the “new paradigm” brought about by 9/11. To America’s slide towards aggressive, pre-emptive, and perpetual war the Vatican has shouted, “halt!” One can only hope that all Christians, particularly "conservative" ones, take notice.

(Update: The News and Observer ran this letter on May 2)

Fleming Takes Notice

Thomas Fleming, author of The New Dealers' War among other titles and one of my favorite historians is one of a few who has tried to bring attention to Ratzinger's choice of papal name. In this article, Fleming touches on the importance of Benedict XV's work to bring about an end to World War I along with the signficance of Benedict XVI's German background.

Two Year Anniversary of Firdos Square Farce

Two years ago today, I was driving home, somewhere on I-440, listening to the radio when Rush Limbaugh started hailing what he described as a crowd randomly gathered in Firdos Square in Baghdad vociferously celebrating the US-led "liberation" of Iraq by toppling a statue of Saddam Hussein. The "Maha Rushie" was beside himself with praise about how the War Party had been vindicated by the jubilation of the Iraqi people.

Turns out the whole thing was a media-made farce.

As Harry Browne, a former Libertarian Party Presidential candidate writes,

[...] it was all an illusion – the kind created by the best
magicians.

There were three elements in the illusion:

1.) The statue was actually toppled by U.S. Marines using their own equipment – not by Iraqis.

2.) The Marines first draped an American flag over the statue’s face,
but then realized that this would make it too obvious that the Marines had come to occupy, not liberate, Baghdad.

3.) The square wasn’t filled with thousands of Iraqis. Only a hundred or so people witnessed the event. The few people there weren’t oppressed Iraqis – celebrating the event with joyous relief that their years-long oppression in Baghdad had ended. The people crowded around the statue were mostly members of the Iraqi National Congress – an organization of Iraqis who had been living outside Iraq, and had been flown into Iraq just before the event.

It is time to add this event to a long line of outright lies and blatant deceptions surrounding this undeclared, unconstitutional, and unjust war of "global democractic revolution."

Meaningless Words

The political culture in twenty-first century America is something to behold. Here words, labels, definitions, and classifications have little or no meaning. Turn on your favorite cable news network and you are likely to see Democratic Party activist “X” debating some Republican strategist “Y”. Sure, X and Y spout their respective party lines and generally put on a good show, heck they might even yell at each other, but in the end that is all it really is – a show, whose observers rarely stop and actually think about the issues being talked about and most importantly the actual arguments advanced by our favorite talking heads. If genuine conservatives ever get around to this they will notice something very important: the “right-wing” Republican rarely disagrees with the “left-wing” Democrat on the desirability of the ends of a given public policy.

The whole debate about “reforming” Social Security provides an instructive example. On this issue in particular, both establishment Right and Left agree: we must “save” Social Security for future generations. Instead of advocating the abolition of this socialist, coercive, statist system, our “right-wing” champion merely lauds the prospect of the President “allowing” American citizens to put their Social Security funds in government-managed “private accounts.” But why would any conservative (or insert your favorite Cato Institute “libertarian” here) want to save this socialist gift of Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Forgive my ungratefulness, but since when do I need permission from the federal government to plan for my own retirement? Where does Article I Section 8 of the Constitution authorize Congress to establish a system of forced savings for the American people?

The major point here is that both “right” and left are in agreement on big, unconstitutional government – the fruit of my labor is not really mine per se, my economic fate is up to the whims of politicians and government bureaucrats. It should be clear that this reasoning is utterly unconservative, for in the historic conservative view, the people limit the size and scope of the state, wealth belongs to the individual, and government doesn’t “allow” citizens to keep their earnings because they do not belong to the state in the first place.

So in effect, what we have in modern America are two sides (and two parties) to the same big government coin dressed up with “conservative” and “liberal” monikers. Both agree on the ends but only disagree on the stylistic means. When either win, liberty and the Old Republic fade away just a bit more - think about that the next time you watch cable TV or listen to talk radio.