Wednesday, January 9, 2013

The meaning of the Hagel nomination

Mike L.

{Originally published at the Times of Israel.}

It should be fairly clear that Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense indicates that he has no intention of preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weaponry. That’s the real meaning of the nomination. Barack Obama lied when he told the world that he will not allow Iran gaining nukes in much the same way that he lied when he said that Jerusalem should remain undivided.

Thus one of the primary consequences of the reelection of Barack Obama will be a theocratic-fascist state that calls for the destruction of Israel gaining the means of bringing that destruction about. This does not mean, needless to say, that as soon as Iran gains its nuclear arsenal that it will bomb the holy hell out of Israel. This is highly unlikely because, despite the apocalyptic dreams of the mullahs, these people are neither suicidal nor stupid.

What it does mean is that in the Middle Eastern contest between the secular fascists and the Muslim fascists that the Muslim fascists will continue to win out and countries, like Turkey, that waiver between looking east toward Iran and looking west toward the European Union will continue trending toward the east and Iran. As Barack Obama has bolstered the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East, which he encouraged people to think of as a positive development, an Iran with nuclear weaponry will highlight the vitality in that movement and will stimulate its ongoing growth throughout the Muslim world.

This will lead to a nuclear arms race throughout the region as Saudi Arabia and Egypt compete with Iran for regional supremacy and thereby substantially increase the possibility of such weapons falling into the hands of non-state actors which, in turn, will increase the possibility of such weapons actually being used.

For Israel what this means is the decline of Zionism as a movement designed to free the Jewish people from living or dying according to the whims of non-Jews. If Zionism meant anything, it meant that. The point of Israel, aside from the rejuvenation of Jewish culture, was that Jews would no longer live or die according to the caprice of others. The moment that Iran goes nuclear this will no longer be the case. While I do not think that Iranian leadership is entirely irrational, nor suicidal, it will nonetheless remain the case that Iran will have veto power over the existence of the Jewish State of Israel.

What this will mean is that Israeli existential fears will dramatically increase thereby causing any number of Israelis to move out of the country. Iran need not use its forthcoming nuclear arsenal for it to significantly harm Israel because the very fact of those weapons will place Israeli families, Muslim, Jewish, and Christian, in considerable jeopardy. This will likely cause a big increase in immigration out of the state, will do significant damage to the Israeli economy, and will probably encourage the ongoing rise of the Israeli right-wing that will increasingly look beyond the United States for strategic partners.

Finally, the rise of a nuclear Iran will represent a significant turning point in the decline of the west. Europe is an economic basket-case and the US may not be far behind. An Iran with nukes will also put an exclamation point on the evacuation of US global leadership under the Obama administration and will thereby mean, if not the end of that leadership, something quite close. As the US continues its grim slide, both China and Russia will be emboldened and countries like India and Israel will look elsewhere for leadership and alternative partners.

If Obama was serious about preventing Iranian nukes he certainly would have nominated someone other than Chuck Hagel. He did not nominate Hagel out of animosity toward Israel, as some have suggested. He nominated Hagel for Secretary of Defense because for ideological reasons he wishes to see a United States that leads from behind. The United States under Obama is post-colonial and that means the US will merely be one country among 192 other countries, plus “Palestine.”

This is not the end of the world, nor the end of Israel, but it is symptomatic of an America in decline under an administration that disdains western power. In any case, this is also deeply harmful toward Israel and it makes me wonder what, if anything, that they can do about it.


  1. One wonders if Obama WAS a seekrit Muslim what would he be doing different than what he has done so far and continues to do? Just sayin'

    1. I am convinced that what best explains Obama's behavior is not Islam, but western academia.

      He's a highly educated man of the left and as such was well indoctrinated into post-colonial theory in his historical education.

      He sees a world in which white, western, racist imperialists raped "people of color" of their lives and their natural resources for the purposes of European and then American hegemonic power, which explains why both Africa and the Middle East tend to be poverty-stricken.

      In this way of viewing the world the Vietnam War was an example of the white man using the black man to kill the yellow man in order to save land that he stole from the red man.

      The Arab world is the victim of this white, western racism and the administration of George W. Bush, and his warmongering which resulted in the deaths of maybe a million people, is merely the latest example.

      Israel, needless to say, is an outpost of the American empire and, as a sophisticated, enlightened, post-colonial president, Obama considers Israel to be a big part of the problem.

      He understands why Israel exists but his sympathies are elsewhere.

      When I think of Obama I think of Chomsky or Khalidi or Said.

    2. Yep, I talk to such people almost every day, and sometimes I just shake my head at how badly they are informed about the history and events that have occurred.

    3. So, we turn the tables on them, School.

      We have history on our side and we have human rights on our side, as well, if we would simply stand up for ourselves.

      That's my message, in a nutshell, I think.

      13 hundred years of second and third class citizenship under the boot of imperial Islam, followed by a hundred years of war against us by a people that outnumber us 100 to 1.

      The Jews are no longer victims and that is because we simply will not allow ourselves to be.


      How does that sound?

    4. It is not about turning the tables, but finding ways for them to overcome their ignorance, to help them to be educated and aware about those they romanticize about.

      I think asking why Israel and Jews are denied what everyone else receives is a start.

      There is also a great You Tube that I was going to write about, but have not gotten around to, which is here:

      Most of these folks are good hearted and too busy to know more than there is a protracted conflict.

    5. Thanks for the above link I hadn't seen it.I've posted it on a pro-Palestinian site.

  2. PS I only ask because I have already been identified as a crazy right wing so and so by some. ;)

  3. "What this will mean is that Israeli existential fears will dramatically increase thereby causing any number of Israelis to move out of the country."

    Historically speaking, for the past 120 years or so of renewed Zionism, Jews have given up and gone abroad primarily for economic reasons, not geopolitical ones. The closest the renewal of Jewish nationalism came to extinction was during World War One, when the threat of famine loomed over all the inhabitants of the Land of Israel (as with other Ottoman domains).

    In the 2000s decade, all but a few Israeli Jews (still overrepresented in Israel's MSM) either shifted rightward or went abroad, leaving a population that's less likely to react to existential threats in panic; the news of the persecution of Jews abroad by the Muslim colonists (in France, for example) doesn't fall on deaf ears either. The only economic game-changer I can think of is international sanctions; hopefully, should it come to that, there'll be a leadership by that time that does not hesitate to threaten the world to stay off that course ("If you dare to kill us with hunger, we will kill you with radiation"). Ultimately, then, it all comes to intestinal fortitude.

    1. That's good to hear, Zion.

      I don't expect Israelis to panic when, and if, Iran gets the bomb, but I would expect some to leave. So, you think that I am overstating possible Israeli reaction to a nuclear Iran?

      I certainly hope that you are right, but you oughta know better than me.

      By the way, here's a question, why the hell is scotch so expensive in your country, anyways?

      What's up wit dat?

    2. "I don't expect Israelis to panic when, and if, Iran gets the bomb, but I would expect some to leave."

      So do I. I didn't say nobody would leave, just that it wouldn't be in such big numbers as to make a difference, for example to the economy.

      I don't know the future any more than you do, so my prediction rests on recalling the situation in 1967, in the month or so before the Six-Day War. To say that period was tense would be an understatement; the threat of a combined Egyptian-Jordanian-Syrian offensive was clear and present, and with it the scenario of total annihilation. But there was no mass emigration. It's so far always been a worsening economy that's caused the flight of Israeli Jews, not the other way round.

      I regret to inform you I'm not a drinker of scotch, in fact I avoid even wine for the kiddush, preferring instead the option of grape juice (tirosh), so I have no answer to your question. I didn't know scotch was expensive until now. You'd get a better response from me if you asked me about things having to do with chocolate.

    3. Zion,

      so what's your take on the upcoming elections?

      It seems like a lot of people are expecting a shift to the right with Bennett's party making big gains.

      Do you get the sense that Israelis have, for the most part, given up on Oslo and, if so, what's next?

      Do you think that there's actually any chance that Israel will annex area C?

      These are very interesting times.

      I tell you one thing, I would very much like to see an Israeli government with a zero-tolerance policy on terrorism or rockets out of Palestinian-Arab areas.

    4. Mike, please forgive my delay in replying. I lost track of past discussions, as often happens once I enter the Shabbat bubble, leaving all the cares of the world behind.

      "so what's your take on the upcoming elections? It seems like a lot of people are expecting a shift to the right with Bennett's party making big gains."

      I'm voting for Bennett myself, with the conviction that his party is a fair choice but with no great expectations. I think I'm typical in this. There's the fear that he might compromise on his principles, but there's no better choice. Further to the right, Ben-Ari's Otzmah L'Yisrael, the vote would be wasted on a very small minority party; better to give the weight of votes to Bennett so he'll have power to counter the Osloids.

      "Do you get the sense that Israelis have, for the most part, given up on Oslo and, if so, what's next?"

      The favorability of land-for-peace treaties has been dealt constant blows since October 2000, but it may well be the collapse of the peace with Egypt that hammers the final nail in the coffin. For most Israeli Jews, the current state of mind is an unfortunate limbo where they believe the Oslo route is not the way to go but they don't know what is the way to go; or some do have ideas but see little chance of them being carried out by a timid leadership as we now have. Netanyahu and Livni only differ as to the level they're willing to cave in to Obama's demands; truly independent and defiant leadership has yet to attain power.

      "Do you think that there's actually any chance that Israel will annex area C?"

      No idea. Fact is, I find myself unconcerned by the question, because it seems to me there's a great chance of some war breaking out again before that question is ever brought up for discussion. But I really don't know.

      "I would very much like to see an Israeli government with a zero-tolerance policy on terrorism or rockets out of Palestinian-Arab areas."

      Which brings us back to self-reliance and defiance. The current government, though the world excoriates it as "hardline right-wing," is so fearful of world pressure it can't bring itself even to shut down Israel's electricity supply to Gaza (!) during a period of armed hostilities on the part of Hamas. Because of the deliberate Hamas policy of using every civilian as a target, propaganda-fodder for Pallywood to be sold to a readily hostile anti-Zionist worldwide media, any Israeli Jewish leadership lacking the solid foundation of the principle of Jewish interests and Jewish national survival would rather let Jewish population centers get rockets than risk a "humanitarian crisis" and the associated world opinion brouhaha.

      These are harrowing times for someone who wants to see the right thing done. That's why a lot of Israeli Jews have learned to lower their expectations, as with the coming vote.