That Joe, What a Shmo!

He's tough. He can take it. In fact, he probably had it coming anyway. Still... one does have to avert one's eyes from the humiliating scene of Joe Biden being made a complete fool of by the Israelis. I mean, given that the office of the vice president basically consists of being the president's attack dog – sometimes the target of the attack bites back, with even bigger teeth. And also given that, in American politics, there are two pilgrimage sites that every candidate or office holder has to visit on a regular basis – one being an AIPAC pep rally, and the other Yad Vashem, where American politicians can don sackcloth and ashes and make reparations for “not having done more”. (This is, please note, an exercise in collective guilt, since most American politicians were not yet born when the last Nazi concentration camp was liberated.) And heaven forbid any American politician should cross Abe Foxman; one word from him and your political career has about as much of a future as that of Charles Manson (less, actually, since Charlie apparently has quite a cult following within the prison system).

So who would volunteer for such a duty, anyway? An inveterate masochist? No – more likely, someone who thinks, delusionally, that this cup might pass them by... or that by the time it's placed in their hands the contents won't be so bitter. Or, just as likely, the sure and certain knowledge that occasional humiliation is the price of political power... I mean, Dick Cheney went through the same drill any number of times and he came out of it intact, right? But really, how much political power does a guy have who can go to a foreign country – an “ally”, no less – be thoroughly mocked, tricked, and duped, and yet not allowed to answer or fight back except for a few pathetic token mewpings that don't fool anybody – and which are quickly rebutted by his hosts? It is a fact that, in Israel, no American “emperor” or other high official has any clothes – they are expected to come, pay homage, ask no questions, and go home – and even when on their best behavior they are still likely to be made fools of, just to make certain they've gotten the message. (Think: LBJ peeing on the shoes of his Secret Service bodyguard. Yes, it really happened – probably more than once.)

Some tidbits from the press on this latest farce:

O The Palestinians suspect that “the United States is too weak to broker a deal.” True enough, but the fact is that no one over there wants a “deal” anyway, so it really doesn't matter how strong or weak the U.S. is.

O There is “widespread skepticism about whether the Obama administration would have the courage or the backing to take Israel to task” for this latest humiliation. Well, this skepticism is well-founded, and no, no U.S. president, past or present, has ever had this sort of courage. Men who labor for years – decades! -- to become president, who overcome every imaginable adversity on their way to the top, suddenly run into a brick wall labeled “Israel” once they take office -- at which point they lose control of their bodily functions and become helpless infants, much to the astonishment and dismay of the public. (But that's not true! The public sees and does not comprehend, or care.)

O "'This is a global message of American weakness and Israeli arrogance,' said Palestinian lawmaker Hanan Ashrawi." He's got it right – even if the entire U.S. media establishment can't bring themselves to utter the words.

O “Obama now has the choice of absorbing the blow or engaging in a politically unpalatable battle with the Israeli leadership, which past U.S. presidents have largely avoided.” Yeah. What did I just say about courage?

O "'Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the United States and Israel,' Biden said.” “No space?” How about just admitting that, foreign policy-wise, there is no difference between the U.S. and Israel. Everyone knows this already, but it would clear the air a bit if someone actually admitted it. And did he really say that "progress occurs" under these conditions? I wonder, would he care to point out an example?


The problem with all this talk about “U.S. pressure” is that there is no “or else” part. There are no sanctions, either explicit or implied, nor can there ever be any. How can we put “pressure” on Israel when it comes to settlements – or anything else – if we aren't prepared to do something when they don't comply? (And in fact, what would we do even if we had the will? This is something that is never discussed, of course.) Every tiresome repetition of this farcical dialog makes it look more like Israel is running the show and we're just the biggest chump in the “amen corner” -- which is, of course, precisely the truth.

In the unending Kabuki dance/sado-masochistic bondage ritual that is U.S.-Israeli relations, where Israel, despite its diminutive size, always seems to come out on top, getting anyone's honest opinion on the matter is about as easy as taking a Mardi Gras parade float up Mount Everest. Well, this is true on our side of the playing field, at least – the Israelis seem refreshingly candid, in their press and in discussions among their politicians, about who is wearing the pants in the relationship. In fact, they revel in the fact that the U.S. is basically their slave; they consider it the greatest political coup of all time, which it arguably is – although they don't spend a whole lot of time discussing, in public, how things got that way. (Kind of like who got Aunt Minnie pregnant back in '33 -- better you shouldn't ask.) So why don't our politicians see anything amiss here? And why doesn't the American public see anything amiss? It's because we all live in a state of fear – and paramount among all of our fears is that of being labeled “anti-Semitic”. This, of course, is based on the premise – far from proven – that to be anything but fully supportive of Israel is to be anti-Semitic. If you're not a neo-Nazi or a Jew-hater, you have to be pro-Israel in every way; that's the law, and there is no middle ground. It's impossible, by definition, to be at once tolerant (of Jews or anyone else) and also skeptical as to the morality of certain Israeli actions and policies. And to question the original rationale for the founding of Israel – well, that is totally beyond the pale. Who wants to have the bloodiest of all bloody shirts – i.e. the Holocaust – waved in their face? So the American public, and its leaders, are paralyzed in the face of any and all Israeli actions, no matter how illegal or outrageous – and we wonder why we have a hard time earning respect in the Arab/Islamic world (and much of the rest of the world as well).

I've already discussed the price we have paid, over the years, for all of this. We are as Samson, who wound up blinded and chained to a mill wheel. But so great is the blindness of our leaders that they don't even perceive the situation as it is – so how can one expect them to do anything about it? It is as natural to them as shaking hands and wearing power suits. I imagine that, as each of them climbs the ladder of political success, there is a point – probably more than one – at which the question is asked, “what think ye of Israel?” If the correct answer is provided, the person is allowed to continue their climb; if not, they are thrown into the pit of political failure. What this means is that no one even gets as far as the primaries without the “Israel chip” having been planted under their skin. And yet I imagine that, down in the trenches of local politics, there occasionally arises a brave soul who has the courage to ask “why?” But they are outnumbered, outspent, and out-politicked. And so the beat goes on. So much for our “leaders” -- they can be bought and sold fairly readily, and threatened or blackmailed even more readily. But explain the public's sheep-like going along with this decades-old farce. If you asked them, one at a time, if they really and truly thought that the “support” of Israel at all costs should be the highest priority of the United States... well, would you get an honest answer? Might as well ask the average Russian in the 1930s what he thinks of Stalin. This is how profound the fear and intimidation has become – and why those who do publicly question the situation are among the bravest people on the planet at this time.

So to get back to our man Joe – he's supposedly over there seeking to advance “the peace process” -- as proven a lost cause as ever there was -- and even this is something that no one ever questions. Why should we care? What's in it for us? Do we really have a dog in this fight – really? And especially, why do we want peace when neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians do? So the vice president of the U.S. is reduced to quibbling about the number of “settlers” in East Jerusalem – which would be sort of like Obama having to worry about the trash pickup schedule for Washington, DC. And despite the fact that no one over there has the slightest interest in peace, we keep grasping at straws, because... well, I suppose on one level we're still trying to vindicate our actions back at the time the State of Israel was founded. It's another example of cognitive dissonance – if peace is achieved, that proves we were right all along; otherwise, it implies we might have been wrong – the way it might be wrong to, for example, set up the national headquarters of the KKK in the middle of Harlem. If we have a fetish for “democracy” in Southwest Asia in general, then we also have to have a fetish for “peace” in the Holy Land – where all the troubles began. And of course adding to the chorus are the Evangelicals, who have their own utopian delusions where that area of the world is concerned. So we wind up going halfway around the world in search of something that has never existed there, and is unlikely to in the future. And yet it must! We simply cannot accept the impossibility of it all, and retire from the field. Hence the need for the likes of Joe Biden to, on occasion, go over there and get pummeled.

A word about the Evangelicals, by the way. They are absolutely, thoroughly convinced that Israel – not just the Jews but the modern State of Israel – is destined to play a key role in salvation history, as “clearly” prophesied by the Book of Revelation and promoted by any number of televangelists, megachurch pastors, and authors. And I agree with them to this extent: God definitely has something in mind for the Jews. To put it bluntly, He is keeping them around for a reason – since any other race of people under comparable circumstances would have perished eons ago. The difference is, I don't think the State of Israel has anything to do with it, except in the negative sense. There is an orthodox Jewish group, Neturei Karta, that believes that Israel is part of the problem – that it is, in fact, the problem. Their position seems to be that the establishment of the State of Israel constituted a great setback in salvation history (or whatever their term is), and that its continued existence basically has the whole process in a state of suspended animation – if not actual regression. They just as fervently desire the demise of Israel as the Palestinians and other Arabs/Islamists do – but for different reasons, of course. Israel's enemies want Israel wiped off the map because of the supreme insult its existence represents; surely that tiny bit of territory can't figure too largely in their thinking, except in a strictly symbolic sense. In other words, they want the Jews and their allies (us) out of “their” holy land, once and for all. The Neturei Karta folks, as I understand it, would welcome the disappearance of the State of Israel more as an unlocking or a liberation – now the Jewish people can finally get back on the road toward their final destiny, whatever that might be... and as I've said, the Evangelicals may actually have a clue about this, but they have been way too distracted and seduced by the blandishments of Zionism and Israeli nationalism.

The Neoconservatives, on the other hand, are firmly on the side of what Michael Jones calls “revolutionary Judaism” -- totally secular in nature – which was the biggest stream feeding into Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel. So we can expect no help – or insight – from that quarter.

But despair not! There is hope – for more absurdity, that is. Now Hillary Clinton has weighed in with her own criticism of the East Jerusalem gambit – not necessarily to defend Joe Biden, of course. (The next time he goes over there his opening remarks will be, “My mom, er, secretary of state, can lick your mom, er, whatever.”) But hey, we all know Hillary is a team player, right? So an insult to one member of Obama & Co. is an insult to all... and the Israelis had better be careful this time around. Biden was one thing, but with Hillary they have a real bad-ass on their hands.

But, on the other hand, the annual AIPAC meeting is coming up in a couple of weeks, and I'm sure that whatever delegation Obama sends over will do all of the requisite cringing, bowing, and scraping. This is less of a showdown than simply the Israelis allowing the U.S. to “vent”, the way the parent of a surly teenager might do. But we know – and they know we know – and we know they know we know -- that nothing we say is going to make the slightest difference, and that's what counts.