Before I read your link, I'll note that a lot of folks don't know the history (I'm not saying you don't); that "steadfast support" didn't particularly exist before 1973, and certainly didn't exist before 1967.
Back in the Fifties, the main supporters of Israel were these wacky countries known as "France" and "Germany."
Things change.
Um, okay, having read it, not so much in agreement with it, not finding it much more interesting than the usual site that quotes Chomsky.
The problem with the Israel/Palestine question is that it requires a somewhat exhaustive knowledge of the history, that requires either, at least, months of full-time study, or years of significant part-time study. Absent that, opinions tend to not be clueful.
Regrettable.
It's just not a set of courses, it's an entire curriculum required.
You are far too generous, Gary. That post is nothing more than proof that being a university professor doesn't mean people ought to read a single word you write.
Two dissents, no arguments. I'm listening.
Why isn't a fairly traditional "Israel is our combination cop-on-the-block / canary-in-the-coalmine" explanation sufficient to explain our support of Israel? That seems like a pretty good reason for the Executive branch to support Israel. Congress - well, they could be roughly neutral as long as there was essentially no cost to our support for Israel.
Why does there need to be more?
I don't understand how a metaphysician could fail to understand that it doesn't have to be just one thing that explains US support for Israel. If you, Ogged, and she are asking a question for which there can only be a singular answer, you're asking the wrong question.
Relatedly, there's a nonsequitur in Halper's analysis: (a) "If you did a rational analysis, you would say that [America's support of Israel] is counter-productive for the United States." (b) So the US mustn't be supporting Israel for the surface reasons, because the US would not straightforwardly act against its self-interest.
To make this inference go through you'd need influential US officials believing that support for Israel is against US interests.
Isn't that simply a fantasy? I could be wrong, I don't know any members of Congress personally. But that hypothetical conversation with a typical legislator ("Look I know, I read the papers, I'm not dumb...") strikes me as pure projection. There are certainly some members of Congress who think this way, but it seems more reasonable to suppose that most members really believe that US and Israeli interests mostly coincide.
None of which is to say that the Halper hypothesis is uninteresting.
I tried to be particularly careful with my wording in this post. I don't even say I agree with Wilson's proferred reason; I say that it seems like the right kind of reason, and that it's interesting. And my own list of reasons ought to dispel any notion that I think a single reason could be sufficient.
Still, I'd like to hear why people think she's off-base.
As for Called Tim by Some's question, it's a good one, and it makes me think I should have made a distinction between support for Israel and the prominent place Israel has in so many people's minds. Hmm...
Your distinction between things that "play a role" and "the right kind of reason" suggests that you think only the latter really explains anything. Sorry if I misread you.
My remark was directed primarily at the metaphysician, who I'm sure quite understands that the explanation needn't involve just one thing but who nonetheless writes as if she doesn't. The whole post (hers, not yours) seems to presume a need for deep hermeneutics that I don't think exists.
Yes, what she quotes Halper as saying is quite plausible as a (further) part of the explanation (quite possibly explaining some votes of some legislators -- which would be very interesting).
But why not say simply that most legislators really do believe that US and Israeli interests mostly coincide -- then argue that they're wrong? Why assume that most legislators couldn't be wrong about US interests (not to mention morality)?
Ogged, many thanks for the opportunity for me to get some feedback on that post. A couple of remarks in response...
Ted H., of course you are right that there might be multiple explanations for U.S. support. The post was intended as more of a call to action than a weighted analysis of the full spectrum of motivations for U.S. support, with the idea being that the magnitude and persistence of the human rights violations at issue are such that some very powerful motivation needs to be in place to explain the magnitude and persistence of U.S. support for Israel. I then focused on a couple of the usual "explanations", briefly pointed out why they didn't seem to me to be sufficient unto the task of explaining our continuing support, and then cited Halper as identifying what struck me as the first explanation that was of sufficient magnitude to be plausible. Of course, there might be some function whereby a bunch of considerations that weren't individually sufficient added up in such a way as to collectively explain our support; but again the degree of the violations, and the degree of our (in particular, financial) support really seem to call out for at least one Big Trumper.
I guess I feel, SomeCallMeTim, that while the "Israel is our combination cop-on-the-block / canary-in-the-coalmine" explanation is definitely one of the bigger additional partial explanations entering into the equation of our support, it is not in itself anywhere near sufficient to explain this (especially post-Cold War). If there were "effectively no cost" to our support, then this explanation might be sufficient, but my point is that there is a huge cost, from the perspective of human rights; so my question is: why have we been willing to pay it?
Gary, though the Chomskian line that the global military-industrial complex and its influence on the U.S. economy (hence political policy) is driving a lot of the trains around here is old news, the fact remains that, well, the line seems (along with the facts Halper cites) to correctly provide a big part of the answer to our continuing support of Israel; and to warrantedly believe this doesn't, I think, require that one be an expert in that particular Middle East affair. Certainly such expertise would be required if one was giving an exhaustive weighted analysis of the entire spectrum of reasons for our support, but again, that's not what I was doing. Of course, Halper *is* someone who has devoted many years to developing full-spectrum expertise on the Israeli-Palestine issue, which is why I cited him. But absent such expertise I can at least cite my own experience as regards what explanations I have been given for U.S. support of Israel, and state why these have struck me as insufficient, under the circumstances of the afore-mentioned cost.
In any case, no one, including Chomsky, would claim that the global M-I complex is the whole part of the story. Indeed, the reason the various trains keeps mowing things down is precisely because there are usually reasons and arguments available that can be cited as providing alternative reasonable explanations (e.g., of U.S. support for Israel) that, when certain facts (e.g., human rights violations) are not forefront in our minds, can serve to distract us, knowingly or unknowingly, from the unsavory considerations that are primarily (to greater or lesser degree) driving the train.
One final comment -- Ted H., as the "knowingly or unknowingly" is intended to suggest, I also don't mean to imply that U.S. policy-makers are all aware of the less savory aspects of U.S. support for Israel; and probably Halper doesn't either. On the other hand, it's increasingly implausible to think that anyone who is paying even meagre attention isn't aware of the plight of the Palestinians. Of course, there's the usual problem of human beings being psychologically well-equipped to ignore, downplay or inappropriately assess information that indicates they might be duty-bound to do something differently... like start predicating our financial or arms product support for Israel on their conforming to international law, etc.. It's a good question how to correct for such psychological blinders, but that's a story for a different post.
Anyway, thanks to all for aiding my understanding of this complex issue.
Thanks for the interesting reply, Jessica.
(By the way, I hope you didn't hear that 'metaphysician' as derrogatory. I am a bit frustrated by your blog, though. I wish you'd blog more in the style of your reply here -- qualifying your claims, anticipating objections, etc. You know, with the same dialectical subtlety that you use in your other work.
Maybe we just have a meta-political disagreement. I don't feel much engaged by 'mobilizing the masses' modes of discourse. The political discourse that engages me is continuous with philosophical discourse.)
Hi Ted,
I appreciate your comment in re my blog posts. It's important to keep in mind that for the most part, my blog is really just what it claims to be... a record of stuff that I come across (usually links to articles, op-ed, or other posts) and the occasional minimal commentary. Once in a while I say a bit more, usually in service of some activist end. I realize that this isn't all it could be, but given my primary personal goal right now (well, besides becoming a better person, etc.)---namely, to get enough publications for tenure---I have limited time to spend on more nuanced posts.
I don't have any pretensions (at least at this point in my life/career) of entering the ranks of the "higher bloggers". But I keep on doing what I'm doing, mainly just to have my opinion on record and available to whoever comes across my site (as well as to provide something of a mini-clearing house for some interesting stuff and occasional opportunities for activism). But I'll see what I can do within the available parameters!