i came, i saw, aipac

the pundits talk all the time about social security and medicare being untouchable 'third rails' of american politics. politicians risk full-on career suicide by even attempting to fuck with these golden calves. while he never had much of an agenda of any kind to begin with, the wheels completely came off of bush's attempt at a second-term domestic agenda when he tried to partially privatize social security (while i don't know if i agree with the specifics of his policy decisions, fuck social security. it's broken. if i'm gonna pay for my parents to stay fed when they're old, i might as well do it without the gubmint getting involved.)

however, social security is a pretty weak third rail when compared to our continued defense of the state of israel. obama has recently recently taking a lot of heat for not unequivocally supporting israel's inherent 'rightness' in the middle east struggle - along with all of the interesting religious and social connotations that accompany that claim. from a march 19 article in politico:

Obama “fails to understand the totalitarian politics and sensibilities of the folks over there, who are not well meaning,” said E.J. Kessler, a New York Post editor who’s a longtime observer of American-Jewish politics. “His approach will appeal to a lot of lefty Jews, but it won’t appeal to the serious players,” she said, referring to the better-organized and better funded groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Council, AIPAC, at whose conference Obama put in an appearance earlier this month.

in the previous week, both obama and mccain have gone to speak to the very same aipac, which is the largest non-partisan lobbying group for the israeli cause. in a move that straddles the line between rhetorical juggling and an ideological about-face, obama reassured continued unequivocal support of the jewish state:

When McCain addressed the AIPAC group Tuesday, he ridiculed Obama for suggesting he would sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. McCain said such a session would gain little "except an earful of anti-Semitic rants and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another."

Obama said Wednesday there is no greater threat to Israel than Iran, which "supports violent extremists" and "pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race." All those threats were known in 2002, he said, yet the Bush administration "ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq."

he continued in his speech (full text available here):

I have been proud to be a part of a strong, bi-partisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats. That is a commitment that both John McCain and I share, because support for Israel in this country goes beyond party. But part of our commitment must be speaking up when Israel’s security is at risk, and I don’t think any of us can be satisfied that America’s recent foreign policy has made Israel more secure.

the entire time he maintains support for a two-state policy and insists that much of the problems we are encountering today are largely credit to the bush administration.

that's all well and good, but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that politicians in america have to treat israel with the utmost of kid gloves. the even more unfortunate thing is that the coalition responsible for protecting this israeli love-fest is partially consisted of christian wingnuts, who believe that the book of revelation tells them that support of the state of israel will bring about the rapture (i'm not sure where you get that from a book of the bible that's likely an allegory about the roman empire, but whatever). while this is a fairly fringe belief and not representative of the christian mainstream, many of those who hold this belief, including pat robertson and billy graham (allegedly) wield immense control over a large swath of american voters.

great. and we wonder why some people still want war with iran.

we need to very quickly reassess our strategic relationship with israel, for any number of reasons. among them are:

a) the holocaust ended more than 60 years ago. we helped them get back on their feet after that crazy shit went down, but seriously, that doesn't give them a free pass to build partition walls, or have a government as hawkish as the bush administration.
b) continued disproportionate support to israel in this conflict only helps feed fundamentalist islam's ideas of jihad. while sticking to one's ideals is one thing, one-sided support of one country and complete opposition to all of their rivals is an extremely dangerous thing to get involved in...especially when it involves two religions that share a holy city. this smacks of religious war, which is decidedly unamerican. it kinda sucks that people here like it that way.
c) israel as we know it exists based on a united nations partition plan that was largely opposed by arabs.
d) their human rights record is appalling, and the united nations has made that clear.
e) for the reasons listed above, this is the single-most entangling alliance we have, and the one responsible for most of our post-cold war diplomatic problems.

this is not to say that israel is not threatened by many of their rivals, or that we shouldn't help protect them. we're balls-deep in this mess, so we're somewhat obligated to fix it. however, they are often enough the aggressor that our disproportionate support for them and the specific circumstances of the situation make this a battle we can't and shouldn't have a part in. here's hoping the next administration can pull a two-state solution out its ass and call it a day.