In today's issue of The Economist, there's an editorial that outlines the differences between American and European views of the war in Lebanon. Although the body of the article (see it here) seems to make a clear case of the strength of US pro-Israel sentiment, it also makes some disturbing conclusions, amongst them that this support is wavering ....
There are growing worries both about Israel's conduct of the war and its wider impact on the Middle East. Many of these anxieties are expressed by the “realist faction”. Chuck Hagel, a Republican maverick, has given warning that America's relationship with Israel “cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships”. Richard Haass, a State Department official under George Bush senior who now heads the Council on Foreign Relations, has laughed publicly at the president's “birth of a new Middle East” optimism about the crisis. Some of the worries extend to conservatives. Tony Blankley, a former press secretary for Newt Gingrich and a fire-breathing columnist for the Washington Times, says that “We ignore world opinion at our peril.”
I found this paragraph disturbing. Do the Europeans (and The Economist is one of the most reliable, level-headed and "unbiased" commentators in Europe) see American domestic support slipping, in which case they will go even further over to the pro-Arab stance that has dogged all steps to bring a concerted effort to bear on the menace of radical Islam forces now breaking out.
So I went browsing to find out what I could about these American voices that are pushing US policy aware from solid support for Israel in our hour of need. And what do we find?
In the Washington Times, by no means a strong pro-Israel medium, Tony Blankly says ...
In the short and early middle term, a policy of appealing to the hearts and minds of the Arab street ... will be indistinguishable from a policy of appeasement to radical Islamist sentiments. (Of course, "leaning on Israel" is always well received on the Arab Street.) And, oh dear, that last phrase: "We have to make up [for not spending so much blood or treasure as over the past few years] with diplomacy backed by a hint of steel." More likely a hint of lavender. Somehow, I doubt that Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Hamas and their fellow cutthroats are going to take the "hint."
Reading these assessments from someone very high up in the Bush foreign policy hierarchy, it is hard to take in the distressing conclusion that even now, after all we have seen and been through these past five years, it is still believed that we can somehow finesse radical Islamist terrorism with sweet talk. This is going to be a bloody fight to the death between civilization and Islamist barbarity -- made more bloody the longer we wait to take the threat seriously.
Maybe the gap between Europe and the US is unbridgeable. It certainly looks that way if conservative views like The Economists can so completely mis-understand the thinking of US policy makers. And we have today seen a radical split between what was hoped-for as vital alliance between US and France in steering the Security Council along a neutral path. Now France is parroting the Arab line, that Israel must pull out before any peace settlement can begin. Let's hope the bridge allows one-way traffic only, and the US doesn't go against the tide and join Europe in is appeasement strategy.
