Posted on May 28, 2009: Sanity in American policy towards Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

I've been arguing since 9/11 that the United States needs to demand that Israel stop all settlements in the West Bank. If we are going to give $5 billion or more a year to Israel, we have a right as well as an obligation to make this money conditional upon on this. One of the two most significant reasons for the success of the United States as a political organization is the unambiguous principle that the federal government keep clear of religious conflicts. A particular implication of this is that the United States not finance any side involved in a religious conflict. Americans across the political spectrum miss the point when they argue that it is just to support Israel and that religion is not the issue. Religion is the issue in this situation. Why? Because the rationale for living in the West Bank is 100% religious.  The widespread presence of the argument that it is just to support Israel indicates the strong influence the Enlightenment continues to exert on our educated class. One of the effects of the Enlightenment is to "blind" otherwise thoughtful people to the fact that there are other values besides those grounded in the Enlightenment. Some of these are quite destructive to the common good. One source of destructive values is taking claims made in religious text literaly, as is done when living on a particular piece of desert land is heavily stressed. The fact is that when governments back one side of a religious conflict, the other side becomes exponentially more likely to become fanaticized. American involvement in the affairs of Israel has had a direct consequence of increasing fanaticism in the Middle East. This should be clear by now, and it is only our sentimentality that prevents us from seeing this.

Our backing of Israel is not wrong for the reason that backing Israel might be unjust to the Palestinian cause. It is wrong because it contravenes one of two of the most fundamental claims upon which the United States is built. The purpose of American government is not to enact a moral ideal, but to protect its citizens and enable them to get their basic needs met in peace and security. Moral ideals are lived out by private individuals and volunteer associations, not by governments who get their financing by the force of law. Backing one side of a religious conflict by actively supporting them with billions of dollars is like throwing gasoline on a fire, undermining our long term peace and security. Anyone who claims that my argument is that of a coward who won't stand up to radical Islamists does not understand the history of mainstream Western political philosophy, nor American foundations. The aim of all mainstream and American political thought is, again, not to enact a moral ideal, but to minimize the chances of bad things happening to citizens, namely, war and poverty. While individuals can be cowards, government cannot be cowards. Nor can an argument being directed at public policy be charged with being cowardly. The concept does not apply to government or arguments pertaining to governments.  

In summary, it's irrational and against our interest to have America backing a government that is taking action based on biblical claims, as the zealots settling the West Bank are. We are in effect indulging the fanatical impulses of a small group, many of whom are from Brooklyn and Russia!  Our enabling this by passively continuing to give money goes against our most basic principles and shows a lack of collective self-respect. And there's the rub: We Americans too easily too often see ourselves only as individuals.

Here's the article in the New York Times - noticably not on their home page.

This news item is on the home page of the BBC. .