The House of David

"dawnbreak in the west"

Saturday, December 19, 2015

In defence of neoconservatism

Fanghorn has posted another post about how neocons, Jews, and shabbos goyim have something-something Near East.

I tried to post a rebuttal over there but got moderated. So I shall try this again here. I'll admit I don't like being moderated-off, especially when I'm trying my best to reach a middle ground; that explains why I'm being less politic here than I was being over there. At least, to Fanghorn personally; to which point, I am also getting tired of slurs like "neocohenservatism". [UPDATE 12/20: My comment did get through the moderation-pipe.] To the broader reaches of those hostile to neocons and to Jews... well, I'll try my best.

Because I actually do understand where the neocons have overreached. And I also understand where the Jews - especially my portion of the Tribe, the Ashkenazim - have not been good guests in your house. I am not here to defend the Tribe's commies nor its domestic-policy meddlers generally; they don't deserve a defence [ht freenortherner]. But I will defend the foreign-policy meddlers, a little bit.

Even in the Semitic foreign-policy meddler community there's a distinction: we have the serious Zionists, and we have the true idealists. When I talk of "neocons" I deal with the latter. Of course a Zionist is going to support pro-Zion policy. A Zionist isn't going to give a rat's ass what happens in, say, Morocco as long as it doesn't affect Zion. A neocon, however, will care. Because that's what the neocon is - someone who cares, a "repairer of the world"; which the Zionist is explicitly not.

To disclose, I am and always have been a Zionist. I supported the neocons in my youth as well; not so much now. (By which I mean, from 1986ish up to 2009 or so... which is pushing that definition of "youth". In my defence I look good for my age.)

It was the neocon standpoint that intervention in Iraq would spark a pan-Islamic "spring", an Enlightenment like what happened in Christian Europe. It was thought that the Near Eastern masses, who get screwed the hardest by autocratic Arab rule, might concentrate on abuses at home and not on the bullshit Palestine Issue. Israel stood to benefit from these Enlightened movements, yes. But the West stood to benefit as well.

This spring did, finally, sprout shoots. Stinky dictatorships toppled from Tunisia all the way to Pakistan. And then, well, ISIS.

By the usual tragedies of History, timing matters. Islam first conquered Syria, North Africa, and Iran because there wasn't any consistent unity against it. Now the Arab Spring has yielded to the Caliphate and the Ayatollahs because, again, there has been no unity against them.

The neocon argument is that there could have been such unity. It just wasn't allowed to happen.

If that sounds a lot like "TRUE COMMUNISM HASN'T BEEN TRIED YET" then, I admit, you have a point there. Again - I am not a neocon myself (anymore), and I am not here to defend their policies (anymore). But I do think we should allow the neocons the benefit of doubt for motive.


posted by Zimri on 22:05 | link | 0 comments

On this site




Sophia



Politics



Random crap

Powered By Blogger TM

Property of author; All Rights Reserved