Why I Don’t Take Anti-Israeli Conspiracies Seriously

Earlier this year, libertarian-esque Congressman Thomas Massie was defeated in the primary by Navy Captain Ed Gallrein for his seat for Congress.  A major point of controversy in this race was the role pro-Israel lobbying groups played in the defeat of the Congressman, especially since Massie took an increasingly anti-Israel/Epstein stance during his most recent term.  There is an argument that could be had about how that impacted the race as pro-Israeli groups did spend a lot on the race in a bid to make sure Gallrein won.

However, overall influence Israel can be argued to be overstated as there have been high-profile elections where pro-Israel groups backed a candidate who lost.  The best example of this is Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton who defeated Senator John Cornyn in the primary for Cornyn’s seat.  Of note, Cornyn was endorsed by AIPAC while Ken Paxton was not.  What both Gallrein and Paxton do have in common though is that both were endorsed by President Donald Trump, who has his own mixed history with Israel.

For whatever reason, there’s a belief that if America takes any action, Israel must somehow be secretly organizing the events behind it.  This can mean simply blaming Israel for actions the U.S. is taking, such as the war in Iran, the war in Iraq, or foreign aid donations.  Though it’s fair to say they have influence over such events, the conspiracies can go even further, such as blaming Israel for assassinations or acts of terrorism, all of which are usually discredited easily.  Then there’s the outright fake news stories about Israel, but those aren’t related to the topic at hand.  In short, if something happens in the U.S., it’s usually Israel’s fault.

Now, there is plenty of justification for having issues with Israel.  From the attack on the U.S. Liberty to the Johnathon Pollard spy case to historical bad blood with our NATO ally, Turkey, Israel has never been a perfect ally to the U.S. so there is room for criticism.  Also, it’s impossible to say they have no influence in the U.S. since pro-Israel lobbies do spend a lot in U.S. elections.  So it is worth a discussion on whether or not this influence is good.  Still, Israel is hardly the only allied country to try and interfere in U.S. elections (we’ve certainly interfered in theirs) and they’re not the only ally we’ve had international incidents with (such as France, Britain, Chile, and others) so singling them out seems naive.  So that does beg one to wonder why they get singled out in comparison to other problems the U.S. has had with other countries.

Well, regardless of reasoning, the real problem with the Israeli conspiracies is that they reduce American agency.  The idea that the U.S. is completely independent of international affairs and the only reason anything could ever happen is because of a random politician in Jerusalem eliminates the idea that America has a history, relationships, or leaders with their own agenda.  Honestly, it gives another country too much credit by claiming America is just its puppet and somehow makes the belief that ending a relationship with it would magically make its problems go away

Most of the major actions the U.S. has taken in the Middle East have been based on its own interests in one way or another.  After all, we did have a history of issues with both Iran and Iraq prior to invading them so it’s not completely surprising the wars happened.  Similarly, the various conspiracies surrounding them about assassinations or terrorist attacks aren’t possible to prove so speculating on them only gives cover to the people who actually committed them.  As a result, it makes Israel just a scapegoat for bad people more than it does say anything about the relationship with the country.

Another way to look at the situation is to consider our relationship with Israel as a chicken-and-egg problem.  Yes, we do a lot of things that benefit Israel, but Israel does have a lot of enemies that we also have.  Yes, a lot of politicians take money from AIPAC, but that wasn’t controversial until recently because Israel was usually considered an ally or because of its history.  When we’ve had issues with them, we’ve not been shy of letting them know and telling them off.

The truth is, we’re in this situation because our relationship with Israel is changing.  We originally supported Israel as a Cold War ally, but that war is over.  Similarly, the generation that was most impacted by what created Israel is finding itself increasingly politically irrelevant while younger generations tend to (at best) question our relationship with Israel.  As a result, it’s worth asking what our relationship with Israel is now that the reasons we were friends have changed.  However, that’s true for literally every NATO ally as our country increasingly pivots to a growing Cold War with China so that’s really just more of a broader conversation we need to have about foreign policy over all.

Still, the Israel hate is particularly annoying as it oversimplifies US foreign relationships and even eliminates responsibility from poor decisions.  Like all conspiracies, it simply allows someone to believe there’s an external reason we haven’t done what they wanted as opposed to accepting that what they want may not be popular with the legislators, or their voters.  For that reason, it’s why I find people who obsess over it (not merely have opinions on it but make it their main focus) to be saying more about themselves than Israel.

American Foreign Policy: You’re Either With Us or Against Us!

Unsurprisingly, there was mass controversy surrounding statements by double President Donald J. Trump last month.  While this is the norm, specifically the post will be addressing statements he made to reduce military exercises with South Korea.  Much of the world was shocked by his decision since historically South Korea has been a vital ally against long time U.S. enemies North Korea and China.

Now, many were shocked at the President’s announcement, especially since it seemed to be in part related to a former bromance between Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.  However, Trump is a master of misdirecting public conversation so the immediate conversation ignored the most important part of the cancellation.  Specifically, his decision to cancel the military exercises over South Korea’s decision to not support the U.S. in its current war with Iran.  As such, the U.S. is reconsidering many foreign relationships as it is now asking how truly loyal the rest of the world is to its objectives.

South Korea is hardly the only country to face repercussions over perceived lack of loyalty.  Arguments over Iran led to the President reducing troops in Germany and Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly questioning the purpose of NATO.  Then, of course, there was the fighting between the Vatican and Washington.  In short, there seems to be a belief that if you question the U.S., the country will start to reduce its support for yours.

Military correspondent for Newsmax Ryan McBeth noted that the United States is increasingly cancelling its relationship with countries that won’t support its objectives.  Keeping in mind that Trump got elected on a promise to reduce foreign entanglements and focus on American issues at home, this is seen more as a surprise to his non-interventionist supporters.  However, it seems that America First is being less of a call against foreign intervention and more a demand to other countries over who they need to please.

So this is reprioritizing other country’s military objectives away from their own citizens and more towards ours.  Keeping in mind that support from the United States makes up a large portion of the European defense budget and we are protecting their ability to trade, most of those countries can’t exactly walk away from us.  If that doesn’t come as increased spending for NATO, that may instead mean support in other ways such as required sanctions on military enemies.  Keeping in mind that Europe wanted increased trade with Iran, their interests may not be represented by the U.S. at this time.

That begs the question then as to what this will lead to going forward.  After all, there are moral concerns about US foreign policy, economic concerns as well, and concerns about feasibility.  How might the rest of the world handle such decisions or how should it act?

Well, the purpose of this blogpost isn’t to make moral judgments or recommendations.  Merely to make an awareness of what seems to be the thinking or direction current events are going.  Instead, we’ll be discussing the possible consequences that could come from this direction on and for foreign policy.

Now, the priority of every country needs to be the well-being of its people.  Every country has to consider whether a relationship with the United States is worth it.  So what that determination is could likely lead to one of three foreign policy outcomes.

First, countries get increasingly independent or form new alliances.  Many countries, like Saudi Arabia or South Korea, have the capability to pursue developing the nuclear bomb, and if they can’t trust the U.S. to provide proper deterrence against their historic enemies, they may be provoked into increasing the number of countries in the world with nuclear bombs.  In addition, the U.S. 's frenemies Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia to counter their rivals (and two U.S. frenemies) Israel, India, and (US enemy) Iran.  This alone shows that other countries are capable of forming alliances that exist outside of the European or Chinese spheres of influence and thus could make new counter balances to existing power.

Then again, other countries may have an interest in simply replacing their dependence on the U.S. with dependency on China.  Europe has been pursuing new, better relationships with China as Britain pursued building a better embassy in London or returning the Chagos Islands to China’s ally Mauritius while France has pursued greater trade with China and sought their support to end the war in Ukraine.  In addition, Canada, the U.S.’s neighbor to the north, had pursued a greater oil trade deal with China.  So, instead of developing new alliances or replace the US with their own militaries, these countries may just want a new creditor to continue their dependency.

Of course, the U.S. likely wouldn’t let that happen peacefully.  After all, the country has seen China as a threat, if not outright enemy, for at least the last decade and a half so it’s no surprise that it wouldn’t want its allies making allies with the dragon empire.  Just ask Alberta, home to most of Canada’s oil, which is allegedly receiving US support in its bid for independence at a time when Canada is both pursuing better relations with China AND a trade war with the U.S., its biggest trading partner.  Likely, the U.S. has other plans for other nations as well so it’s worth asking if pursuing such a new alliance is worth it.

Finally, there’s the possibility that other countries just accept the U.S.’s new foreign policy and decide that it’s better to stay in its good graces.  After all, the U.S. still has the world’s largest GDP and most advanced military so there are reasons to stay friends with it.  Across Latin America the U.S. is supporting anti-crime initiatives (with or without that country’s support) so there is a benefit to receiving U.S. aid.  Meanwhile, the overthrow of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela told that country what can happen if you cross President Trump, so unsurprisingly the new President is all too happy to work with the Secretary of State.  So there are still people that want to do business with us.

Whatever happens, this is America’s foreign policy until 2029 and (I personally find it) doubtful that it’s going to change anytime soon.  We’ll see what the future holds, but this is what other countries will have to accept if they want a relationship with the world’s only superpower.  Either way, only the reactions of those countries will determine if that direction is here to stay.

Why Celebrities Dying Hurts: Farewell Hayden Panittiere

Writer’s note: I wasn’t going to post this, but after several deaths that happened almost immediately afterwards, I wanted to put it up to help people with grief.  So, it will be here for now.

Last month, actress Hayden Panettiere passed away at the age of 36, five days before her birthday.  Though not a household name, she was a very prominent actress who has done a lot of work during her career both on screen and voice acting.  Many people were upset by her death, myself included, especially since she left the world so young.

Her death continues a trend of celebrity deaths that have gotten a lot of attention recently.  A lot of different actors have passed away in the past couple decades and it’s always sad to hear about it when it happens.  For some, it’s not too surprising as they get older and eventually pass away.  For others, it’s especially surprising because they leave surprisingly young.  Even more go in ways that seem completely unfair and make their deaths all the more tragic.  Regardless, the death of any person is a loss and finding out they are no longer with us hurts.

There is a worthwhile question though as to why people feel the need to mourn or comment when famous people die.  After all, we didn’t know them personally and they weren’t a direct part of our lives.  So why should we mourn them more than any other stranger?

The simple answer is because they had an impact on us.  Everyone can think of a time when some piece of fiction touched them or helped them in some way.  From watching shows to get us through sad times to going to the movies for celebration to getting up on Saturday morning to watch the good guys defeat evil and learn from their example, fiction always has the potential to impact us more than just as mindless entertainment.  So it becomes a part of our struggles and joys just as much as anything else.

It’s not just a selfish or loneliness thing either.  Plenty of memories are shared with friends watching movies or playing games together.  After all, plenty of guys take their dates to the theater, plenty of kids watch shows with their friends, and plenty of coworkers argue over some video game they both played for that reason.  So the various actors or content makers play a part in our social time and making those memories.

When someone involved with it passes away, we are impacted in two ways.  First, it’s like losing someone we know.  Sure, the relationship is transactional, but they were still a part of our time and made it better.  So when they die, it’s like losing a friend, or at least an acquaintance.

Second, it reminds us of those memories of the time we spent enjoying their work and that it is all truly over.  In part, when we say goodbye to them, we are saying goodbye to the memories they gave us as well.  So we grieve that piece of us just as much as the person.

The truth is that when someone like that passes, it both brings back those memories and reminds us that they’re over.  It speaks to the impact one person can have just by doing a good job or putting on a good show.  So that’s why storytelling and acting get such attention in society.

For Hayden Panettiere, she left behind a worthwhile career.  She was in a variety of significant animated films like A Bug’s Life, Pixar’s second film, and Dinosaur, Disney’s first CGI animated film.  She was in more prominent shows like Nashville or Heroes, as well as fan favorite films like Ice Princess and a Bring It On sequel.  Fans will remember her for the joy those stories brought, and the volume of her work shows how big her impact was during her life.

For me though, I remember her most from video games.  One of my first experiences with her work was through Kingdom Hearts where she played the protagonist’s love interest, Kairi.  That game series alone was one of my favorites and defined a key part of my childhood.

In my spare time, I like to play the piano and my wife got me a copy of the music from those games for our one year anniversary.  Since I got that book, I started playing more and more until I started playing at least one song from it nightly.  When I play it, I get to go back to my childhood where I’m alongside my favorite Disney characters and taking a stand against darkness.  She was a part of what made that game so fun and years later why I started playing the piano so regularly.  It’s crazy to think about how one piece of fiction can leave an impression on someone so thoroughly even years later.

Then there was Until Dawn where she played Sam, one of the lead protagonists.  It was a game that redefined narrative driven games and provided hours of entertainment because of the ability to change outcomes based on player choices.  From watching countless Let’s Players rage at their mistakes to playing it myself countless times, the game provided countless hours of joy.

However, the game alone wasn’t what made it fun.  Because of either its popularity or its impact, everyone who played video games loved it in one way or another.  Plenty of friends, coworkers, and strangers played it and thus we all had something to talk about.  So that game gave us something to bond over, regardless of how well we knew each other.

So that’s really why we connect with celebrities we don’t personally.  The work they leave behind can change us when done well and provide connection under the right circumstances.  It’s no surprise, then, that we grieve when they leave us just like an acquaintance.

Hayden didn’t have the easiest life.  From a rough experience in Hollywood to domestic abuse to the loss of her family, she had a life most people don’t envy.  She left behind a daughter whom she never felt she could mother properly yet still brought into the world.  So her passing is all the more tragic.

Yet, she left behind a legacy and touched many people who are all grateful for what she did and left behind.  So, as we mourn her, let us be grateful for her and honor legacy by trying to do the same for others.  May she rest in peace, as all people will when the time comes

Getting Caught Up

 

Hello everyone!

This past month, I’ve been extremely busy and thus unable to update my blog.  I have still been writing, but I have not had time to edit.  As a result, I have several blog posts that are waiting to be published.  They’ll likely be rolled out over the next couple days, but several of them are out of date.  As a result, they will be updated as needed to be somewhat more accurate, but will still be late relative to when the topics were popular.

This will be posted here to explain why there are so many late posts.  Thank you all for your patience, and for hopefully reading the future posts.  The posts will likely be rolled out over the next couple weeks.  So, time to get caught up!

The Problem with War No One Talks About

There’s no shortage of reasons for people to hate war.  From the mass casualties to the displacement of civilians to the impact on the economy to the famine it can cause, war causes no shortage of problems for humanity.  However, there is an issue that most people don’t talk about when discussing war.

Wars don’t just produce winners, losers, and stalemates.  They also change countries, redefine their culture, build new alliances, and change national or international politics.  War has the potential to destabilize order and create new crises.  For that reason, it is worth discussing how that can (or could) change the political landscape.

After the United States removed Saddam Hussein, the country fell into a power vacuum with a shaky democracy.  As a result, Iran started setting up shop and backing militias that served its interests.  It also managed to build a relationship with Iraq through shared culture and religion.  

On the other end, the terrorist group ISIS rose in the absence of Saddam’s leadership and used hardship in the country to gain supporters.  As a result, his removal also led to the rise of a major terrorist organization in the region that the US also later had to fight.  Unintentionally, the US created an ally for one of its greatest enemies, and a new monster it also had to defeat just by eliminating one of its longtime enemies in the region.

Another example of strange relationships being forged during war would be the Napoleonic wars.  During the war with Napoleon, Prussian, Austrian, and Russian leadership had to come together as allies to oppose his efforts and stop him from conquering Europe.  However, all three nations were historic enemies so once the shared threat was gone, so was their unity.  War can create temporary alliances, but once the threat is gone the status quo will return.

The point is that war doesn’t just result in immediate pain.  It also causes regional crises and destabilize relationships among the populace.  It can also cause weird friendships that don’t last or get replaced when the moment arises.  So, it may be worth considering how current conflicts are already changing the region.

In Iran, the death of the previous Supreme Leader led to a power vacuum among leadership.  Since there’s no confirmation that the current Supreme Leader is even alive anymore, it seems that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is taking over the government and exerting even more control on the government than it already had.  As a result, the pretense of being an authoritarian theocracy is evaporating as Iran is about to become a military dictatorship with a theocratic front.

Meanwhile, there are even further divides in the Middle East.  With Iran’s attacks on regional states, already weak relationships with the country are gone as everyone (deservedly so) hates them.  Also, this is impacting other alliances as the UAE left OPEC, helping grow a rivalry between them and Saudi Arabia.  In short, the Iran War has shifted the balance of power in the middle east and made the Iranian Government even more authoritarian.

Another conflict that has potential to reshape the world order is the Ukraine conflict.  Obviously, what’s happening with Russia matters to Europe as Putin has claimed that many of the regions border it are historic Russian territory, trade between Russia and Western Europe is at an all time low which is impacting multiple national economies, and this is causing infighting across NATO as debates come on who should pay for how much of the military alliance.  So a former superpower attacking a country trying to join the biggest military and economic alliances on the globe shaking up their continent’s economy isn’t surprising.

What is surprising is the possible fallout.  Russia has seen its economy stagnate, especially in its capital city, and become increasingly dependent on China.  There has been a push for Russia and China to join forces, but that has resulted in Russia becoming a junior partner as China is starting to push its influence more into the country and seems to have plans for what it wants to do with Russian territory.  With that happening and the decline in trade, Russia is seeing its influence and connection to Europe shrink.  So it's looking to be another “once great empire” with limited influence and continued military defeats against Ukraine could result in it being seen as not much of a threat to European nations.

The elimination of a European threat may be seen as a positive, but like Napoleon’s downfall, the end of a shared threat brings about old rivalries.  After all, both Ukraine and Poland are historic rivals who have a shared hatred of Russia.  When their common threat disappears, how long might they stay as allies?

This is an interesting question.  Poland intends to have the largest land military in Europe by 2030 while Ukraine has been leading the way in drone technology.  If those countries found themselves both wanting to dominate Eastern European cultural influence, they may find themselves in a Cold War.  So one must wonder what will happen if Russia is defeated like the West wants.

So, will Iran become the Middle Eastern North Korea?  Will Russia become a vassal state to China?  Will Poland and Ukraine go to war?  Honestly, there’s no way to make predictions like that.

There are many factors that can change the outcome of wars, politics, and culture shifts in a region.  There’s the desire to always assume the worst case scenario, but that’s usually unlikely.  Time will tell what will actually happen.  All of this is merely factors to consider in our current world.

Which highlights the actual point of this blogpost.  Though war has obviously terrible aspects, the long term effects it can have on domestic and international politics is staggering.  As a result, it reshapes the world we live in as friends become enemies, enemies become friends, and enemies become even worse enemies.  Time will tell what our conflicts today will lead to, but most likely they’ll lead to conflicts of tomorrow.