And That's A Good Thing?

Apparently Chuck Schumer told Wolf Blitzer that, while a filibuster on Bolton is unlikely, many Democrats are weighing the good Bolton has done against the bad. (See the article here.) As an example of good, Schumer says Bolton "has been a staunch and very good defender of Israel at the U.N."

Israel certainly deserves to be defended by the U.S. when it is attacked, but Israel also has done many things for which it should be criticized. Bolton is one of many neocons who view criticism of Israel as an attack on the interests of the U.S. In that respect, Schumer (and presumably other Democratic senators) are considering unquestioning support for Israel a qualification. But despite their views, committing to support for any individual country or people no matter the situation or circumstances, can never serve the best interests of the U.S. The confirmation of John Bolton represents just such a committment.

Of course, Israel, like any other nation, deserves to be praised (and defended) when it is acting to promote and maintain human rights and human progress, however unpopular its actions may be with its neighbors. Like any other nation, however, Israel should be criticized when its actions conflict with human rights and human progress. The best choice for the U.S. therefore, at least regarding Israel, would not be a "staunch defender" but a courageous, discerning diplomat who would work to further the interests of the world, the U.S. and the individual allies of the U.S., including Israel, in that order.

There may have been a time when backing Israel without question was the right thing for the U.S. to do. If ever that was true, it no longer is so. The U.S. is the most powerful nation on earth, and yet, can do little good if other nations view us as partial when it comes to us judging their actions and acting in or against their interests. Throughout its history, the U.S., in pursuit of what was called national interest, committed acts and engaged in policies which have demonstrably conflicted with our often-stated commitment to further freedom and human rights. In reality "national interest" has meant either the individual interests of the wealthy and powerful, or more recently, a semi-mystical ideology. It is time we place our commitment to human rights and justice above the interests of wealth and imperial power. It is time we judge countries impartially and base our actions toward them on their own actions, and not on some half-mystical belief system that places them above reproach.

It is time we put the interests of the world as a whole first. Peace, achieved through aggression, that breeds hate, does not serve our interests no matter who the "winners" are. Such a peace is illusory. It is a peace that inevitably gives way to murder. It is time that we had leaders who understand this.

John Bolton is the wrong person to be ambassador to the UN, but he will be confirmed, because what makes him wrong is what makes the entire philosophy of the U.S. in dealing with Israel and the Middle East, in fact the entire world, wrong. The idea that we owe Israel, (or any ally) special consideration is wrong. We owe all people of the world equal consideration. The idea that we must defend Israel (or any ally) against the rest of the world at all costs is wrong. We must defend humanity against all outrages, whoever commits them.

We are strong. We are powerful. It is time we used our strength and power for something greater than perceived and received self-interest.

The confirmation of John Bolton, when it comes, and the attitude of at least some senators that his "staunch" defense of Israel is a point in his favor, is just one more piece of evidence that the U.S. will not advance beyond narrow self-interest any time soon.