Why Netanyahu and Israel Make So Many Uncomfortable

by | Mar 13, 2015 | Middle East & Israel, WORLD

The real war in the Middle East is not military; it’s ideological.

The real war in the Middle East is not military; it’s ideological.

Israel and the United States could wipe Iran off the face of the map in minutes. Everyone knows it.

Yet despite the overwhelming military strength of both Israel and the U.S., Iran and its assortment of religiously motivated terrorist goons are winning.

How can this be?

In his speech before Congress today, Israel’s prime minister made the following point:

I’m standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America’s founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad.

In other words: One system is right and good; the other is wrong and bad.

“Multiculturalism,” which holds that all cultures and political systems are morally equivalent, is a fallacy — a potentially deadly fallacy, at that.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday against accepting a nuclear deal with Iran that would be a “countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare” by a country that “will always be an enemy of America”.

“If the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran, that deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons – it will all but guarantee that Iran will get those nuclear weapons, lots of them,” the Israeli leader said in a 39-minute speech to the U.S. Congress that offered a point-by-point critique of Obama’s Iran diplomacy.

In an appearance that strained U.S.-Israeli relations and was boycotted by dozens of Obama’s fellow Democrats, Netanyahu said Iran’s leadership was “as radical as ever,” could not be trusted and the deal being worked out with world powers would not block Iran’s way to a bomb “but paves its way to a bomb.”

“This deal won’t be a farewell to arms, it will be a farewell to arms control … a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare,” Netanyahu told lawmakers and visitors in the House of Representatives. His speech drew 26 standing ovations. [Source: Thomson/Reuters and Newsmax.com 3/3/15]

The ongoing war in the Middle East is a conflict between two ideological attitudes. One is that different systems of government and culture are all morally and practically equal. The other is that some approaches to life and government are objectively better than others.

If you claim that no one system of government or culture is better than another — if freedom is no better than, or superior to, the form of culture and government Iran has adopted, for example — then it’s easy to see why Netanyahu seems arrogant and wrong.

Yet if you maintain that systems respecting individual rights, economic freedom and the separation of church and state are superior to the alternative, then you will naturally stand up and provide standing ovation after standing ovation when someone like Netanyahu speaks.

It’s not that Netanyahu and the Israeli government are right about everything. It’s not that the American government is right about everything, especially right now.

But there are superior and inferior systems. You might deny or evade this point if you live in the United States or other nations that mostly respect freedom. But you cannot deny or evade taking a stand when you look at Israel, who could be only a single bombing away from losing everything.

Netanyahu makes many people uncomfortable because Israel makes many people uncomfortable. Some people dislike Israel because they hate Jews, or because Israel does not consistently respect the individual rights of its citizens in every respect (neither does the United States).

But the contrast between Israel and nations like Iran reminds us that there is a right and a wrong system of government, and while Israel might not be perfect, Iran could not be further from the ideal. The conflict in the Middle East requires us to judge — to pick a side, to use our capacity for conceptual identification and stake a position.

To people on the “progressive” side of the equation (the ruling class of Washington DC), picking a side is morally wrong and psychologically offensive. They don’t want to be judgmental, and you have to be judgmental to accept the kind of statements that Netanyahu makes. American leaders (George W. Bush was one) sometimes made similar statements, but their actions proved they never meant a word of them. Netanyahu does. And for that reason, he must be ignored, condemned or otherwise punished.

This ideological issue is not simply an intellectual intrigue or game. Entire societies will rise or fall, in due course, on where most people end up taking a stand — assuming they take a stand at all.

In America, there are a minority who are with Netanyahu, not just on Israel, but on the idea that a free society is morally and practically superior to a totalitarian one run by angry bullies whom we could wipe out in seconds, but with whom we instead try to “negotiate,” fawn over and appease in hopes that they won’t destroy us. We’re a weeping, pitiful giant, and in this respect alone, Iran is right to treat us as such. Only Netanyahu stands in their way.

The rest of America either has its head in the sand, or actually sides with our President and the others who claim that there are no right or wrong standards, and who is Netanyahu — or the United States — to claim otherwise?

Sooner or later, this unresolved issue will reach its climax. What form it will take we can’t predict, but the outcome will be determined by which side people take. Either it matters whether you live under freedom, or it doesn’t.

The militants who support and even elect these totalitarian religious dictatorships into power harbor no doubt about which side they’re on. When will those who benefit from the immense and beautiful benefits of civilized freedom ever stand up to do the same?



  1. Reminds me of the bad old days, of the impasse between the horrors of Soviet Communism and the liberty and rule-of-law of The Democratic Republic of America.

    Someone made the observation that, “It is insane to insist on drawing moral equivalency between a society that is merely imperfect, and a society that is horrendous.”

  2. Iran, Netanyahu and Israel would not be an issue if it were not for the fact that Iran is the next country on the long list of Israel’s enemies.
    Since the US media is controlled almost entirely by Jews in positions at the top they make it an issue in the minds of the American Gentiles. The small number media bosses at the top directs the minds of the masses as the media enters each person’s house everyday through the cable TV port or the morning newspaper thrown on their steps. Ordinary people need to figure out that they are being used to participle in wars for Israel’s betterment. Mr. Hurd and millions like him need to wake up to the fact that they are being manipulated by the US media. It is not an issue of good vs. evil or freedom vs. tyranny. It is a matter of ignorance vs. knowledge. Wake up. Why is it that we are knocking off one of Israel’s enemies after another? A handful of powerful Jews control 100 % of the U.S. major media and they are working on dominating the minor media too.

  3. The struggle against Iran is not ideological but pragmatic. You are eager to attack Iran, and insist that we could simply “wipe them off the map”. But even if we could (which we can’t) the results would be far more catastrophic than allowing Iran to build a nuke (which we don’t need a war to prevent them from doing). While the US and Isreal would probably succeed in the end, the toll would be tallied in millions of lives and trillions of dollars. Afterwards (or more likely, during), it would be a near certainty that Russia would increase aggression toward Europe (what’s good for the goose is good for the gander), and the US and it’s allies would be in an extremely weak position to resist, strained by decades of warfare across multiple fronts. Isreal would be annihilated. Our options then would be either apocalyptic world war or capitulation to forces far more sinister than Iran. Even if Russia stayed out of it (which they couldn’t), Iran is one of the few major stabilizing forces in the mideast. Opening up that power vacuum would have consequences vastly more dire than the Iraq war fiasco, not just for the mideast but for Europe and really the entire world as ISIS and company consolidate their caliphate.

    The assumption that the US has god-like military powers that can be deployed without consequence like some sort of magic fix-it wand is an extremely naive, dangerous and wrong one.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Dr. Michael Hurd is a psychotherapist, columnist and author of "Bad Therapy, Good Therapy (And How to Tell the Difference)" and "Grow Up America!" Visit his website at: www.DrHurd.com.


What do you think?

We are always interested in rational feedback and criticism. Feel free to share your thoughts using this form.

We will post responses that we think are of interest to our readers in our Letters section.

Help Capitalism Magazine get the pro-capitalist message out.

With over 10,000 articles readable online Capitalism Magazine is completely free. We rely on the generosity of our readers to keep us going. So if you already donate to us, thank you! And if you don’t, please do consider making a donation today. One-off donations – or better yet, monthly donations – are hugely appreciated. You can find out more here. Thank you!

Related Articles

Where is Jack Ma?

Where is Jack Ma?

While we should condemn the Chinese government’s actions, we should also be cautious of rising authoritarian tendencies here at home, whether it’s towards our civil rights or our economic freedom.

Voice of Capitalism

Free email weekly newsletter.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest