The New Isolationism: How Blaming Israel Became the Escape Hatch for Foreign Policy Failures

Historically, America has had several successful interventionist wars and several failed ones.

If we go back in time, we see that the Spanish-American War was successful and historic, unquestionably establishing American hegemony over the entire continent.

The same goes for World War I and World War II, which, despite their heavy toll, were essential in transforming America into a superpower with unprecedented strength in human history.

But moving into the second half of the 20th century, the picture becomes much more problematic - failure.

The Korean War, Vietnam, the interventionist campaigns in South America during the 1980s, and American involvement in the former Yugoslavia - all of these, without even mentioning the disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan at the beginning of the century.

No wonder isolationists long to return to the 19th century.

Israel

In the cacophony of discourse about intervention or isolation, it seems that all intermediate categories vanish, once Israel is on the table.

So too does the need to distinguish between military-diplomatic investment and actual war.

What contributes to this confusion is the Israeli angle.

As is well known, Iraq and Afghanistan were not interventions for Israel. They were-very failed-investments for America.

Israel is a strategic asset given that between Cyprus and Australia, aside from India, which has hedged considerably with the Russian military industry, there is, apart from Jordan and Israel, no reliable and regionally capable ally that even comes close to Israel’s capabilities.

The problem is that this complex arena, in which one must differentiate between an asset and an investment, and between military intervention and influence, has been turned into a shallow caricature by figures like Mearsheimer and Tucker Carlson, intellectuals who have painted the American forward-policy doctrine in entirely reductionist and anachronistic colors.

The fact that the first Iraq intervention took place under one of the most hostile U.S. administrations toward Israel, George H. W. Bush’s, is lost on them.

The fact that Israel had no part whatsoever in the second Iraq intervention is also lost on them.

The fact that Afghanistan had absolutely no connection to Israel is likewise lost on them.

To the misfortune of the Jews, they have a Zionist lobby that grew stronger precisely at a time when the United States decided to launch wars in regions located 2,000 kilometers from Israeli territory.

Also to the Jews’ misfortune, somehow the failed interventionist policy was counted as if it were intervention on behalf of Israel, as if it were connected to "Jews in Washington."

The problem with those who firmly believe in the isolationist line is that they take a late-stage development, unrelated to the philosophical idea of 19th-century isolationism, and turn it into the essence of the doctrine by way of reduction - in a world where Europe is a shadow of itself.

In other words: the Jews are responsible for interventionist wars. And those wars fail.

This, while ignoring successful interventions, or failed ones, that had nothing to do with the Jews either.

They do so out of a biased perspective that views an asset like Israel as some kind of factor that causes America to intervene, for the sake of assets that have nothing to do with it, like Afghanistan or Vietnam.

There is a logical fallacy here, whose only reason for existing is that it is attributed to Jews, and the over exaggerating of their actual power in the USA. Usually provided by the who's who lists that are meant to convince us of some elders of Zionism gathering ruling the Christians of the pentagon.

Honestly, it sounds like an Americanized "Stab in the back myth" from the days of the weimar republic, more than reality.

America has reached the point in history, in which no singular factor, and no disingenuous arguments with regarding the definitions and interpretations of isolation or intervention, should dictate its action on the global stage.

But for some tunnel division individuals, create some nostalgic ability to return to the days of the Monroe doctrine, it is only those Israelis who are spoiling the future gilded age for all of us.

This all resembles Continental philosophical streams, those non Anglo-Saxon mostly German and French speaking thinkers, who wish to reduce the complexity of phenomena's to singular terms through which they could explain the "true reality", invisible to all those bought and paid by AIPAC.

Where in fact it more resembles the early Church Fathers, many of whom were so hostile to Jews that they decided the Jews were so wicked that the entire Old Testament, written by them, must be completely disregarded.

A grave error, later corrected only by Calvinists and other Protestant English thinkers.

This is the story of the new isolationism, one that without Jews as the bad guy, doesn't make any sense.

it is so divorced from reality that it forces us to adopt essentialist positions that have no connection to the topic at hand, to the changing reality, or to any relevant geopolitical factors or practical categories.

And yet, these positions produce an imagined connection held together by one thing: the glue - the Children of Israel.

Try explaining that to China.

But then again , we all know about those Chinese Jews right?.