James Besser’s recent piece in the Jewish Week publication takes a good look at the evolving relationship between the United States and Israel as strategic partners. He says:

But the notion of a strategic alliance has become more complicated. Many analysts here — from the mainstream Cordesman to the more extreme Walt and Mearsheimer faction of the foreign policy establishment — argue that U.S. foreign policy goals are often impeded by Israeli policies and missteps.

And some argue that the whole idea of the alliance has become skewed, with Jerusalem demanding unwavering U.S. support for all its policy decisions without a corresponding willingness to factor U.S. priorities into Israeli policymaking.

More and more “there is this unrealistic view that we always have the same interests, and that the United States must always support Israel’s view of what those ‘shared interests’ are,” said Hadar Susskind, director of policy and strategy at J Street, the pro-peace process lobby group. “There’s this idea that you don’t support the U.S.-Israel relationship if you acknowledge differences of opinion.”

Over the years, the sense that there is an imbalance in the alliance has focused on U.S. concerns about settlement building and quality-of-life issues for West Bank Palestinians, and what is seen in Washington as Israeli indifference to those concerns.

Today, it is being refocused on the issue of the Gaza blockade as Washington faces huge international pressure to push Israel to loosening or ending it, and with Israeli leaders and their friends here arguing that any concessions to that pressure will represent a violation of the U.S.-Israel alliance.

“The people who are responding to the flotilla tragedy by circling the wagons, and arguing that Israel was 100 percent right are perpetuating this absolutist myth of a relationship that can’t possibly be met in real life,” Susskind said.

Most important, however, is the larger determination of what the meaning of an alliance really is. Does an alliance between two people, two groups or two nations imply that each has to accept the actions of the other on faith? Is the greater connection that initially drew them together ultimately more important and more powerful than the sum of the trials and tribulations that follow? And simply put, can one not disagree with the other without breaking the alliance?

These kinds of questions as they pertain to the American-Israeli relationship easily extend to the Jewish diaspora at large. The parallels are in plain site: Should a Jewish person blindly favour all of Israel’s decisions because of faith; because of how they were raised; because of loyalty to their parents, or any other reason?

No. And those who do are sorely misguided. Whether they realize it or not, they are unwilling to put the well-being of all of humanity before that of their own.

I saw Avatar over the Christmas break and was pretty blown away by the epic battle scenes and special effects (something that doesn’t usually do anything for me). The film, however, also had intentional parallels to America’s occupation of Iraq. If you didn’t notice that, perhaps the overt references “shock and awe” and “insurgency” were enough to give it away.

I left wondering whether I should be impressed by the message of the film: imperialists bad; natives good. The movie is presented in such a way that makes it difficult not to agree, but the simplification of the issue was silly.

Today I came across an article that puts things into perspective quite nicely, and then some. I was especially interested in the article’s conclusion that examines reactions to Avatar from different sides of the political spectrum.

I went and saw The Men Who Stare At Goats last night. Funny for the most part, but more disturbing when you consider the realities it was inspired by.

The world currently spends $1.46 trillion a year on defense. The United States spends more than $600 billion of that amount, accounting for almost half of the world’s total, and as the film demonstrated, sometimes spends it in such amazingly wasteful ways.

For the record, it would require around 10 billion dollars, or 0.7% of the world’s total military expenditure, to put every kid on earth in school. But instead it seems we have to first figure out all the ways we can kill things.

And that includes by staring at them.

So apparently there was some massive story about some kid who got swept up in a hot air balloon, or didn’t, or whatever… and I missed it completely.

I am an avid news watcher, mainly of the American variety. In fact I spend an extra $4.99 per month on my cable bill just so that I can watch Fox and MSNBC duke it out on a daily basis. While I fully recognize the sensationalism of what has now become info-tainment, I find it critical to be in touch with the pop culture politics of the day, seeing as how it somehow manages to heavily dictate modern discourse.

All that being said, I find it fucking hilarious that on the one day I manage to not turn on the news, pick up a newspaper, or log on to my favourite news sites, the world is swept away by a runaway (or not) kid in a hot air balloon. At work it was: “Oh my god, you didn’t hear about it??” Visiting with family later it was: “The kid in the hot air balloon!”

Yeah, we are so easily info-tained.

Barack Obama was announced a short time ago as this year’s winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

In simple terms, I’m a little surprised here.

Certainly his rhetoric is worthy of the prize, but there remains little action on his part on a whole host of problems. In some cases, such as Afghanistan, he is perpetuating war. The Nobel prize is supposed to be awarded to people who have carried out acts of peace, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. or Lester Pearson.

While I still have a lot of faith in the President, it is far too early for this. There must be some interesting inner-workings going on within the selection committee so I’m sure we’ll learn more about this story as time goes on. Undoubtedly it is trying to make a splash in world politics by placing probably unwanted attention on the President.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell decided to reinstate troubled former Falcons QB Michael Vick today. Vick was recently released from federal prison over charges stemming from organizing dog fighting.

Upon hearing the news, Vick said:

“I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to commissioner Goodell for allowing me to be readmitted to the National Football League. I fully understand that playing football in the NFL is a privilege, not a right, and I am truly thankful for the opportunity I have been given.

As you can imagine, the last two years have given me time to re-evaluate my life, mature as an individual and fully understand the terrible mistakes I have made in the past and what type of life I must lead moving forward.

Again, I want to thank the commissioner for the chance to return to the game I love and the opportunity to become an example of positive change.”

I’d like nothing more than to see Mike Vick resurrect his career and help the NFL put this ugly incident behind it. Much is still to be determined and Vick will have to prove himself, but I personally wish him the best and hope that it turns out well.

Let’s avoid a Pacman-esque return, Mike.

I’ve been thinking about the deaths of two significant people today.

First: former NFL quarterback Steve McNair. There’s no question that, as Jeff Fisher said, McNair put the Tennessee Titans on the map, putting an end to the mish-mash Houston/Tennessee Oilers transition in the late 90s. More importantly, however, McNair helped carry on the tradition of tough, smart, and talented black quarterbacks into the new millennium. In fact, in 1999, he was the first black quarterback that I, personally, ever witnessed play in a Superbowl—a game I won’t soon forget. McNair single-handedly gave the Titans a chance to beat the offensive powerhouse Rams on the final drive, scrambling, ducking, and throwing his way out of trouble on several occasions. But as former teammates have pointed out over the last couple of days, McNair was a great person who meant a lot to his family, friends and community.

And then former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. Three years ago, I was assigned his biographical documentary “Fog of War” to study for an international relations course. After watching it, I was astounded by how similar history was to the events of the day. Despite some of its misgivings, the movie is very good and I encourage everyone to check it out.