The Cult of State

David Wurmser, Senior Analyst for Middle East Affairs at the Center for Security Policy, asks and answers a question about our government's about-face.
How did the United States turn 180-degrees from supporting Israel in the first days of the war to where it functions now as a shield for Hamas, from understanding its paradigm had collapsed along with the parallel reigning paradigms in Israel – “they now get it” or as the Israelis say, “the token dropped” – to seeing the United States appearing to double down on policies that seem to emanate from those failed paradigms.... First, let me set aside ideology and the particular way in which this administration reacted to the collapse of paradigms – it just doubled down in its imagery. It saw October 7 confirming the imperative of establishing a Palestinian State under the PLO and the necessity of reaching a strategic condominium with Iran to stabilize the region[.]

If you read the whole article, you'll find that he doesn't actually believe that the Biden administration ever supported Israel, and in fact that they saw the greatest threat from the beginning as Israel actually crushing its enemies (or, as State likes to call them, "partners for peace"). The bureaucracy just carried on doing what it could to undermine Israel until the President finally caught up with them. 

What I want to focus on, though, is this 'doubling down' in the face of clear evidence that the earlier belief was false. A "Two State Solution" was never viable, but it was pursued lovingly for decades by State Department diplomats and Democratic politicians. October 7 should have been the moment 'the token dropped,' and everyone realized that there was just no peace to be had with a politics like the Palestinians' embrace of Hamas or the PLO. However, that's not how human brains work.

Have you ever noticed that when you present people with facts that are contrary to their deepest held beliefs they always change their minds? Me neither. In fact, people seem to double down on their beliefs in the teeth of overwhelming evidence against them. The reason is related to the worldview perceived to be under threat by the conflicting data.

Both of those articles draw their examples from a left-leaning perspective, but the point is well understood. It's not just cultists who return to their belief in the coming spaceship or apocalypse in the face of clear evidence that their initial prediction was wrong. It's a cognitive bias that afflicts most people, maybe all of us.

In the grip of such an irrational, though perfectly normal, impulse to reaffirm a worldview proven false, it is no surprise that irrational decisions are made. Here is a partial list of the ones being made right now. I would add to that list the fact that they claim to be concerned about innocent suffering, but they are denying Israel precision weapons that would limit innocent suffering. Israel has plenty of dumb bombs they can drop if we won't sell them the smart ones. If you want a really ugly war, like the one we just had in Syria, reduce their ability to be discriminate. The Israelis are not going to stop fighting just because they have to use less precise weapons, not against an enemy that could do an October 7, not against one that has promised to keep doing it over and over if they can. This is a betrayal of the Israelis, but also of the noncombatants under fire in a war they can't escape.

Some are talking about how this is an impeachable offense, since Trump was impeached for a lesser version of the same thing. It's not, though; Trump was impeached for being Trump, and not a member of the establishment in good standing. There's no way Congress will hold Joe Biden to the same standard, especially since it's what State really wants him to do. The establishment will back this most establishment of ideas, irrational and destructive though it is. That's the real standard, membership in the club, which you obtain in large part by fidelity to the club's ideas and values especially when those ideas and values are disproven by the facts of the world. That's how you show your real loyalty. Anybody can do things that work; you're proving that you'll do stupid stuff that emphatically and repeatedly fails in pursuit of these things. 

If any of them read this, which they won't, it wouldn't matter at all. They'd just come up with another story about why they were right after all, and this was the only way.

7 comments:

  1. What I want to focus on, though, is this 'doubling down' in the face of clear evidence that the earlier belief was false.

    And the immediately following excerpt.

    For me, this is just one more reason to replace the existing Federal civil service with a form of patronage*. Quite apart from the idea of a deep state engaging in controlling the government, it is hard for folks to change away from a long-held position, so stop trying to get them to. Replace them en masse with Federal employees more to the new President's liking.

    Eric Hines

    *In bare essence, a President hires civil employees for a five year contract. That President, or the next one (those five years), could renew the contracts for one more 5-year period, or not, either picking and choosing who to renew and who to let go, or doing so en masse, all at his sole discretion. After two five-year contracts, the employee is no longer eligible for Federal employ.

    Eric Hines

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know what the patronage system was. You’re right, the idea of a permanent civil service was supposed to reduce corruption; instead, we have plenty of corruption, but little imagination.

      Delete
  2. Anonymous11:40 PM

    Let me first state I am not anti or pro Zionism.

    Now, I certainly understand >the luxury< of Israel acting in self defense to take out a government (Hamas is in fact a government, among other things) which attacked their state in the most brutal fashion imaginable (not trained soldiers but indoctrinated youths, pawns really) but I am also cognizant of the fact that Israel is >and has always expanded its borders< after a war or conflict.

    I am more old school in the Middle East sandbox affairs, America should stay out of these borders (drawn by Euro-Peon powers long ago) up until a US citizen is somehow involved and then the wrath of Khan rains down on their asses...either side.

    Because we should be on OUR side.
    nmewn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, there are several of the hostages who are American citizens. They’re likely dead already, but then we have an obligation to avenge them.

      It’s only a moral obligation, though. Not a legal obligation, which wouldn’t matter either since there actually was a legal obligation to deliver the duly and lawfully apportioned weaponry. The government will not be bound by law nor by morals.

      Delete
  3. It's hard to think. I tend, instead, to rely on habits of thought.

    I have an reflexive response to mention of the "two state solution": "Yes! Israel and Jordan!"

    Somehow those advocating the 2-SS don't seem swayed by my reminder.

    The amazing tunnel-building capacities of Hamas impress me sufficiently to practice a new reflexive response. "Qatarra!" Ask Egypt to set aside land in and around the Qatarra Depression, and ask Hamas to dig the tunnel canal from there to the Mediterranean Sea.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression_Project

    If they build it, they can have it. And people will come. It could be a really nice little "Lake Lucerne" sort of tourist area. Good economy. Free, renewable, electrical power. Easy to build roads and resorts on surrounding areas on slightly higher very flat land...

    "From the Q-Lake to the Sea, Palestinians could be free. "

    It's the sort of approach Trump made to North Korea. Which didn't work. Either. Still...

    A huge new inland salt-lake in North Africa risks affecting the global climate. It's really unfortunate science hasn't developed computer models that would allow political leaders to meaningfully simulate "what if" scenarios about human activities that potentially change weather patterns over the long term.

    Speaking of very unfortunate deficiencies, it makes me sad that the UN can't arrange the sort of peace-keeping for the IDF/Hamas/PLO that has settled matters so quickly and amicably among the factions in Dafur. Genocide? "Never Again!"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations%E2%80%93African_Union_Mission_in_Darfur

    I used to think such missions were really the only thing the UN is good for. Absent such guidance how else can warring factions among non-Europeans achieve cease-fires and fair peace-deals?

    Have the English-Language Police yet noticed that, unlike "Persons-held-for-involuntary unpaid labor" replacing the term "slave" and "Persons-lacking-permanent-housing" replacing "homeless" (which had replaced, "vagrant") nobody has yet protested about "Persons involuntarily held under threat as leverage against political adversaries" in place of the old colonial term "Hostage"?

    Will 17-year-old American co-ed Agam Almog ever be profiled by a London stage play similar to the award winning "My Name is Rachie Corrie?"





    ReplyDelete
  4. I wouldn't discount the 'iron rice bowl' effect in addition to the difficulty changing a mind. Supporting the 'two state solution' means that the current Palestinian pseudo-state(s) on the West Bank and in Gaza have to be kept in existence which provides employment for all manner of bureaucrats in the US government, UN, NGOs, and a multitude of foreign governments as well as rich opportunities for more direct grifting. A Palestinian diaspora as the latest losers in the Middle East conflicts reaching back millenia would largely eliminate those.

    Getting a man to notice something is difficult when his paycheck depends on him not noticing it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. WRT State Dept rationalisation.

    They know more about all these places than you or I would ever dream of. Unfortunately, the schema the scaffolding upon which they hang this knowledge is flawed. They know reasonably well who the most powerful players are in Hamas, what their habits and prejudices are, what personal and political pressures various Israelis must answer to. We don't. Not close. Yet when their assumptions prove incorrect, they dislike the idea that some other person's assumptions were better, if they happen to be aware that s/he does not possess their close knowledge.

    They therefore reject those ideas outright as coming from...well, not poisoned but perhaps inadequate sources, and thus of little value.

    Even when they are right a comfortable 70-80% of the time.

    ReplyDelete