Search Box

Friday, May 18, 2012

Benjamin Netanyahu

The third post I wrote on this blog, back in October '08, was about male hormones and political affiliation.

The gist of it was that more masculine guys tend to stick up more for their own ethnic group.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, has been in the news a fair amount recently regarding his country's stance towards Iran's possible development of nuclear weapons, and it occurred to me that he is a perfect example of this phenomenon. Netanyahu has always been an Israeli hawk and Zionist (both his father and grandfather were Zionist activists).

Wikipedia had this to say about his early career:

Netanyahu joined the Israel defense Forces during the 1967 Six-Day War, and became a team leader in the Sayeret Matkal special forces unit. He took part in many missions, including Operation Gift and Operation Isotope, during which he was shot in the shoulder. He fought on the front lines in the Yom Kippur War in 1973, taking part in special forces raids along the Suez Canal, and then leading a commando assault deep into Syrian territory. He achieved the rank of captain before being discharged. 

Netanyahu, who has been married three times, obviously does not lack for male hormones. And he is a perfect example of testosterone determining political outlook. 

I hate the way our foreign policy is so strongly influenced by Israeli interests. But I recognize that Netanyahu is simply expressing a certain biological imperative. 

Think of the whites you know. Don't the most masculine tend to be the most conservative? Now think of the blacks you know. Don't the most masculine tend to be the most militant?

It's not a perfect correlation, but it's a strong one.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Netanyahu and Romney are old friends
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/us/politics/mitt-romney-and-benjamin-netanyahu-are-old-friends.html?pagewanted=all
What do you think of the prospects for war with Iran if R is elected?
G

John Craig said...

G --
I know, that's the one big problem with Romney: he's far more likely to get us into another Middle East war, especially with Iran. That's why we need a Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan, they're peaceniks like me.

Pete said...

One can never tell what they're really going to get when they vote. LBJ posed as the peace candidate against Goldwater and then what did we get? Between Romney and Obama it's hard to say which one is the least likely to plunge us into the abyss with Iran. Perhaps the president has less effect than we like to think and we all may be like the Titanic heading ineluctably towards the iceberg.

John Craig said...

Pete --
Much as I hate Obama, I'd say he is the one who is less personally inclined to drag us into another war. He's all about redistribution, not about what he would probably think of as "imperialism."

As far as your last comment, I sure hope you're wrong, but I suspect you're right.