Vigorously opportunistic

I had posted this in the middle of something a couple of days ago. This is, as they say, revised and expanded.

I've seen occasional articles lately asking why we continue to have virtually automatic support for Israel in this country, and pointing how the Israel lobby has a disproportionately strong impact on politics -- matched only by the NRA; if the Israeli lobbyists showed up armed, I imagine Congress would just roll over and wait for its belly to be scratched.  Seriously, though, I wonder the same thing.   They seem to delight in provocative actions that infuriate their neighbors (granted, no bastions of cool reason either, but still...); when they do have a rapprochment, its brief, and ends with some kind of statement absolving themselves of any blame. I can understand a little bit of this attitude -- our involvement in the creation of that country, plus they aren't actively hostile towards this country, unlike others in that region -- but it seems to me we need to rethink our default attitude. They need to prove themselves, or be treated less favorably.  At the very least, we shouldn't assume that in any conflict, they are always right. 

It probably wouldn't hurt to rethink our general attitude towards Arab countries, either.  They're nowhere close to perfect, by our standards, as has been shown multiple times, but perhaps they deserve more than they get from us now. Is it possible to treat them honorably without giving away the farm?

I think that part of what makes that environment so difficult to handle is that virtually anyone can destablize it, and no one seems to regard their committments as binding. As to the former, I think of it as what we'd get in this country if the NRA had its way -- everyone's armed, and everyone can express their displeasure with anything in a lethal fashion.  The latter reminds me of a description of Klingon motivational styles that I found in a Star Trek novel, to the effect that they are not untrustworthy, just vigorously opportunistic.  They will adhere to their agrreements -- until the situation changes in their favor.  Now, thats too glib for the real world, but there seems to be an element of it in play here -- as shown by the shootings done just recently by the organization that said it was honoring a truce -- until it wasn't.  Until its possible to force an organization to honor its committments -- even if that simply means announcing when its going to ignore those committments -- I don't think we can trust anything that anyone there says. We have to treat them according to what they do, not what they say. 

If we can't stop them, should we backing the people with more of what we want? Or should we withdraw entirely and say 'you're on your own', knowing full well what that will likely mean?