You have to strain to find the Washington Post‘s editors acknowledging that Obama’s Honduras policy has been a bust.
Elliott Abrams on the human-rights consequences of raising “multilateralism” to the end-all and be-all of American foreign policy: “Multilateral diplomacy means small talk with torturers, tea with dictators, negotiations with regimes that survive through sheer brutal repression — and it means putting such unpleasant facts aside to gather UN votes and seek consensus.”
David Ignatius has figured out what scares Democrats: “If the Fed’s projections are right, the public is going to be very angry next year — at big business and at the elected officials who have spent trillions of dollars without putting the country fully back to work.” Translation: they mortgaged our future economic security and growth for nothing.
Clarence Page is scared about the gap in enthusiasm, which shows that in 2010, “81 percent of self-described Republicans say they are certain or likely to vote, compared to 65 percent of independent voters and only 56 percent of Democrats.”
Charles Krauthammer keeps getting hung up on that whole Constitution thing: “I think what’s interesting about Obama is he is going to be at the U.N. [conference in Copenhagen] to announce the [new] policy about climate change on the basis of — nothing. He is going to be proposing what the House has passed — that he knows is not going to pass in the Senate. And we are actually a constitutional democracy where the president can’t announce a policy unilaterally. It actually has to pass the two houses of the Congress, and our allies abroad know that, and they’re going to look at this announcement he is going to make and think it … extremely strange.”
Apparently Americans don’t like panels of experts telling them what to do about health care: “A federal medical panel’s recommendation that women can now wait until age 50 to get a routine mammogram instead of age 40 is stirring up strong debate. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey finds that 81% of adults disagree with the panel’s recommendation. Just nine percent (8%) agree with the new guideline, and another nine percent (9%) are not sure.”
We certainly have seen lots of these already: “It’s one of the oldest tricks in the presidential playbook: when you want to focus attention on an issue, hold a meeting and call it a ‘summit.’” But if you really don’t have a plan to address unemployment and your agenda items are anti–job growth (e.g., raising taxes on small businesses), is it such a good idea to hold a summit?
The New York Times pans Obama’s Middle East approach: “Nine months later, the president’s promising peace initiative has unraveled. The Israelis have refused to stop all building. The Palestinians say that they won’t talk to the Israelis until they do, and President Mahmoud Abbas is so despondent he has threatened to quit. Arab states are refusing to do anything. Mr. Obama’s own credibility is so diminished (his approval rating in Israel is 4 percent) that serious negotiations may be farther off than ever.” And to boot, even the Times can see that George Mitchell and Rahm Emanuel bear responsibility for the debacle. So will either be canned?
Sadly, this is becomming par for the course for Yglesias. I have read his blog for years, but in the last year and a half or so have become disgusted with him. Once an intelligent voice on the left, he has become a Muckraker who continuously tries to one up himself in how quickly he can whip his leftest readership into a frenzy. His modus operandi has become to impune the worst possible meaning to anything anyone says. So, Noah Pollack says that Power is biased against Israel becomes: Noah Pollack says that Power hates jews.
they’re embellishing it obviously. but there is a namby pamby political correctness in regards to israel here. like you go over everything with a magnifying glass to see if ther eis the remotest possible secret hidden anti semetism.
it’s an american election we should be discussing american issues, not israeli ones.
Noah Pollak has, of course, insinuated Jew hatred among Obama’s advisor’s. Consider this:
Noah Pollak knows damn fine that these extracts of a single blog are full of Zionist wingnut codeswords for “Jew hater.” It is not Obama’s supporters who are anti-Semitic it is the weiters and bloggers on Commentary magazine.
The Monty Python crew gave a good response to Noah Pollak’s drivel in the nudge, nudge sketch:
You might believe the tripe you’re selling us, Noah, but the rest of us recognize it for the tripe it is.
A loyal American chooses a President on the basis of which of the candidates is best for America.
A disloyal American chooses a President on the basis of which of the candidates is best for another nation.
As long as this line of commentary put forward by Noah Pollak and others in this magazine continues the loyalty to THIS nation of the Commentary magazine and its writers must be called into question.
Any doubt about NDMs anti-Semitic bona fides can now be dismissed by her comment #4 above. The dual loyalty canard is as old as the Pharoahs, and can be found on the Neo-Nazi website of one’s choice.
Those who bother to examine NDMs Jew baiting on Pollak’s earlier post, where she deigns to instruct Commentary’s Jewish posters on how to be better Jews might chuckle at her comment above, where she instructs us on how to be better Americans!
lester and ndm: ever been to Dachau? I didn’t think so.
1958. I was 11 years old. The little sign outside said “Never again.” I asked my dad, a U.S. Air Force Protestant chaplain, to tell me about it. He did. And before we left Germany in 1960, he took me there again.
If I live a thousand lifetimes …
Who are “the rest of us” that you claim to speak for, ndm? Certainly not mainstream America.
Quite hilarious that you of all people claim to be in tune with all of the Zionist “codewords.” You commonly use the phrases “Zionazi”, “Likudnik” to describe supporters of the Jewish state. Are these not merely codewords for Jews? Or, only evil Jews who don’t hold the same anti-Western, anti-democratic viewpoints as you? You and your ilk have quite successfully turned the word Zionist into an epithet. It’s just one more thing you have in common with terrorists, though, so you surely don’t mind.
Richard F -
For something to be a canard it needs to be unfounded and untrue.
My statement remains true. Any American who chooses a President on the basis of which of the candidates is best for another nation is GUILTY of disloyalty. That. RF, is not a canard.
Noah Pollak is an Israel firster. What are you?
TomG asks “ever been to Dachau? I didn’t think so.”
The irony is that TomG has visited Dachau twice – but clearly learned nothing. Anyone who introduces the holocaust to justify implicitly four decades of Israeli subjugation of the Palestinian people dishonors the memory of the millions who died in the holocaust.
I’m an American Jew. My concern for Israel is about the same as FDRs was for England when confronted by your spiritual and political forbearers. Democracies and men and women of goodwill must stand together when confronted by evil, of which you are a conveniently, and foolishly open representative. Few Jew haters who post on mainstream sites are as open about your bile as you. Pat Buchanan, to name one example, Joe Sobran, Ken Livingstone, and others, tend to cloak their hatreds in mainstream discourse. You tried, but I don’t think you’re as “good” at it as they are.
I’m afraid, dearie, you let your cats out of your bag. And an ugly breed they are!
What a bunch of baloney! ndm, are you telling us that you would not consider a candidate’s views on Palestine (not even a nation, by the way) in deciding who to vote for? How does this not cut both ways? I keep seeing this “Israel firster” BS trotted out by people who most likely wouldn’t vote for a President who supported increasing the amount of settlements. So are you not a Palestine-firster?
Never mind the fact that it is actually IN the United States’ interest to support a western, democratic, friendly, productive, dynamic State in that tremendously important area of the world.
What Richard F said, albeit far more eloquently!
However, Richard, you must not be as masochistic as I am. Check out any Huff Post, Yglesias or Daily Kos (if you consider them mainstream) post on Israel and you can see ndm’s level of bile. History books are not their friends.
Richard F needs to be reminded that the most pernicious and pervasive form of anti-Semitism in America today is the Zionist anti-Semitism that seeks to absolve Israel for its vile policies towards the Palestinians over the last four decades merely BECAUSE Israel is a Jewish state. The real Jew-haters are those who have appeased and, indeed, encouraged, dreadful Israeli behavior over the last four decades. In encouraging Israeli folly they have betrayed Israel, they have betrayed their religion, and they have betrayed America.
Describing yourself as an American Jew certainly does not provide an excuse for the stupidity you exude. If you had any desire to gain a sense of the real world you would dump this tripe magazine and go read, for example, Eric Alterman or Matthew Yglesias both of whom are far better friends of Israel and America than this magazine and its writers will ever be.
Or Counterpunch, or electronic intifada, or Chomsky….what a pathetic argument!
So, in summary, I am a Jew-hater because I believe that Israel: should be allowed to exist as Jewish state (no right of return); defend itself against its enemies that are sworn to wipe it off the map and have been indoctrinated to do so for 60 years; doesn’t have to give back every inch of territory it won in defensive wars absent a guarantee that those same wars won’t be started again (even though ndm must know they did indeed try to, but the Arab nations chose the 3 “no’s”).
You’ve gone off the map, ndm.
NDM
Its really a matter of perspective. I would suggest that a recognisable Jew walking down the street who gets attacked by neo-Nazis would disagree with your perspective. They would suggest that the real anti-semitism that impacts on their life is the expression made by those neo-Nazis, not by Zionists.
The essence of your argument is interesting – it seems to conflate Jews, Israelis and Zionists. Perhaps you could clarify for us what you mean by Zionist?
Obviously ndm wouldn’t credit the good faith of anyone who automatically voted for the most Israel-loving candidate honestly believing such candidates to be, on a percentage basis, the best for America. But I bet ndm regularly votes for the least pro-Israel candidate on exactly the same principle — ie anti-Israel reliably equals pro-America. What kind of expert is she on patriotism if her working definition of it is simply dislike of Israel?
Jeremy seems a bit slow on the uptake today.
It is anti-Semitic to appease Israeli war crimes merely BECAUSE Israel is a Jewish state. Israel has had four decades to create a climate where the Occupied Palestinian Territories could be transferred to Palestinian self-rule. Instead, following the bigoted ideology of Zionist irredentists, Israel transferred hundreds of thousands of war criminals into the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This not only had an enormous financial cost for Israel (and America) it caused a moral and legal catastrophe for Israel and its supporters.
The moral catastrophe is that, yes, it is anti-Semitic to support current Israeli policies merely because Israel is a Jewish state. The legal catastophe is that 5% of the Israeli population are war criminals.
jeremy= “Never mind the fact that it is actually IN the United States’ interest to support a western, democratic, friendly, productive, dynamic State in that tremendously important area of the world.”
that’s ridiculous. I’m guessing there are israelis on this forum and i’m sure they would admit thay are a MASSIVE liability, not an asset. i mean come on. it is not a comment on their morality at all. OBVIOUSLY we would have a lot less headaches in that region if not for our support of Israel, whom the whole neighborhood hates.
I can’t speak for ndm. i don’t know him and would guess we are not aligned politically.
let me put it this way: is obama EXPLICITLY anti-israel or pro palestine? If not is it really that imortant? is anti semetism a big issue in american life?
personally, I think it would be better if we had an anti-israel president because that would be billions less we gave to pakistan, egypt, saudi and other bad actors!!
socialism doesn’t work. foisting it on an already troubled region is cruel.
lester, I guess you could do a thought experiment and ask yourself what it would be like if Israel converted to Islam and aimed their nukes in the opposite direction.
Lester, what’s ridiculous is your belief in the idea that American support for Israel has more than a minor relevance to the American headaches in the region. It’s also ridiculous that you feel America should even consider abandoning an ally because radical Islamists hate the idea of a Jewish state.
I’m not sure I want your answer to why you think the United States continues to ally herself with Israel if it’s so patently obvious that it’s a MASSIVE liability. But I’ll ask anyway.
Unlike the millions foisted upon the Palestinians, the United States actually gets something in return for its aid — which I assume is the kind of support you’re referring to. Most of it is spent back in the US, the US benefits from Israeli intelligence and technologies and the US gets to use Israeli land for prepositioned military equipment.
lol where are they aimed now? if israel was another arab country (as it was for 18 centuries btw except it was called palestine) we would rightly look at the middle east as a wholly unproductive region that is not a god candidate for capitalistic sort of outreach. I mean, we aren’t rushing to bring democacy to …uruguay. we wouldn’t know the difference between sunni and shia and we’d be alot better off for it!!!
also
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/25/obama-distinguishes-between-pro-israel-and-pro-likud/
obama remains unbought and un paid for
As a rule, NDM, I don’t argue with anti-Semites. I certainly wouldn’t argue with anyone who insists that Eric Alterman is good friend of Israel. For either of these reasons (but in your case, the former) I will not be responding to any further posts of yours. You are what you are, and your denials cannot repeal your words, all of which brand you as a Jew baiter. Thus, this will be my final response to anything you have to say. (Although I would recommend that your transfer your trolling to the more congenial climes of Vanguard or the National Alliance.)
In an earlier post, I described by relationship with Israel as that of FDR with Great Britain just before America entered WWII.
No one accused FDR of dual loyalty, although he certainly shared much in common with a fellow Anglo-Protestant state. But typical of your Jew-o-centric ilk, Israel stands as an exception. Those Jews (or Gentiles) who support the Israeli state become dual loyalists. That you would never utter the same thing about the dozens of American-Islamic, or British-Islamic citizens who are convicted of seeking to subvert their countries through terrorist activities simply proves my point.
For you Jew-o-Centrics, the Jew will always be the center of your moral universe. Your theological forbearers called us “devil,” “Christ-killers,” and the rest. We were for them, and are for you, ground zero in your weird cosmology. (That you may have replaced your forbearers’ god with a more secular version is irrelevant here.)
For you and your type, there will always be a perfidious Zion that is forever traducing an innocent Palestine. Each generation, the names change. But to you and your ilk we are and will always be, as Herr Goebbels entitled one film, Der Ewige Jude.
That you happen to call yourself “leftist” or “progressive” is only a bit of self-deception on your part. Few others on this site are so easily fooled.
As a parting request I would ask again that you consider posting on a site where you would be, well, more comfortable. Try this one:www.stormfront.org
You’ll find lots of folks in complete agreement with your views on Jews and Israel.
…psssst, Mackenzie. When you mouth “Palestinian people” to yourself as you type, does spittle involuntarily fly? Maybe the right arm does a teeny, tiny Sieg Heil? Despite the fabulous efforts of despicable British racists like you, the “Palestinian people” still don’t exist. Keep trying. Dig deeper into the German bloodline of your Royals.
Lester, your inaccuracies won’t fly here. There has never been a country called Palestine. There was, however, a Jewish nation until the Babylonians conquered it. If not for conquerors, Israel would be approaching its 3000th birthday, rather than its 60th.
Palestinian nationalism is a very recent phenomenon, and to assert otherwise is downright dishonesty.
I meant that Israel would be over 3000 instead of approaching its 60th. Not that it matters, but let the record reflect…
lester
well there were some Arabs in the Byzantine provinces of Palestine in the 7th C before the Muslim invasions however it would be incorrect to suggest that it was an Arab state before the social transformation caused by the Muslim invasions. So 18 centuries is wrong.
jeremy
there was certainly Roman provinces called Palestine from the 2nd C onwards and the Arabs/Ottomans etc referred to the territory as Palestine. Were the inhabitants of this territory recognisable as an independent ethnicity/people/nation before the 20th C? I would agree with your negative response.
Let me see if I follow. A blogger is accused of asserting that certain individuals are anti-Semitic because they may not be sympathetic to Israel. Blogger responds by stating that he merely described certain individuals as potentially having an anti-Israel viewpoint but did not describe them as anti-Semitic. Blogger’s response is criticized as indeed accusing people of being anti-Semitic because they oppose Israel because all criticism of Israel is automatically not anti-Semitism while all criticism of Israeli critics is a form of intellectual repression that seeks to smear said critics, thereby making all criticism of people for opposing Israel inexplicable unless seen as an underhanded way to condemn said critics as anti-Semites. And oh yeah, a lot of Israelis are war criminals.
Wow … “code words” …
Noah, how could you?
Referring to anyone as “yound” is not just “problematic”, it’s downright incomprehensible!
;p
I must say I haven’t had a good anti-zionism/anti-semitism debate since my undergraduate days. Back in school this would happen about twice a day. Then you get a job and all that fun and games disappears. I loved tracing the logical underpinnings of the debate. For example, the phrase “criticizing Israel (anti-Zionism) is not anti-Semitism”. So does mean that anything I could ever conceivably say about Israel cannot be anti-Semitism? If I called Israelis a bunch of barbarians who used Arab blood to make matza, would that be anti-Semitism, or am I rescued by limiting the offense to “Israelis”? What if I called them “war criminals” as a sort of a priori term, irrespective of perspective, proportion, context, historic events, specific facts, etc.? Just how far do you have to go on the spectrum of anti-Zionism before it becomes anti-Semitism? Is it even possible?
Another pleasant preoccupation was was to determine if the nature of the critcism itself was the only factor. For example, if I held Israel to a unique standard of scrutiny, if I singled out Israel uniquely for its alleged crimes but ignored every comparable situation, did that alleged singling out every become anti-Semitism, making Israel a so-called Jew among nations?
And if I was really interested I would ponder how these two seemingly distinct phenomena interrelate, how the extreme nature of the criticism contributed to the standard of scrutiny and how, vice versa, the standard of scrutiny increased by the extremity of the criticism. So for example, if you condemn Israel for war crimes but exclude all analogous acts by other nations, does this exclusion confer to Israel a seemingly exceptional criminality which in turn justifies a seemingly exceptional level of scrutiny?
Yes, the good old days.
I think ndm is a jargon bot. It’s probably housed on some spam-generating site, and has enough AI to bypass blog spam filters, and takes up residence in comment threads where it produces sentences which are automatically generated but sound sort of like a human being if you squint.
Power did not say this. For Noah to suggest she did is bizarre:
“4) Stage an American ground invasion of Israel and the Palestinian territories — what else can she mean by a “mammoth protection force” and a “military presence” that will be “imposed” by “external intervention”?
More generally, we all know there are legitimate differences over two issues:
1. Is the Arab-Israeli conflict related to the other issues in the Middle East? (Is it the ‘master’ issue?)
2. Israel right-or-wrong versus tough love – which is more pro-Israel?
You can support either answer in each case and still love Israel.
In the end the question is always why does someone who is not jewish even pay much attention to Israel. As an american jew who lived in Israel for 4 years for medical school and always regrets not making aliyah, it is very difficult to come up with a rational reason why the arab world or anyone not jewish, is ideologically obsessed with israel. I know all the arguments that relate to the arab nations own failings and desires to use Israel as a scape goat, but it is still almost incomprehensible the degree to which they feel it is necessary to even care about such a tiny nation. Their is no rational reason why the arab nations (who refused to absorb the palestinians) wish to spend their psychological capital on israel. Those who chose to pretend that we should honor this absurdity by pushing Israel to do things that they are already trying too hard to do anyway (like give away land for nothing), are at best dumb and at worst anti-semitic. I’m not sure I know how to tell the difference.
“lol where are they aimed now?” lester, if that’s your way of mocking Israel’s pro-Arab, capitulationist, State Department-sucking, left-wing elite, I guess I would have to agree. Nor would I mind if the US ended financial aid to Israel if it meant cutting off money for Arab countries too. We shouldn’t be subsidizing either untrustworthy (not to say homicidal) Muslims or stupid, politically correct Jews.
ndm is long on pseudo-moralistic preaching but short on real historical knowledge. His/her comparison of Israeli treatment of Arabs to Nazi concentration camps is offensive on its face. However, looking deeper, it is a 180 degree reversal of the truth. In fact, Arabs –including the chief Palestinian Arab leader, Haj Amin el-Husseini– took part in the Holocaust. He urged the Germans and Nazi satellite govts [such as in Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, etc] to send Jewish children to Poland where they would under “active supervision” in his words. He knew of course what happened to Jewish children in Poland, where Auschwitz is located. Nowadays, we get all these hypocritical whitewashes of Arab history and smears of Israel. One of the charges of course is killing Arab children, such as Muhammad al-Durah [who may be still alive in reality]. But Israel’s critics today forget how the Mufti Husseini worked to get the Germans to kill thousands of Jewish children.
Also forgotten are the massacres of Jews in Arab countries during WW2 by Arabs, such as the Farhud massacre in Iraq, on the Shavu`ot holiday in 1941 [up to 600 Jews murdered].
Then we have more than a thousand years of Arab/Muslim oppression, persecution, exploitation, and humiliation of Jews as dhimmis in the Arab-Muslim states. YbA is correct to point out that the Arabs did not conquer the Land of Israel until the 7th century. However, as to the name of the country, the Greek & Latin writers and the Roman empire officially called Israel Judea, that is, the whole country was Judea [IUDAEA], not just the area of the former kingdom of Judah. See my article in Midstream, Oct. 1995.
I seem to have left one small but vital word out when referring to Haj Amin el-Husseini’s urging the Germans et al. to send Jewish children to Poland where they would BE under “active supervision.”
In response to YbA on names of the Land of Israel:
the Roman empire under emperor Hadrian changed the name of the province of Judea [Provincia Iudaea] to Provincia Syria-Palaestina in the year 135 CE after crushing the Bar Kokhba revolt.
jeremy- the REGION was arab majority for 18 centuries. what it was called is irrelevent. my mother works at a jewish rest home, all the older residents called it Palestine.
“Lester, what’s ridiculous is your belief in the idea that American support for Israel has more than a minor relevance to the American headaches in the region. It’s also ridiculous that you feel America should even consider abandoning an ally because radical Islamists hate the idea of a Jewish state.”
“radical islamists” aren’ the only ones who hate israel. pretty much ALL people in the area whether theyare rich poor dumb or smart hate israel. they didn’t want it to be created and they don’t like the way it behaves. very un radical muslims feel this way along with the crazies.
“I’m not sure I want your answer to why you think the United States continues to ally herself with Israel if it’s so patently obvious that it’s a MASSIVE liability. But I’ll ask anyway.”
because it didn’t use to matter. before 9/11 why not support israel? now it’s a different story. we can’t haveanother event like that . do you think it’s worth risking another 9/11? is anything?
“Unlike the millions foisted upon the Palestinians, the United States actually gets something in return for its aid — which I assume is the kind of support you’re referring to. Most of it is spent back in the US, the US benefits from Israeli intelligence and technologies and the US gets to use Israeli land for prepositioned military equipment”
cuz our military industrial complex is really struggling! lol
ybA- this http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=108&Itemid=114 is the history I am using. maybe you use a different one but just know i am not making stuff up.
seth- would it be heresy to note the ADVANTAGES to Israel being able to defend itself as IT sees fit?
wasn’t that the point of “a clean break” one of the big neo con documents? granted, it involved the US taking out all of israels enemies for them first, but still.
i doubt israelwould have given up gaza if not for general american agitation towards reconciliation.
And ALL of those people in the area who hate Israel are on the wrong side of history. How dare you suggest we capitulate to their demands and made-up grievances to avoid another 9/11! They need to change; not us.
There are other websites where you can throw around your 9/11 conspiracy theories and isolationist garbage. I believe Richard F. cited a few.
Lester, like ndm, insists that his ignorance is “truth.” In responding to Jeremy, he claims “the REGION was Arab majority for 18 centuries.” This is false whether the region he means is the Land of Israel or the Fertile Crescent as a whole. The Arabs were not the majority of the population. It is likely that Arab-Muslims were not a majority in Israel until after the Crusades. The Crusaders helped out in making the Arab-Muslims a majority by massacring most Jews in the country [according to Prof. Moshe Gil]. To be sure, the Arab-Muslims were oppressing Jews in the country before the Crusades.
In the late 10th century, the Arab historian al-Muqadassi wrote that the country was mostly Christian, that is, mainly descendants of Aramaic-speaking Christian, who were a large part of the population before the Arab conquest, which was a cruel and bloody affair. Indeed, according to the Arab historian al-Baladhdhuri, along the Mediterranean coast of Israel, Lebanon, and & Syria of today, the population had fled from the cities to Byzantine-held territory, and in some places they were driven out by the Arab conquerors and/or massacred. Apparently, the Arab conquerors wished to secure the coast against attempts at Byzantine reconquest. So the Arab conquest meant a considerable displacement of population, some fled or were driven out. While others settled in their place. Al-Baladhdhuri mentions that Jews were transferred/deported from their homes in order to resettle a coastal town abandoned by its previous, mainly Christian inhabitants. Apparently, the Arabs wanted the coast to be populated by a loyal or relatively loyal population and they believed that the Jews would not help a Byzantine reconquest because of the hostility between the Byzantine Empire and the Jews.
The Christian historian and Chuch Father Eusebios writes that after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and its surrounding area and expelled the Jews [ca. 135 CE], they brought in “an alien race” to “colonize” the now deserted area. [Historia Ecclesiastica or History of the Church]. According to other ancient records studied by Michael Avi-Yonah, the colonists brought in by the Romans were Syrians and Arabs. So there were some Arabs in Jerusalem and its surroundings starting in the 2nd century, although I don’t where Lester gets off calling Arabs the “majority.”
“There are other websites where you can throw around your 9/11 conspiracy theories and isolationist garbage”
?? I have never done either.
“And ALL of those people in the area who hate Israel are on the wrong side of history”
so what? so what if they eat breakfast at night and dinner in the morning. the world isn’t run by right in wrong, it’s the law of the jungle. there are a billion muslims of growing sophistication in military and political matters who want the place gone vs 6 millino jews. I don’t like those odds and I’m not going to subject my family or my lown life to getting in the middle of a cause i don’t even support, the jewish crusades that is zionism.
…well, lester, at least you’re honest. Amoral, unprincipled, and an utter coward. But honest about it.
protecting my family is cowardly? I very nearly lost two of them on 9/11. I’m not going to sacrifise myself or them on the alter of the empire. my ancestors came here for liberty and prosperity , not to be the worlds police and I won’t disgrace their memory.
I’d be amoral if i went with the flow and allowed america to be dragged into conflicts between peoples that date back to before our country was even formed simly because I didn’t want to upset one group. the constitution says we provide for the general, that is not specific, welfare of all.
unprincipled? i have conservative principles. i inherently distrust the government and am cynical about how effective it’s power is. We can’t help israel or people in the middle east via the pentagon.
“Would it be heresy to note the advantages to Israel of being able to defend itself as it sees fit?”
lester, of course it’s not heresy. Far from it. Menachem Begin had a very bad relationship with Jimmy Carter and not so good even with RR. He’d lived through the Hitler-Stalin horrors and didn’t trust most non-Jews, period. Arabs knew what to expect from him and what not to expect. He did business with Sadat (who distrusted Carter too) and expelled Arafat to Tunis. There’s hasn’t been an Israeli PM in his class since. A few more Begins and the Muslim Arabs might even stop wasting their energy whining about Israel. One reason they feel free to hate so much (the other being the Koran) is that Western politicians, including Israelis, still coddle them. Btw, that isn’t making you any safer either, however much you wish you weren’t involved.
Yes, unprincipled:
“The world isn’t run by right in wrong, it’s the law of the jungle. there are a billion muslims of growing sophistication in military and political matters who want the place gone vs 6 millino jews.”
It appears that your only calculus is taking a position is fear and greed.
Abide by the law of the jungle. Sure, why not? Want lower oil prices? Become a muslim. Want security in your home? Become a muslim. Want to not be bothered with nagging questions of right or wrong? Become a muslim and be done with it. Coward indeed.
Israeli tyranny indeed.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aC7P93EMyb1Q&refer=home
“To be sure, the Arab-Muslims were oppressing Jews in the country before the Crusades.” But- but- but- I thought EVERYONE knew that any time any Muslim or any Arab killed, raped or stole from a Jew, it was simply a reaction to the existence or policies of the evil Zionist entity.
g- i wasn’t saying israel was in any way “right”. I was saying that’s not how the world works. of course israel is “better” than it’s neighbors. so what? at best you have an argument for UN mandated eminant domain, neither of which (Un or eminent domain) makes much difference to a conservative such as myself.
#33, Ilan Remler, for the answer to your question as to why the Arab world is obsessed with Israel, watch:
Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran, and the revolt of Islam, a documentary by Joel Gilbert
He did a remarkable job of condensing the history of Islam into 145 minutes, enough to whet anyone’s appetite for further research.
I also recommend a double disc DVD feature:
Islam vs Islamists and Muslims against Jihad, two programs that were supposed to have been shown on PBS.
Elliott
In response to YbA on names of the Land of Israel:
the Roman empire under emperor Hadrian changed the name of the province of Judea [Provincia Iudaea] to Provincia Syria-Palaestina in the year 135 CE after crushing the Bar Kokhba revolt.
Which is in the 2nd C like I posted earlier. I’m not in disagreement with you on this.
lester
The website you refer to is interesting but your intepretation of what they are saying is wrong. What your site relates is that the descendants of the current Palestinians ADOPTED Arab culture after the conquests – by changing religion and language. They were not Arabs – though there were significant numbers of (Christian) Arabs in this general area (some of them fought with the Byzantines at Yarmuk against the Muslim Arabs). A similar thing happened, but on a much more signficant scale, with Egypt.
g
Lester’s argument is devoid of morality. He argues an isolationist model which is irrelevant in the 21st C with modern communications/economic interdependence etc. His line of thinking goes down the dark garden path of suggesting that intervention to prevent genocide should not be done also because its not in the interest of the US. “Never again” rings hollow with people who argue like that.
ybA- on the contrary, our current interventionism has left us in a poor position to require to another rwanda.
to say that “interdependence” requires military action is ridiculous. this was lenins view of capitlism, not Adam Smiths.
Lester,
as usual your comments fly in the face of reality. Military action against jihadis has been the only successful tactic used in our defensive war against them. You might want to read what our Founding Fathers wrote about defending countries in the American sphere from outside intervention. Also read about the wars against the Barbary pirates and America’s uninterrupted history of engagement across borders and overseas–both military and diplomatic.
Its time to leave Fantasy Land.
ndm,
choosing a President because he would better serve another nation than his own is what all the Obama supporters are doing. The enemies of America are salivating over an Obama victory.
Israel is not an enemy of America, by the way, nor does its interests clash with our own. Israel could cease to exist tomorrow, and the jihadis would still hate us.
The Psuedostinian “state” is definitely an enemy of America.
Its nice to know that you stopped shooting beer cans in your trailer park long enough to post some nasty comments about the “Mud-People” here, but you might want to head back to Storm Front for your daily indoctrination session.
Zionism is the belief that Jews should have a homeland. Israel is that historic homeland. Anti-Zionism and anti-Israel attitudes are anti-Semitic, pure and simple.
“our Founding Fathers wrote about defending countries in the American sphere from outside intervention”
I guess iraqs founding fathers had the same idea!!
“Anti-Zionism and anti-Israel attitudes are anti-Semitic, pure and simple”
so what? is there a law against anti semetism? whatever it’s called I am an amerrican and not an israeli and am concerned with my security over theirs.