Last week, Senator Rand Paul went to some lengths to try and convince readers of COMMENTARY that the qualms that I expressed about his record on Israel were unfounded. Suffice it to say that I think despite his expressions of friendship to the Jewish state, most Republicans, as well as most Americans, are going to have a hard time reconciling his opposition to military aid to Israel as well as support for defense cuts and a reduced role for America around the world with the idea that he supports the alliance. But if the senator is serious about convincing his party that he can be relied upon to have Israel’s back, he has a much bigger problem than anything I have to say about the issue: his father, Rep. Ron Paul.
Though Senator Paul has tried to carve out a different, more establishment-friendly niche for himself in Washington than his gadfly father, his support for the latter’s presidential runs and clear admiration for the man’s principles and positions are a matter of record. And in case anyone forgot about the erstwhile presidential challenger’s stands on Israel, he gave us a reminder today with a blog post on his official congressional website. Titled, “How to End the Tragedy in Gaza,” Rep. Paul does not blame Hamas for starting the latest fighting. Instead, he blames Israel and, more to the point, American backing for Israel, for enabling the conflict. Though his son has not said anything like that in recent years, this is the sort of false and destructive rhetoric that is catnip to many of the extremist libertarians who form the family fan base and who will, no doubt, be the foot soldiers in Rand Paul’s 2016 presidential run. While it may be unfair to expect any man to distance himself from his father, unless the senator makes a clear effort to disavow his father’s positions on the Middle East, his attempts to portray himself as a friend to Israel will flop.
Ron Paul’s position on Israel has been consistent. Though he, too, occasionally tries to paint his stand as one that is friendly to the Jewish state, he does more than just oppose military aid. He believes the U.S. is at fault for being Israel’s steadfast ally. The congressman’s belief in the moral equivalence of the two sides in the conflict is clear:
US foreign policy being so one-sided actually results in more loss of life and of security on both sides. Surely Israelis do not enjoy the threat of missiles from Gaza nor do the Palestinians enjoy their Israel-imposed inhuman conditions in Gaza. But as long as Israel can count on its destructive policies being underwritten by the US taxpayer it can continue to engage in reckless behavior. And as long as the Palestinians feel the one-sided US presence lined up against them they will continue to resort to more and more deadly and desperate measures.
One needn’t waste time pointing out that the idea of “inhuman conditions in Gaza” is a myth fostered by Israel’s enemies or that there is nothing “reckless” about a nation reacting to the firing of hundreds of missiles on its citizens and sovereign territory with a counter-attack. But the most telling point about this piece is that the libertarian leader’s ideas about moral equivalence extend beyond his hostility to Israel. They also apply to American measures of self-defense against terrorists:
Last week, as the fighting raged, President Obama raced to express US support for the Israeli side, in a statement that perfectly exemplifies the tragic-comedy of US foreign policy. The US supported the Israeli side because, he said, “No country on Earth would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.” Considering that this president rains down missiles on Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and numerous other countries on a daily basis, the statement was so hypocritical that it didn’t pass the laugh test. But it wasn’t funny.
This goes to the heart not only of Ron Paul’s hostility to the exercise of American power but also to that of his son. Plenty of so-called foreign policy “realists” share their prejudice against Israel and willingness to buy into Arab propaganda about the Middle East conflict. But both the Pauls have a problem with American efforts to combat al-Qaeda, or to restrain rogue Islamist regimes like the one in Iran. That puts them clearly outside the mainstream of the Republican Party and renders Rand Paul’s presidential hopes and growing influence a threat to any hopes of the GOP recapturing the White House in the future.
Rand Paul’s comments don’t usually come across as parodies of far-left rants the way his father’s usually do. But he has made it clear that he shares the elder politician’s core beliefs about American foreign policy. So long as the senator fails to clearly oppose his father’s ideas about the Middle East and the role of the U.S. in the world, friends of Israel won’t believe what he says about Israel. Nor should they.
Almost as if the elder Paul didn't like the younger cozying up to Tobin's readership. n nThe timing of Ron Paul's blog post is interesting . . . .
Ignorant,isolationist,anti-American,anti-Semites are plentiful in both parties.For the last forty years they've been most prominent in their ascending clout on the Dem. side-It looks like what Rand Paul will unleash will make the G.O.P. competitive.
The reality is that our presence creates hostility no matter what because they view us as an empire and extremists use our collateral damage to radicalize people. No matter what, the situation in the middle east will not be fixed overnight, but arguing in favor of continued support for any of these nations, Israel included, is missing that point. Until we disengage ourselves, there is no hope for peace. If we disengage, there is at least some hope.
I would not expect for the Paul family feud to be played out in public. Don't hold your breath for a concerted effort by Rand to part with Ron on any issues. Rand Paul will simply say what his positions are and not contrast them with his father's. It is your choice to take him at his word or not. Also, criticism of Rand Paul for supporting his father will flop too. Lastly, what are the odds Ron Paul supports his son in 2016. 100%, and it will have nothing to do at all with agreement on political issues of any sort – that would only be icing on the cake. There is a principle above all to which the Pauls will hold fast . . .
Tobin is rather blind to his own Neocon biases. Rand Paul is being realistic. Firstly, Israel is not a US “ally”…it is a client state (a true alliance requires a common enemy…who is that enemy?). Secondly, the responsibility of any American leader is to the interests of the US and not those of Israel (the current situation of American Jews is not dissimilar from that of the American Irish a century ago). And finally, there is every “moral equivalence” between Israel and the Palestinians…they want the same land and both have a plausible claim.r nr nSo, given the irreconcilable positions of the protagonists, why must there be any solution at all? In fact, this war that began before 1948 simply continues. Clearly, the Arabs are working with the “crusader” paradigm and do not understand the difference between an occupier from another homeland and a people with nowhere else to go. r nr nThe Palestine Mandate was already divided and the Arabs got the Trans Jordan (to which one might reasonably append the West Bank). Gaza, on the other hand, is an historical anomaly that cannot persist. In earlier times, the losing ethnic group would have been annihilated, enslaved or forced to migrate. We may congratulate ourselves at being more civilized these days and of course slavery is passe, but ultimately, one of those time-proven resolutions will prevail.
I'd suppose from your tone and your argument that you're a Rand Paul supporter. Well, if I were Rand Paul, I don't think I'd want you arguing on my behalf. He has made a charm offensive for the readership here and elsewhere (you should really note the first comment made in reply to this post, and, quite frankly, the opening of the post), and your display of your actual beliefs and your statements regarding Rand's grossly counteract that appeal. I've argued that (such as in defense of Kirsten Powers), if lacking in sound policy prescription (such as you are), one could still be a worthwhile commentator if they were an able political analyst. You lack there as well, if only [if only!] because you decided to advocate Rand where Rand himself decided to obfuscate Rand. (I suppose though that being a supporter of the older Paul REQUIRES some lack of political savvy–else, every month would feel like a Republican's November 7th, 2012. If this managed to come to apply to the supporters of the younger Paul, I'd be delightfully surprised.)
Why would you assume that someone was a Paul supporter just because on one issue they find some merit in a position he has taken? And, having made that wrongful ASSumption, you have the temerity to castigate me for being a clueless and ineffective spokesman for a cause that I never embraced: the political future of Rand Paul. I would say that makes you the personification of intellectual poverty. n nMy conclusion (and I think Paul is intimating it in words and Obama in deeds and the JCS in their analysis of our military posture) is that the client state of Israel (as one aspect of being the world's "policeman") is an increasing burden to the US and the umbrella will not last. The interests of the US and the interests of Israel are NOT identical. That's not a statement of advocacy by me, simply an assessment of the reality I see. n nAs for this dust-up with Rand Paul as he attempts to square his innate isolationism with friendship for Israell…would you rather an honest statement to your face or a stab in the back? He can try to sugar coat it but he will never be a neocon and you know it…even as the Commentariat will accept nothing less.
The question you asked is the first intelligent thing you have said here. nSadly, it is so far the last. The rest of your post was your usual ahistoric and inaccurate nonsense.
After having complained myself, I would not want to replicate attributing positions to you wrongfully as you acknowledge having done to me. You indicate that, beyond questioning your assumption, the remainder of my post is inaccurate nonsense. So let's get specific and you can verify or dispute my actual assertions: n n1) Paul is intimating it in words and Obama in deeds and the JCS in their analysis of our military posture that the client state of Israel (as one aspect of being the world's "policeman") is an increasing burden to the US n2) The US umbrella will not last n3) The interests of the US and the interests of Israel are NOT identical. n4) Rand Paul can try to sugar coat it but he will never be a neocon and the Commentariat will accept nothing less. n nAnd please remember "That's not a statement of advocacy by me, simply an assessment of the reality I see."
Would've speedily and sooner responded but had to trim post. Well, regardless, proponent of Rand Paul or, instead, what you actually see as (and declare!) his actual views on this one issue, you are certainly his opponent, if not by design. I will apologize though for declaring you to be in his camp, and being an "ASS." That charge particularly bruised, particularly for the way you made it, for I'm particularly fond of noting the first three letters of "assume." n nWell, now, to challenge one of your main assumptions. Israel is a US ally. It has unilaterally in the past taken several actions whereby the US was tremendously benefitted. In the realm of non-nuclear states, we have Operations Babylon and Orchard to thank, and Stuxnet seems to have been a product of American-Israeli cooperation. Concerning common enemies, if that is indeed requisite, we have Hezbollah and Iran and, hey, the whole world, which, hey, greatly hates Jews. (And you might not believe me or particularly want to entertain this view, but the US is by and large the moral leader of the world. Israel for being a democracy alone is worthy of support.) n nAs a matter of tact (word tactfully chosen), I actually do agree with one statement of yours: "So, given the irreconcilable positions of the protagonists, why must there be any solution at all?" I agree, wholeheatedly. If you're the Israelis, cut the grass as you see fit, again, and again, and again. Obtain peace in the day you have a peace partner.
Rand Paul is essentially correct and Tobin's Neocon biases are showing: n1) Israel is not a US ally…it is a client state. An alliance presupposes a common enemy. n2) The sole responsibility of an American leader is to US interests. n3) The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent…they both want the same land and each has a plausible claim and an impressive laundry list of grievances. n nPaul is simply being realistic rather than moralizing. Given the irreconcilable positions of the protagonists, why must there be any solution at all? In fact, this war that began before 1948 simply continues. Clearly, the Arabs are working with the "crusader" paradigm and do not understand the difference between an occupier from another homeland and a people with nowhere else to go. n
Ignorant anti-Semitic rant. Or is this Cincinnati Kid just enormously stupid. Both.
"The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent…they both want the same land [blah, blah, blah]" n nPerhaps. Or perhaps your cerebral cortex and colon are cognitively equivalent. They both smell the same.
I have offered a coherent argument that Israel needs to move on and be realistic….which is not necessarily to turn the other cheek (after all, that's the Christian thing). Evidently it is beyond your intellectual capacity to engage with the argument…else you would have done so rather than argue ad hominem, the last refuge of the incompetent.
Your claim of moral equivalence is what is objectionable. You equate those who shoot missiles at innocents (while locating the launchers among hospitals and schools) with the targets of those missiles. This argument is utterly devoid of merit.
And you are confusing the tactics employed with the worthiness of the cause. Were the American colonists "morally equivalent" to the British military when they took cowardly potshots from the woods instead of standing and fighting like men? n nThey both want the same land and both have a plausible claim to it. That's moral equivalence.
This is a fatuous argument and a ridiculous comparison.
Why??
Aha, stumped, aren't you, Wobbler? I withdrew from that contest. Dude doesn't get it.
Israel wants to live in peace within secure and recognized borders, in a state that offers equal rights under law to everyone. Hamas wants to abolish Israel and establish a world wide Caliphate in which only Muslims would have legal rights, and those rights would be limited by Sharia, and non-Muslims would be allowed to live only on sufferance, and Jews would be killed on sight. n nSorry, I have trouble seeing the moral equivalence there. Moral equivalence and mutually inconsistent goals do not mean the same thing.
Look, I'm not advocating the perspective, simply acknowledging it. And if you don't acknowledge the perspective, however wrongheaded you think it to be, you are not dealing with reality. n nYou say: " Israel wants to live in peace within secure and recognized borders, in a state that offers equal rights under law to everyone." From the Palestinian perspective (NOT MINE) your statement is only valid if it includes the right of return. We both know that is not the case. n nWhile it is water over the dam now, let us also recognize that Hamas has supplanted the PLO because it was not radical or effective enough in bringing them to their promised land. And it is no accident that Hamas has Gaza while the PLO holds the West Bank. If Hamas were to morph into a PLO clone, it would itself be supplanted by even more severe rejectionists.
Some arguments are so divorced from reality that they discourage a substantive response. Among those is any argument based on the false premise that Israel and the Palestinians are morally equivalent. Or the false premise that Israel and the US have no common enemies.
See above re moral equivalence. n nAre the Palestinian Arabs enemies of the US? n nPerhaps Iran? The US fought a shooting war with Britain at the same time that Napoleon did….were we allied with Napoleon?
I protest and splutter. My response to Cincinnati Rick was substantive…under the circumstances. I would even say it had gravitas.
I never said it wasn't apt. And I will grant you that it was certainly more substantive and accurate than anything he had to say.
I will take on your argument: n1. Islamic extremism and Arab extremism is a common enemy. And, during the Cold War, the Soviet Empire. n2. US interests and Israel coincide in many ways. I maintain that the value of Israel to the US is much more than any costs. You can research this yourself if you choose not to be one-sided. n3. The Jewish claim to the land is higher than the Palestinian claim under international law, historically, and in terms of a genuine nation-state. You can research this to if you we're not so full of your own invective with terms of use like "neo-con."
It's been a while since we've had the Paulbots pay us a visit here. Hark! Methinks I hear the clitter-clatter of their little pseudopods.
The Palestine Mandate was already divided and the Arabs got the Trans Jordan (to which, arguably the West Bank should be appended). Gaza, on the other hand, is an historical anomaly that cannot persist. In earlier times, the losing ethnic group would have been annihilated, enslaved or forced to migrate. We may congratulate ourselves at being more civilized these days and of course slavery is largely passe, but ultimately, one of those time-proven resolutions will prevail. n nSo my conclusion (and, I believe, Paul's) is that the US should butt out and let the protagonists sort it out for themselves. Cut Israel loose as a client state: don't fund it on the one hand but don't leash it on the other. I don't see why it is in our interest to be sending money or weapons to either side…we are simply enabling.
See my earlier reply. Still holds.
and still vacuous
Israel captured Gaza in '67. They did not covet the territory, and certainly not any responsibility for its inhabitants. They had no choice but to "invade," if that is what one does when one responds defensively to an adversary threatening to enter onto your territory and force you into the sea (Mediterranean) as Egypt and its allies were threatening to do. Israel did not want to keep Gaza and would have returned it to Egypt, which took control of it in '48 and kept control of it until it lost that control when it lost the Six-Day War 19 years later, along with the Sinai when Sadat and Begin signed a peace treaty. Israel would still today would happy to have Egypt absorb, or just administer Gaza, if Egypt would take full responsibility for Gaza in the same way that it is responsible for what goes on within Egypt's borders. Egypt may not have been happy to lose the Six-Day War as it did, but it has never been willing to accept back Gaza, so the Tar Baby is Israel's.*****
*****When you say, "Gaza, on the other hand, is an historical anomaly that cannot persist," what do you imagine as the alternative to it continuing to "persist"? Do you have anything to propose as an alternative to its continuing to "persist"? You are calling for Gazans (or Israelis?) to be "annihilated, enslaved or forced to migrate"? (I'm giving you the benefit of doubt here, assuming that you are not a mindless bigot. Will you prove me wrong?)
You are certainly spot-on with both the history of Gaza and the fact that Egypt does not want this tar baby and the responsibility that would go with it…no more so than Lebanon or Tunisia wanted Arafat. n nThe Palestinian Arabs are left twisting in the wind by their so-called Arab "brothers" who have, for generations now, refused them hospitality and sanctuary in the huge expanse of territory and with the oil wealth at their disposal. If there was one ounce of sincerity in them, the squalor their "brothers" exist in Gaza could never have happened. Gaza is not and should not be viable and one way or another it will end. The only way it will be a good end is if their Arab brothers finally face up to their responsibility.
When the last Israeli pulled out of Gaza in August 2005, if not years before then, what exactly kept the Gazans from doing what was within their means to improve their own lot rather than putting so much of their energies into wageing war against Israe? The Arabs are every bit as morally reproachable when it comes to the Palestinians as you suggest, and more, but.how about if the Gazans faced up to some of their own responsibility for their circumstances, which they certainly weren't doing when one of their very first acts following the Israeli pullout was to destroy the greenhouse facilities that Jewish philanthropists spent $14M on to benefit the Gazans?
Gaza is a cross between a refugee camp and a concentration camp. It is, literally, limbo…between heaven and hell. It is temporary both practically and psychologically speaking and cannot sustain the population. The only thing it produces is children and bitterness while awaiting their return to "the promised land"…a concept I trust you understand. n nBlame the inmates if you wish but it cannot endure…something has to give.
I understand the concept of "concentration camp" because we have seen real ones, and Gaza isn't one, nor is it an "open air prison," both formulations favored by the Israel-haters. Similarly, I understand the concept of "return to 'the promised land'" because we know what the means in terms of Jewish theology and history, but I don't understand it, at least not in the way you initmate it should be understood, with respect to the Gazans, since it is neither theologically, nor historically apt where they are concerned. n nWhat facts do you rely on (rather than metaphor and the like) in support of your contention that Gaza "cannot sustain the population"? And why ought not that "something (that) has to give" be Hamas' resolve to put an end to the Jewish state? And what do you think is incompatable between the "concept of Israel as a Jewish state" and co-existance with the Palestinians? (Consider stopping to make reasoned arguments rather than merely declaiming.)
Palestine is historically "the promised land" for the Gazans because 98% of the population are refugees. They fled awaiting the Arab nations armies success and were promised the right of return. They are still waiting. I have already and at great length declaimed against the lurch their Arab brothers left them in but it does not change their aspirations one whit. n nBe assured, if Hamas were to surrender that resolve, another more extreme group would quickly supplant it in the same fashion as Hamas displaced the once extreme but now toothless PLO. n nMy point is that either the South African model will prevail or there will be the anihilation/forced migration previously referenced with respect to Gaza. It is only a matter of time before the Palestinians own Jordan in toto and the West Bank is then a logical merger. The Hashemite regime specifically refused to annex the West Bank because it would have exacerbated the demographic imbalance already plaguing the kingdom. n nInstead of demanding that I defend my analysis, why don't you tell me how a contiguous Arab state can be constructed in Palestine that would give Israel defensible borders.
CincinnatiRick: "Palestine is historically 'the promised land' for the Gazans because 98% of the population are refugees." dcdoc1: You are sloppy, intentionally so it seems, with those terms/[phrases ("promised land," "concentration camp," etc.), you would frame the debate with to serve tendentious ends. Israel as the "Promised Land" has had profound theologic resonance for Jews for millenia; "Palestine" doesn't have that for those who never called or saw themselves as "Palestinians" until after Israel became a sovereignty and Jews stopped referring to the land as "Palestine" and themselves as "Palestinians."
So, presumably you are alluding to a historical basis for your "promised land" notion when it comes to those currently denominated Gazans, though the majority of them originated in Egypt after the Jews immigated and started making the place habitable. So, when and by "whom" were those Gazans promised the disputed land? It must have been after 1917, because the Turks who ruled for hundreds of years didn't cede anything to them. Did the French or British, who drew up the maps, promise it to them, and if so, why didn't it come to be before there ever was a state of Israel? And are those "aspirations" of theirs that you speak of other than ones to expel the Jews not only in Gaza (where the Jews are no longer present!) but from every bit of land all the way to the Jordan River and north to the Mediterranean. That is what Hamas promises to do, isn't it?
In 1948, the Arab states promised the refugees that they would crush the Jews and repatriate the Arab Palestinians to their land. Whether you appreciate it or not, they believe that they have a right of return. There will be no peace until the issue is resolved. You need to either assimilate them, anihilate them or arrange a diaspora. n nMy message (and I think Paul is intimating it in words and Obama in deeds and the JCS in their analysis of our military posture) is that the client state of Israel is an increasing burden to the US and the umbrella will not last. The interests of the US and the interests of Israel are NOT identical. That's not a statement of advocacy by me, simply an assessment of the reality I see. As for this dust-up with Rand Paul…would you rather an honest statement to your face or a stab in the back?
My argument is that under international law Israel has a higher claim on the entire area encompassing the British Mandate, even if Israel, at this time, is reconciled to a lesser area. If you argue that Gaza belongs to the Palestinians because of their refugee status, then you are arguing two contradictory points: 1) international law prevails, or 2) moral law prevails. Choose one. If moral law, then I argue that the Arabs created the problem in 1948 and 1967, and owe the Palestinians restitution.
You have evidently never been in a concentration camp. Which actually were not concentration camps in WWII but holding camps–the inhabitants were collected there to be gassed. That was their point. Which is why they all disappeared. Very much alive, Gazans nutrition levels have been recognized as being in the healthy range by the UN and economic development continues. The population is sustained. Luxury goods are imported. n nBut thanks for the pathos.
What is pathetic is your inability to recognize that man does not live by bread alone. n nIf we observe that prisoners are well fed…therefore we should deduce that they must be free and happy and it is simply foolish for them to aspire to anything else. n n
Listen child, they didn't have water sports and 5 star hotels in the Warsaw Ghetto. What is pathetic is your inability, as a child is unable, to regard reality outside the bauble of your own precociousness. n n nThe whole point of concentration camps is that the residents are terrorized, starved, shot, and gassed. n nMakes a difference if you are a resident. n nYou know, the difference between well-fed, healthy, able to go on water slides and the beach, and being starved and beaten.
With your insistence on "concentration camp," and if not "concentration camp," then "prison," you make clear that you are not a serious interlocutor. And if there was any doubt about that, you provide additional evidence of your non-seriousness with inanities like "man does not live by bread alone," "it is simply foolish for them to aspire to anything else," and the like. That is not the stuff of serious discourse, but have at it if that's your pleasure.
You know it is disheartening when you find no more tolerance for other perspectives here at Commentary than you do at Salon or Huffpost. Just as in those other inbred little cocoons, apparently, "serious discourse" for the denizens here will only be found in an echo chamber.
Tolerance for other perspectives does not mean giving a free pass to moral blindness or historical ignorance, even when it is wrapped in fancy language about client states and national interest.
We are all as the blind men with the elephant, each sure in the reality of the great beast's character by the part of its anatomy we grasp. Such blindness is the human condition but we need not be also the fool: the one certain that his perspective alone is correct.
Why not peddle the "concentration camp" (Israelis as Nazis?), "promised land" (contempt for Judaism?), and your other simple-minded and/or bigoted crap wherever it will find a receptive audience, so you won't be disheartened again?
Am I to attribute your gross mischaracterization of my statements to your intellectual poverty or simple exasperation? You needn't bother answering that. I accept your surrender. Have a nice day
The residents of the Gaza "concentration camp" are due our empathy for the plight they find themselves in and for their succumbing to the Hamas (and Iranian) agenda…their situation is untenable. But let's be realistic: it is not the defiance of Hamas that protects Gaza but the concern, however much disparaged, that Israel, as a client state, has for the public opinion in the United States that keeps Gaza from total annihilation. Given the waning dependence on imported oil, the situation in the Middle East will become less and less "existential" over time for the US whereas it will never change for Israel. Paul is telling you now what eventually some US President (not him to be sure), acting out of American self-interest, will eventually have as US policy. Decisive action is necessary before that day comes and the choices are all ugly. n n
If you think the Gazans collectively "are due our empathy for…succumbing to the Hamas (and Iranian) agenda," then do you think the Germanscollectively were "due our empathy for…succumbing to the (Nazi) agenda"?
Interesting parallel. While Versailles was grossly unfair, the Wiemar Republic and hyperinflation were a disaster and then there was the depression, the circumstances in Germany were materially and psychologically far superior to Gaza. And, predictably, the popular support for Hamas and rejectionism is proportionately stronger. n nThe more interesting parallel I find is the comparison between post WW2 Germany and Post 1948 Palestine. If Germany, instead of getting on with the new reality, was actively pursuing the lost Grossdeutchesreich, what would Europe look like today? And if their Arab "brothers" had sacrificed a bit for the Palestinian Arabs, as West Germany did in far greater measure for the East, what would the MidEast look like today?
continued… n nThe Palestinian Arabs were sold a false bill of goods and left in the lurch by their brothers. But it is easier to live in limbo and blame anyone but your brothers. While there is room for disagreement as to the cause (their own fault in some measure), unless you have a heart of stone, the residents of Gaza need to be recognized as victims. Please don't confuse that statement with any notion that Israel needs to tolerate their "acting out." What I am saying is that the American umbrella is disappearing and hard choices must be made. You will either sacrifice the concept of Israel as a Jewish state or you will have the forced migration or anihilation of Gaza.
I go with dumping the arabs/civilian population of Gaza. If I were the US prez I would push Isreal hard to force ALL palistinians across the jordan river-FOREVER!! nRick, there isn't a soul alive in the entire middle east under 50, that hasn't been born and bread with a heart so full of hate we are incapable of comprehending it.THey kill their OWN wives and daughters, they decapitate other human beings, they dismember their own citizens, they hang gays from crains, and drag alleged collaborators thru the streets. In Iran every Saturday is "drag the circular saw out to the public square day", to take care of theives and other such violations with dismemberment. nAre these people barbarians and savages or not!! and what of the ideology dressed as a religion that absolutely and without a doubt compells them to do this? They must be islolated from civil societies or civil societies need to learn how to defend themselves. No one over 7 years old is innocent in the arab muslim/middle east period!
Yes…I would say many were and they paid a heavy price. We can debate whether collectively that price was sufficient but, in any given individual case, it certainly may have been. And are the sins of the fathers to be visited on the sons? Where in scripture do you find authority for that?
Sadly when discussing Gaza people seem unaware that during the 1948 war against the fledgling state Egypt conquered Gaza and wiped out Jewish communities that had been living there.
As for inhumane conditions in Gaza it is a pity that people don’t research UN resolutions that left humans in such a state
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&x_article=960
” While the PLO has done its best to keep Palestinians in refugee camps, Israel has done its best to move Palestinians out of the camps and into new homes. Israel even started a heavily subsidized “build-your-own-home” program for Palestinian refugees. According to an early description of the program:
…….
It’s not surprising that the PLO vehemently opposed this program – after all, former residents of a refugee camp, now living in a nice home in a new neighborhood, would have a stake in supporting peace and opposing violence, exactly the opposite of the PLO’s strategy.
What is perhaps surprising is that the United Nations also opposed the program, and passed harsh resolutions demanding that Israel remove the Palestinians from their new homes and return them to the squalid camps. For example, UN General Assembly Resolution 31/15 of Nov. 23, 1976:
Calls once more upon Israel:
(a) To take effective steps immediately for the return of the refugees concerned to the camps from which they were removed in the Gaza Strip and to provide adequate shelters for their accommodation;
(b) To desist from further removal of refuges and destruction of their shelters.
Similarly, UNGA Resolution 34/52 of November 23, 1979 declared that:
measures to resettle Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip away from their homes and property from which they were displaced constitute a violation of their inalienable right to return;
1. Calls once more upon Israel to desist from removal and resettlement of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip and from destruction of their shelters;
Perhaps thanks to this support from the UN, the PLO began threatening to kill any refugee who would move out of the camps. After a few such attacks, the build-your-own-home program died, and that is why there are still Palestinians refugee camps in Gaza. “
I'm pro-Israel, and I''M for shrinking the military, getting out of the World Policeman business, and eliminating foreign aid completely… Israel included. So am I a closet Jew-hater now too?
1. "tragicomedy", or "tragic comedy", not "tragic-comedy". n2. Mr. Tobin accuses the President of hypocrisy because he defends Israel's response to Gaza missiles while he "rains down missiles on Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and numerous other countries on a daily basis…". Would he prefer that the President cease attacking Al Qaeda, or not defend Israel's response, in order not to appear hypocritical to Mr. Tobin? Wouldn't it have been appropriate, just this once, for him to not attack the President?
oldleftie, you do a pretty good impression of the late Gilda Ratner in her Emily Litela persona. Go back and read more carefully what is above. Jonathan Tobin was not quoting Obama, he was quoting Paul pere!
oh… Never mind… n np.s. To the four who voted thumbs down without comment: must suck to be such cowards….
1 thumb up for the dead-on "oh…never mind" reply.
thanks, doc, I needed that.
I gave a thumbs down and then I commented. n nNever could figure out though why Jews in America went on and on and on about Soviet jewelry. What was with that?
Is that the besht you can do?
Okay, I also gave a thumbs up for the never mind, and now another one for the shameless pun.
Alright,alright; one up for the" is that the besht you can do."
But the President said that Al Qaeda had been defeated!
And the President is an honorable man. Er, person. So are they all honorable persons.
if only there was a new Rev. Moon, who could conduct mass weddings between Paulbots and Code Pinkies. Honeymoon destination? Timbuktu, Mali.
Animated pink garden gnomes for offspring. Perish the thought.
HELP? Does this comment thread have a word count or line limit? I ask because I keep being told that my "messages" are too long, and that's why they don't post. So, I chop them up into pieces and run them one after another. But I see other posts that are equally long or longer, with multiple paragraphs. So what gives, does Contentions have some unstated limit(s) on word counts, number of lines or paragraphs, or what?
Now that's something I always wanted to know but was afraid ask. Seems like I too get a couple of short paragraphs while others post entire theses with bibliographies. Or, maybe it's the score thingie which limits the extent of our verbosity; at 81p I probably get six more words than you, at 61p. Then, maybe they go by latitude. I'm at 43.6481° N.
I have no idea what the "score thingie" is about, and though I'm minimally curious to know, I expect I don't much care. I am reconciled to the fact that one is not likely to be too "popular" here if they don't accept that we are on the road to perdition if we are not in agreement with the social values of a Rick Santorum ("pro-life" and "anti-gay"), think salvation will come through the Tea Party, etc. (Now, can anyone, perhaps someone like a webmaster, if Contentions/Commentary has such a person, tells what the rules are here wrt number of words, lines, paragraphs, or whatever?)
I have moved from bibliographies to biographies. Next up: n nMarie Curie and Chaim Wiezmann: A Romance n n"Marie," cried Chaim, "you are positively radiant tonight. But I must be off to see Lord Balfour…" n n n n
ROFLMAO!
I can't think of any vital interest of the United States that is served by the US being an ally of Israel. Israel, of course, is not and has never been an ally of the United States. n nAs US oil and gas production rises, we have less and less reason to stick our noses in the Middle East. Obama gets a bye from the left for his drone strikes because of the illusion that he's some kind of pinko. In fact, he's about where Nixon was, despite the faculty lounge atmospherics. n nCreate one, two, many Pauls. Let the Tobins of the world howl.
Oh those perfidious Jews of Zion!
Grumpy, I've read your posts. You could have stopped your last one after the third word.
thanks
Only the ignorant can support Israel. Anyone who has either been there or spent the time to read the history knows that Israel is the perpeptual aggressor. Simple issues count. When will Israel allow the right of return or just compensation for the lands stolen from the Palestinians? When will Israel return to the borders established by the UN (ie, the pre '67 borders)? Until these issues are addressed in an open and fair manner then all Israel's squealing about the pin prick rocket attacks are completely and transparently the complaints of the selfish, the complaints of the immature.
Only the ignorant think that the pre-1967 'borders' are borders rather than temporary armistice lines established in 1949. Only the ignorant don't know that UNSC resolution 24 calls for the parties to agree on secure and recognized borders, or that the 1949 armistice lines are neither, or that UNSC Res. 242 says that until there is a comprehensive peace agreement establishing those secure and recognized borders, Israel does not have to withdraw from a square cm of the land it captured in successfully defending against an illegal war of extermination that the Arabs launched in 1967.
Templedamour, I just looked at your Intense Debate page. Judging from your comments about Jews "Operating a closed club that gives favours to their own", and how " their control of the State (ie, the mechanisms of Government) "is "no different to the stand over tactics of the protection rackets run by any other organised criminal group", you give every appearance of being a Jew-hating whack job, so please spare us your phony history and your phony concern for the Palestinians.
I don't usually click on posters' links to their own blogs, but I gave yours a try. Didn't have time to have more than a quick look about, but seems promising (provocative, substantive, not stupid and a waste of time, etc.), so I'll try to get back to it. (You worked for a Pacifica affiliate at one time?!)
Rand Paul was bluffing when he said: “Israel is strong and important ally of the United States, and we share many mutual security interests.” that’s a lie. Israel ain’t Strong & important ally of USA that’s was very clear for Jews who attended Boca Raton Debate both contenders confirmed it. I leave it for you to know who’s is the most strong and important ally of the United States, and share many mutual security interests. Israel never shared the trenches with America in any war. Israel never kept a single dime in any soldier’s pocket. Neither house them or nor feed them. There is no single evidence in sort of Letter of Credit or Escrow proves that Israel ever purchased armaments from USA. All US Arms acquired by Israel throughout extortion made to the White House & Corrupt Congress by Zionist lobby to dole DoD overstocks to Israel free of charge. What can USA share many mutual security interests with Israel? Unless Israel convert CIA to Mossad kindergarten and later degraded to Pravda Radio Station outta Langley as Aviem Sella & Jonathan Pollard did. Pollard still in prison. Back to Rand Paul. He’s ain’t following he’s Dad Footsteps. I wish he did. He has his own agenda to survive as stooopid teeebaggarr at the Senate. Koch Brothers purchased Senator Jim Bunning Senate seat for Rand Paul to be an obedient poodle and toy soldier to obey exactly what he’s recruited for in another word rand paul is koch brother sleepercell in public office. GOP Israelifirster are few and f-cking America at-large as we speak by foreplaying Mrs.NO at the House and at the Senate so is Rand Paul. The more he votes NO the more his chance of survival is. THE-BIG-NO to Israel is clotured by GOP top brass ain’t generated from Rand Paul. guess who call the shots? Koch Brothers know that they get nothing outta Israel but trouble, horsemanure and extortion. Koch Brothers do not require israel’s help in the donut-hole so why should they befriend Israel. Israel has no oil. You’re too smart to know this fact very well. You don’t need a Paulite-Libertarian from Dubai to school you into it. You cause more harm to Israel hiding truth. You’re hurting innocent people. Now hold your breath, Shut-up, Sit-down & Listen to Jonathan S. Tobin Senior Online Editor of Commentary magazine.. Your discretion is advised: More Questions About the Pauls and Israel Jonathan S. Tobin Last week, Senator Rand Paul went to some lengths to try and convince readers of COMMENTARY
Ok, ok, nevermind all that poo. too long, makes no sense and I had to stop reading it after the third line because I could feel a headache coming on. What I wanna know, is how come you get to post so much drivel, while I get 2 to 3 paragraphs max before having to split my post? Inquiring minds want to know.
haha. so you had to stop reading it after the third line because you could feel a headache coming on. congratulations! you're pregnant. Milk your prostate and see your gynecologist. nlet have baby steps. so tell me which war Israelis shared trenches with US troops? nquit nagging boy
Rand Paul Travel plan to Israel (God-Forbid) is influenced by my commentary that I made to Jonathan S. Tobin Senior Online Editor of Commentary magazine article.. More Questions About the Pauls and Israel here’s mine.. enjoy. nRand Paul was bluffing when he said: “Israel is strong and important ally of the United States, and we share many mutual security interests.” that’s a lie. Israel ain’t Strong & important ally of USA that’s was very clear for Jews who attended Boca Raton Debate. Both contenders confirmed it. I leave it for you to know who’s is the most strong and important ally of the United States, and share many mutual security interests. Israel never shared the trenches with America in any war. Israel never kept a single dime in any soldier’s pocket. Neither house them or nor feed them. There is no single evidence in sort of Letter of Credit or Escrow proves that Israel ever purchased armaments from USA. All US Arms acquired by Israel throughout extortion made to the White House & Corrupt Congress by Zionist lobby to dole DoD overstocks to Israel free of charge. What can USA share many mutual security interests with Israel? Unless Israel convert CIA to Mossad kindergarten and later degraded to Pravda Radio Station outta Langley as Aviem Sella & Jonathan Pollard did. Pollard still in prison. Back to Rand Paul. He’s ain’t following he’s Dad Footsteps. I wish he did. He has his own agenda to survive as stooopid teeebaggarr at the Senate. Koch Brothers purchased Senator Jim Bunning Senate seat for Rand Paul to be an obedient poodle and toy soldier to obey exactly what he’s recruited for in another word Rand Paul is Koch brother sleepercell in public office. GOP Israelifirsters are few and yet they are fu2721cking America at-large as we speak. Foreplaying Mrs. NO at the House and at the Senate so is Rand Paul. The more he votes NO the more his chance of survival is. THE-BIG-NO to Israel is clotured by GOP Top Brass ain’t generated from Rand Paul. Guess who call the shots? Koch Brothers know that they get nothing outta nagging Israelis but trouble, horsemanure and extortion. Koch Brothers do not require Israel’s help to extort the donut-hole they got their own why should waste money on Israel? And why should they befriend Israel? Israel has no oil!