Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt's interesting, and unsettling, to note the near-absence of Democratic Party criticism of the Israeli invasion of Gaza, even as the Bush Administration executes a near-180-degree turn in its policy toward the crisis.
The vote in the UN Security Council yesterday, calling for a ceasefire in Gaza -- and pointedly not demanding an end to Hamas rocket fire as a condition for that ceasefire -- passed by an unanimous 14-0 vote. The important shift, undoubtedly brought about by Israel's killing of UN workers, Palestinian civilians, and high-profile attacks on schools and refuges, was by the United States, which abstained rather than veto the resolution. The Washington Post calls it a "sharp reversal" by the White House:
"The resolution demands an 'immediate, durable and fully respected cease-fire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza,' U.S. and Arab officials said. It marked a sharp reversal by the Bush administration, which had refused to allow passage of a cease-fire resolution without binding assurances that Hamas would halt its rocket attacks against Israel."
Eating humble pie, Palestine-style, Secretary of State Condi Rice -- who had earlier parroted the White House line that any ceasefire would have to be "sustainable and durable" and not a return to the "status quo" -- now says:
"We decided that this resolution -- the text of which we support, the goals of which we support and the objectives of which we fully support -- should indeed be allowed to go forward."
Jackson Diehl, the deputy editorial page editor of the Post and no dove, opined bluntly in his op-ed:
"Israel's military campaign in the Gaza Strip is failing. ... Every day this war continues, Hamas grows politically stronger, as do its allies in other countries and its sponsor, Iran. ... Now, bogged down, suffering casualties and inflicting many more, creating terrible pictures for television, it will have to accept an unsatisfying settlement."
Of course, as I've argued in The Dreyfuss Report, the Israeli attack was almost certain to boost Hamas.
A commentary by Anthony Cordesman, a hard-headed realist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, adds:
"Has Israel somehow blundered into a steadily escalating war without a clear strategic goal or at least one it can credibly achieve? Will Israel end in empowering an enemy in political terms that it defeated in tactical terms? Will Israel's actions seriously damage the US position in the region, any hope of peace, as well as moderate Arab regimes and voices in the process?"To blunt, the answer so far seems to be yes."
Meanwhile, with the Bush administration executing an about-face and Republican realists slamming Israel, where are the Democrats? Over at the Center for American Progress, the daily Progress Report, which resumed publication on January 5, 2009, at the height of the crisis, there has been absolutely nothing -- zero, zilch, nada! -- on the war in Gaza so far this month, except for a few innocuous mentions of ceasefire efforts. (You can verify this by checking the Progress Report archives for January.) Though the Progress Report loves to bash George W. Bush for every transgression, apparently his naked support for Israel's slaughter in Gaza escaped the Progress Report's attention. How sad. [UPDATE: Finally, today, the Progress Report got around to taking on Gaza, under the headline: "No Military Solution in Gaza. It's mushy, to say the least, with no criticism of Bush and Co. for supporting the Israeli offensive.]
Meanwhile, AIPAC is promoting Steny Hoyer's op-ed in, of all places, the Washington Times, in which the Democratic leader writes pompously about "moral imperatives":
"America would never sit still if terrorists were lobbing missiles across our border into Texas or Montana; and just as we assert our right to defend ourselves, Israel has every right to protect its own citizens from the implacable foes on its borders. Support for Israel in her time of need, from both Democrats and Republicans, is not just the logical choice. It is both a strategic and moral imperative."
Reuters has a useful accountof the Democrats' perfidy, under the headline: "Few Speak Up for Palestinians in US Congress." It quotes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid defending his absurdly pro-Israel resolution.
I could go on, citing the Democrats' shameful rush to gather together in the Amen Corner of the Israel Lobby. And Obama? I'll take that on tomorrow. There's good news -- and, some really bad news. (Hint: the bad news is named Dennis Ross.)
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
YIKES!!!!
Bush supporting a "blatently anti-Israel resolution out of that boondoggle United Nations run by anti-Semites"?!?!?!?!??!?
What will the 28% Club say?
(Okay, not SJCHER, he still has to wait an hour or two for Rush to "explain it" to him.)
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2009 @ 11:21am
YIKES!!!!
Bush supporting a "blatently anti-Israel resolution out of that boondoggle United Nations run by anti-Semites"?!?!?!?!??!?
What will the 28% Club say?
(Okay, not SJCHER, he still has to wait an hour or two for Rush to "explain it" to him.)
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2009 @ 11:22am
Sorry for the double...TN site went screwy on me.
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2009 @ 11:23am
Israel must be getting close to wrapping up their military campaign. Bush scrambling for a scrap of morality. Praise the day. He could have stopped this insanity from the get go. No more military and economic aid to Israel. Period.
Posted by OneVote at 01/09/2009 @ 11:55am
the peace between the Palestinian and Israel is unachievable under these circumstances. It is interest of U S and Israel to achieve peace with Palestinian. The U S need to strength the Palestinian authority military and economically. we to help need to stem the corruption of PA. A week PA can't make decisive solution AND can't enforce the laws . Through history, there was no peace between week nation and strong nation. It is always the strong nation enforce it's will on week nation. This is not a peace why because require the week nation to submit it 's will to the powerful.
Posted by zone at 01/09/2009 @ 11:57am
I would say it's about time and the Dems should be out there saying the same thing. Maybe Bush feels by doing this eventually he may leave office with a little bit more credibility for at last doing the right thing.
Posted by Caj at 01/09/2009 @ 11:59am
if aipac continues to represent extreme right wing of racist state of Israel AND the senate keeps being controlled by aipac infiltrated in both parties AND mrs feinstein continues to impose her zionist rules aspiring at subjugating our next president Barack Obama, should we really be this surprised or actively engage in separating the interest the United States from the bloodthirsty and tribal primitive warlover country prone to endless genocides?
Posted by balder at 01/09/2009 @ 12:00pm
The Israelis are talking about a third phase assault, with more troops and tanks, penetrating further into Gaza. There will be an increase in casualties on both sides, and Israel has no exit strategy to get out of Gaza. Except in the U.S., Israel has zero support for this operation in the rest of the world. Even a tactical victory is an iffy proposition, and a diplomatic defeat is a certainty. Everybody involved needs a sustainable truce, if not a peace agreement. However, Without firm borders, no truce will be sustainable!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 01/09/2009 @ 12:02pm
Like I keep saying Israel are the bully boy's of the Middle East, they have all the fire power and want to control the region.
Posted by Caj at 01/09/2009 @ 12:05pm
>>>Reuters has a useful account of the Democrats' perfidy, under the headline: "Few Speak Up for Palestinians in US Congress." It quotes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid defending his absurdly pro-Israel resolution.<<<
Great article, ROBERT DREYFUSS!
I think you and I both know why the Democrats are not speaking up, which has more to do with the corrupt influence of the right-wing AIPAC group than anything else.
But CHANGE is on the horizon - so we hope.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/09/2009 @ 12:21pm
>>>Meanwhile, AIPAC is promoting Steny Hoyer's op-ed in, of all places, the Washington Times, in which the Democratic leader writes pompously about "moral imperatives":
"America would never sit still if terrorists were lobbing missiles across our border into Texas or Montana; and just as we assert our right to defend ourselves, Israel has every right to protect its own citizens from the implacable foes on its borders. Support for Israel in her time of need, from both Democrats and Republicans, is not just the logical choice. It is both a strategic and moral imperative."<<<
Mr. Hoyer, we all know you are an AIPAC shill, but seriously, have "some" modicum self respect rather than simply parrot what your AIPAC bosses tell you to say.
If Mexico were successful in enforcing a blockade against the US of goods and services to starve the American people, I'm sure even you would lob a few rockets into the Mexican dessert Mr. Hoyer!
Being bought by a lobbyist group ain't pretty.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/09/2009 @ 12:29pm
CNN and Alibaba Blitzer, an article I found on this website called blackcoptermedia.com , Take the test! I think it's called CNN and Hamas!
Posted by thesid at 01/09/2009 @ 12:39pm
According to Aaron David Miller, a member of the Ross-led US negotiating team in 1999-2000, under Ross they frequently acted as "Israel's lawyer."[4] According to Miller:
" With the best of motives and intentions, we listened to and followed Israel's lead without critically examining what that would mean for our own interests, for those on the Arab side and for the overall success of the negotiations. The "no surprises" policy, under which we had to run everything by Israel first, stripped our policy of the independence and flexibility required for serious peacemaking. If we couldn't put proposals on the table without checking with the Israelis first, and refused to push back when they said no, how effective could our mediation be? Far too often, particularly when it came to Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, our departure point was not what was needed to reach an agreement acceptable to both sides but what would pass with only one -- Israel. [4]
Wikipedia.....Query: Dennis Ross
Thanks to some honesty from Mr. Miller (and others), we all know where Mr. Ross is coming from. Bad news indeed. We need a tough even handed approach to Israel. No more hiding behind US skirt for Israel.
Posted by OneVote at 01/09/2009 @ 12:46pm
When it comes to Israel-Palestine, the Democratic Party is an extension of the Israeli Likud political party. The primary focus of the "Likudnocrats" is to insure that a steady stream of weapons continues to Israel, and that neither any act of the US nor any act of the UN interferes with Israeli actions.
Posted by syfriendly at 01/09/2009 @ 12:59pm
Last night I was watching Oberman. I saw a commercial extolling us to "support Israel" by giving money to help them from the "devastation" they are suffering from. The gall!
How many Israelis have died? 10? How many Palestinians? 600?
Posted by FDR43 at 01/09/2009 @ 1:03pm
Syfriendly,
All American politicians (both parties) are in Israel's hip pocket. Israel virtually runs American foreign policy (in terms of Israel, anyway).
Posted by FDR43 at 01/09/2009 @ 1:05pm
Wait, Bush did something that AIPAC probably wouldn't like??? How could he do this? I thought they were all-powerful! Or maybe they're just messing with us...
Or maybe they're not a giant conspiracy that runs the country.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/09/2009 @ 1:10pm
>>>How many Israelis have died? 10? How many Palestinians? 600?
Posted by FDR43 at 01/09/2009 @ 1:03pm <<<
You forgot to mention that half of the 10 Israeli casualties were at the hands of the "Israeli" military.
I think they call this "friendly-fire".
Posted by Metteyya at 01/09/2009 @ 1:11pm
Thrawn: if Israel gets what it wants from 9 times out of 10, does the fact that 1 out of 10 times it doesn't disprove or refute the allegation (the truth) that Israel almost always gets whatever it wants from us?
I don't think so.
And you don't have to be a "conspiracy nut" to believe Israel usually gets what it wants from us.
It's a fact.
Posted by FDR43 at 01/09/2009 @ 1:21pm
The question is, why do we (almost always) give Israel whatever it wants from us?
Posted by FDR43 at 01/09/2009 @ 1:25pm
NEWS FLASH!! Mexico has not been under a blockade under which 750,000 people have been dependent upon the purposaely hampered efforts of the U.N. for even subsistence levels of food, water, heating oil and medical supplies for close to 2 years, and, therefor, the liklihood of rockets pouring into Texas or California is decidedly unlikely.
Posted by PFP2008 at 01/09/2009 @ 1:29pm
Well, we can see where this thread is going.....same for the rest for the past week...
Knee-jerk "Israel has the right nuke Gaza if it wants" on the Far Right...
knee-jerk "Israel should have a blockade put around it and starve it into submission to a Hamas peace plan" on the Far Left.
And the recounting of history dating back to Exodus...Roman occupation...the Byzantines...the Ottomans....the British....which international body has ultimate authority (League of Nations or the 1947 United Nations)....'48, '67, '73.....Lebanon....Arafat....Ehud Barak....Clinton....Hamas election....etc....etc....etc.
At some point the BOREDOM will start killing Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2009 @ 1:29pm
Mask, it's not easy being non-extreme, is it.
Posted by FDR43 at 01/09/2009 @ 1:31pm
Mask,
Is there a moderate, balanced alternative plan for peace in Israel/Palestine?
Posted by FDR43 at 01/09/2009 @ 1:33pm
>>>The question is, why do we (almost always) give Israel whatever it wants from us?
Posted by FDR43 at 01/09/2009 @ 1:25pm<<<
Because the AIPAC donor base can be directed in favor or against any candidate quite effectively, as demonstrated in the past. In fact, I would make AIPAC the poster child for corrupt influence in Washington to send a message to other groups that if we can take on AIPAC successfully, we can take you on as well.
A clear case for why we need SERIOUS campaign finance reform that completely takes money out of politics.
We can do this by instituting publicly funded elections for Congress and the president, and getting around the recent US Supreme Court free speech decisions by limiting the restriction on paid advertisements that are outside the publicly funded election scheme (527s) to times that are not within 90 days of an election.
Reasonable restrictions on free speech have been allowed by the Supreme Court, just like you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, so we can get this done and make it stick if we have the will to finally end special interest group domination in Washington.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/09/2009 @ 1:35pm
Metteyya,
Just make sure that when someone (whoever) proposes that campaign finance reform, they don't MENTION reeling in AIPAC as the (even one of the) reasons for why we need it.
Because if they DO, then, they will of course be instantly and totally targeted by AIPAC.
Actually, even if they don't mention AIPAC, AIPAC (as the most powerful lobbying group, realizing the implications) will oppose such reform anyway.
Posted by FDR43 at 01/09/2009 @ 1:40pm
It seems of relevance to underscore two faccts regarding zionist politics of duplicity: 1) Golda Meier acceptance to found Hamas to counterbalance the PLO AND 2) her refusal to save millions of jewish citizens from the holocaust claiming without 'blood there is no land'. The real victims of this orgie of cowardly carnage are children and innocent impoverished and tortured civilians in Palestine and in Israel. Nor Israel nor Hamas do care about their own civilians. They are blindly seduced by the homoerotic plottings of abject military machismo and lack of real heroism. the question remaining unanswered: Can't Israel find a peaceful way to end relationships with its partners and friends or is genocide the solution of preference?
Posted by balder at 01/09/2009 @ 1:49pm
Posted by FDR43 at 01/09/2009 @ 1:40pm
I believe (actually, I know) there are many members in Congress, probably the majority, that are really tired of the constant fundraising chase that detracts from doing the public's business, and if they knew with one vote they could end it once and for all with no reprisals from these groups, they would vote in favor of the reform.
Although I may diss many public officials for being bought by these groups, I know deep down they actually agree with me but don't see any other way but to go along with the system to continue their careers.
This is where bold leadership can make a difference; and in this case, a game-changing positive difference in our government that will be the turning point in American history.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/09/2009 @ 1:54pm
Encompassed by blood, darkness, and terror' This is the best way to describe the people of Gaza, as the Israeli military operation enters its third week.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza, which was described nine months ago as the worst since 1967, is growing worse day by day.
The number of casualties is constantly increasing as Israel insists on attacking the people of Gaza by air, sea and ground. Civilians are being targeted.
There is no safe place for anyone to go as their homes, mosques, schools, marketplaces, and hospitals have been targeted; even UN refuges have been under attack.
About 300 children, 200 women and 12 relief workers have been killed during the last few days.
In an attempt to confront this crisis, many international and Islamic relief organizations have organized aid campaigns to provide medical and food supplies, to help the people of Gaza survive.
It is definitely time to lend a helping hand to our brothers and sisters in Gaza, and remember that the least support can make a difference in the lives of these innocent people.
Posted by FDR43 at 01/09/2009 @ 2:27pm
There's no 180 here. The Bush Administration darn well knew in advance that a UN call for a ceasefire would be rejected by both Israel and Hamas. The abstention is no reversal, its simply an attempt to save face in the teeth of a deteriorating public image. The damage is already done in any case. Bush - and Obama - stood idly by while the Nazis reduced the Warsaw Ghetto. The gesture is meaningless and certainly no policy change. The importance of policy comes at the front end of such developments. Caught red handed, The Washington Post - always the propaganda arm of the political establishment - is simply trying to wipe egg off its face. The world hasn't taken too well to the aggression and there are worldwide customers to mollify.
Posted by john lowell at 01/09/2009 @ 2:34pm
The resolution is meaningless and Bush and Condi both knew that.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/09/2009 @ 2:37pm
Wait a minute, LVLIB....did you say that UN resolutions were meaningless?!??!?!?
Very interesting. Keep that in mind next time you (or others) BITCH about "all those anti-Semitic UN resolutions against poor Israel"....if they're meaningless, then you got nothing to complain about.
If they DO hold some indication of the UN's "bias"....then Bush and Condi just let one go through with a tacit wink and nod.
Uh-oh, sounds a bit contradictory..."UN attacks Israel with numerous resolutions"...."UN resolutions are meaningless, therefore no harm-no foul by Dubya"?!?!???!??
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2009 @ 3:08pm
Posted by FDR43 at 01/09/2009 @ 1:33pm
Well, I would hope there would be something "in between"
(A) Starve the Israelis into submission to peace plan (rykart)
and (B) Let the Israeli make a parking lot of Gaza and the West Bank (just before putting up their own condos, of course) (lvliberty).
Call me wacky.
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2009 @ 3:10pm
The dem party is nothing but a tool for the zionist control of our political system.it is time to change the name of this party and call it the new knesset party.as for mr Obama everyone knows that without the money from powerful jews he would not be going to the white house.
Posted by excalibur999 at 01/09/2009 @ 3:15pm
(Okay, not SJCHER, he still has to wait an hour or two for Rush to "explain it" to him.)
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2009 @ 11:21am
What will they say indeed. Morever, what will Emile have to say, though he's not a W backer he apparently sides Liverbrains on this one.....evidently Ryker got to W somewhow! LOL
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/09/2009 @ 3:24pm
What dreyfus and others like him tend to ignore is the role of most american jews who are solidly behind this orgy of killing and destruction.all we have to do is to listen to those who represent the jewish communities in this country .so where are these "liberal" and "humanitarian" jews?what more do they want to be done?how many more palestinaian kids need to be blown to bits and pieces before they raise their voices?where is spielberg,streisand,rabbi lerner and low life elie wiesel who does not even acknowledge the existence of a people called palestinians?
Posted by excalibur999 at 01/09/2009 @ 3:24pm
The question is, why do we (almost always) give Israel whatever it wants from us?
Posted by FDR43 at 01/09/2009 @ 1:25pm
Yep, and Israel was probably ready to pull out of there anyway. They inflicted the damage they set out to do, and now have an out card thanks to the White House.
Also, remember that Obama becomes president on the 20th which means they this will a done deal before he takes office.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/09/2009 @ 3:28pm
Posted by excalibur999 at 01/09/2009 @ 3:24pm
Okay, see THIS is where it does drift into anti-Semitism.
Kind of easy to spot, it's where the plurality of attacks mention "jews" and "jewish", rather than "Israel" or even "AIPAC".
Yes...there ARE anti-Semites out there. But just as excalibur isn't correct in his blanket assessments (otherwise known as bigotry)....neither is it right to say that ANY criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism.
Like the conflict itself, it's tough line to draw....but it can be drawn.
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2009 @ 3:35pm
<i>Posted by balder at 01/09/2009 @ 1:49pm </i>
"Tell me, 'friend,' when did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?"
Posted by Thrawn at 01/09/2009 @ 3:44pm
As the Brits would say, "These chaps, the Israelites, are really loony tunes? They are running a commercial asking for help accusing the Palestinians of wanting to run them into the sea. It looks like the other way around from here
Posted by julien38 at 01/09/2009 @ 4:00pm
The pro-holocaust Kansas City Jewish Chronicle recently fired a Jewish editor for publishing an article which stated the following:
"Never again" as a motto, rings hollow when it means "never again to us alone."
http://www.indcatholicnews.com/speech.html
Posted by mystic7 at 01/09/2009 @ 4:48pm
Mask: I agree. I am a Jew and I oppose Zionism, but I am NOT alone.
The Zionist movement was not only a heretical departure from Judaism...It was monstrously blind to the indigenous inhabitants of the Holy Land. In the 1890s, less than 5% of the Holy Land's population was Jewish, yet Theodor Herzl...described his movement as that of ‘a people without a land for a land without a people'...They have dispossessed thousands...and plunged the region into its never-ending spiral of bloodshed."The Zionist movement was not only a heretical departure from Judaism...It was monstrously blind to the indigenous inhabitants of the Holy Land. In the 1890s, less than 5% of the Holy Land's population was Jewish, yet Theodor Herzl...described his movement as that of ‘a people without a land for a land without a people'...They have dispossessed thousands...and plunged the region into its never-ending spiral of bloodshed." http://www.wrmea.org/archives/December_2008/0812054.html
Posted by mystic7 at 01/09/2009 @ 5:01pm
Mask
you are using the anti semitism card to exonerate the jewish community in this counntry from their responsibilities in regard to the persecution of palestinian people.do not forget that aipac and other jewish fascist orgs are actively supported by money from jewish community.i still say that the american jews must bear a great degree of responsibility for this crime.once again i,m going to ask the same question.where are these so called "concerned liberal democracy loving" jews?where are they?beside chomsky,falk and finklestein i have not heard much from these "liberals".in all honesty i can care less if someone labels me as anti semite.great writers and journalists in the world are accused of being anti semites simply because they exposed the criminal and nazi-like behavior of israel.an honourable journalist like robert fisk has been accused great many times and even one of you famous "liberal" actors john malkovich threatened to shoot him after accusing him of hating jews.
fREE PALESTINE
Posted by excalibur999 at 01/09/2009 @ 5:03pm
Mr. Dreyfuss,
It is not my intention to preempt you, but bad news is not limited to the appointment Dennis Ross as Obama's special envoy to the Middle East. It is also Ross' partner, the second Zionist Richard Holbrooke, who will be Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan/Pakistan. If you couple that with Hilary Clinton's newly appointed assistants; the Zionists James Steinberg and Jacob Lew the circle of Zionist control over America's foreign policy is near complete. Adding to the above assortment, the Israeli/American Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and the new advisor Richard Haas. This will, certainly, make the Zionist stranglehold on American foreign policy total.
Those who harbor hope for peaceful Middle East, or for less American blood in the Middle East better bid goodbye to such unrealistic expectations. America has lost control over its foreign policy and over its National Interest. America is becoming a mere milking cow in the hands of a bunch of Israeli-Firsters who are willing to sacrifice American resources and blood for Israel. The pro Israeli money in our congressional elections is so huge, it will be more fitting to move our Congress to Tel Aviv. It is from there member of congress can better serve their masters
Posted by CripThink at 01/09/2009 @ 5:03pm
Comanchenation,
Maybe when Zionists like you stop following the Talmudic incitements to treat Gentiles like dirty subhuman, peace may have a chance. This inherited racism preached by some Jewish groups is clearly manifesting itself in the barbaric treatment of the Palestinians by the children of Zion. Those, whom you have referred to as "so-called Palestinians" have suffered the full load of your deep seated racism and contempt, because they don't share your chauvinistic narrow vision of the world. I would love to follow this with a stream of Talmudic recitations debasing the Gentiles of the world, just to illustrate a point. What is wrong with Palestinians carrying arms to fight their Israeli occupier. Pull out your Jewish settlements out their lands and cease your racist policy of starving them and they will stop fighting you.
Posted by CripThink at 01/09/2009 @ 7:06pm
Call me wacky. Posted by Mask at 01/09/2009 @ 3:10pm
archived.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2009 @ 7:25pm
LVL,
Well, I will reveal my sources since you asked:
1. Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel By Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky Pluto press; London, Sterling VA
2. Jewish History, Jewish religion By Israel Shahak Pluto press; London, Sterling VA
3. The Talmud Unmasked By Rev. I.B. Pranaitis
I can cite few more sources.
Posted by CripThink at 01/09/2009 @ 7:28pm
You might have more credibility if you didn't get all of your information from electronic intifada. Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/09/2009 @ 7:14pm
don't forget to watch the SEASON PREMIER OF 24!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2009 @ 7:28pm
larry,
simple questions.
what should the people of gaza do?
where should they live?
what name shall their place of residence bear?
who shall decide their laws?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2009 @ 8:05pm
Yea dude, I got hooked last year!
Posted by comanchenation at 01/09/2009 @ 7:51pm
rio,
you seem to profess a deep love of god.
i doubt god's path includes filling your cerebral hard drive with such pollution.
just thinkin..
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2009 @ 8:08pm
Aren't you really just another arms dealer trying shore up your marketplace?
Posted by comanchenation at 01/09/2009 @ 8:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
comanchenation,
Maybe I am, but I face up to the truth head on and I don't dance around the issue, you jerk.
Posted by CripThink at 01/09/2009 @ 8:15pm
the israeli monster is handed out a yearly sum of 10 billion dollars in direct aid by the US government because of Israeli lobby's pressures and manipulations.
if you distribute that among the 2600 Americans that were laid-off just this year, every one of them will get:
10 000 000 000 / 2600 = 3.8 million dollars.
What good is coming from Israel to the US.
Are you getting cheaper crude oil prices because of Israel and the instability it creates in the middle east? that cost you probably trillions of dollars or more to cover the surge of the oil prices that started with the Iraq war.
Are you better off now after spending 3 trillion dollars in direct and indirect costs fighting Israel's war in Iraq?
Will you be better off after you fight Israel's war in Iran?
Wake up, if you don't listen to your morality, listen to your pocket books.
Posted by stop_israeli_lobby_from_sucking_your_blood at 01/09/2009 @ 9:17pm
A report in the UK Guardian says Obama may be ready to talk to Hamas.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/08/barack-obama-gaza-hamas
This could mark a significant move out of the ideological dead end the US insists on for itself. Hussein Agha and Robert Malley have written a fine piece in the NY Review about how deeply the US has boxed itself in diplomatically and its failure over many administrations to productively mediate anything useful between Israelis and Palestinians to the point the US should leave mediation to others until it better understand the changes in the region and thje reasons for its own failures. Maybe, if the Obama administration can begin a move to recognize Middle Eastern reality it would be a useful shift and an understanding why it has failed over and over. Time will tell.
Apart from that, still don't get why US progressives continue to miss the point about Hamas and Hezbollah. What remains missing is any explanation why Hamas gains in legitimacy from the latest Israeli Palestinian war, and why it should be a negative to the US.
To repeat again, what continues lost is a coherent l context for the "success" of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Islamic Courts Movement and likely the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt should anything close to a democratic election take place there. It would help if US progressives could include what Palestinian secular progressives say all the time. Rami Khouri, for one, is a syndicated columnist, but somehow never finds himself here. Mustafa Barghouti is also widely published, but also never finds himself here. Why? Without being more inclusive, US progressives are as caught in the same dead end as mainstream US policy. What both miss is the Arabs and Palestinians. They both lack credibility.
Charlie M.
Posted by cmsandia at 01/09/2009 @ 10:20pm
"Those who harbor hope for peaceful Middle East, or for less American blood in the Middle East better bid goodbye to such unrealistic expectations. America has lost control over its foreign policy and over its National Interest. America is becoming a mere milking cow in the hands of a bunch of Israeli-Firsters who are willing to sacrifice American resources and blood for Israel. The pro Israeli money in our congressional elections is so huge, it will be more fitting to move our Congress to Tel Aviv. It is from there member of congress can better serve their masters" Posted by CripThink at 01/09/2009 @ 5:03pm
I think you are wrong. According to Michael Moore, Saudi Arabia owns all the politicians in the US.
By the way, cripthink, do you think Israel has a right to exist?
Posted by twillie at 01/09/2009 @ 10:49pm
I can't believe that the world stands by and watches the attrocities in Gaza. Innocent children killed, or having their limbs blown off or starving and standing among the bodies of their own dead mothers. It's absolutely sickening and heart wrenchng. I worry what this does to the psyche of the child who has seen such injusstice. The trauma clearly will continue even once the killing has stooped. Obama did mention several times that he would not serve the interest groups or the lobbyists.I challenge him to stand up to the "king of the hill", most powerful pro-israeli lobby group AIPAC and all the other PACs out there. I pray he has the corage and the decency to say Israel is wrong when they are worng. Condemn them when they deserve to be condemned. Somehow I feel that's all wishful thinking.
Posted by Muslim at 01/09/2009 @ 10:56pm
oops for the typos :o)
Posted by Muslim at 01/09/2009 @ 10:57pm
Posted by twillie at 01/09/2009 @ 10:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Why don't you ask the 740 Palestinians killed and 3300 wounded over the last 2 weeks in order to get Tzipi Livni elected if THEY had a right to exist!
Posted by syfriendly at 01/09/2009 @ 10:58pm
"Never again" as a motto, rings hollow when it means "never again to us alone."
Posted by mystic7 at 01/09/2009 @ 10:59pm
Can't ask them. They're not logged in. I'll ask you, too, sy. Does Israel have a right to exist?
Posted by twillie at 01/09/2009 @ 11:08pm
twillie: it has a right to exist if it can cease committing atrocities and obey international law, the same conditions imposed by the US/UN on Iraq in 2002.
Posted by syfriendly at 01/09/2009 @ 11:29pm
Posted by twillie at 01/09/2009 @ 11:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Under what conditions do so-called "rogue nations" have a right to exist, generally, in your opinion?
Posted by syfriendly at 01/09/2009 @ 11:30pm
Posted by twillie at 01/09/2009 @ 11:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Finally, twillie, I admit to you that I understand that the atrocities Israel is committing in Gaza have absolutely nothing to do with any "right to exist". The atrocities are being committed specifically because Livni and others currently in power in Israel (ie, in charge of the military) who are running for election in February were lagging substantially in Israel's domestic political polling until they launched this war against the Palestinian people and the Israeli military began committing these atrocities. In the US, we'd call it the king of "October surprises". Now the British and Israeli media run photos daily of Israelis standing on hilltops near the borders with Gaza, sipping beverages and watching calmly as the air strikes and explosions continue.
Hamas never represented any meaningful threat to Israel's "right to exist". Israel has a nuclear arsenal that could turn all of Gaza into a glass sheet in a matter of minutes if Israel's "right to exist" was ever threatened by Hamas. The "right to exist" is a rhetorical canard, a straw man, set up to protect Israel from having to acknowledge the reality of the crimes it is committing against Palestinians.
Besides, as President Carter wrote in Thursday's Washington Post, Hamas had already agreed to any broad agreement that Israel made with the Authority so long as it was put up at least in front of the Palestinian public as a referendum. All Hamas was seeking was a lifting of the blockades the Israeli military imposed on Gaza. As Carter indicated, malnutrition in Gaza was like malnutrition in sub-Saharan Africa.
So enough with the "right to exist" manufactured political distraction, please.
Posted by syfriendly at 01/09/2009 @ 11:36pm
It has been reported in the Australian Press and WP that Neither Hamas nor Israel intend to abide by the UN resolution. (Liberty's reference?)
"JERUSALEM, Jan. 9 -- Hopes that diplomacy would end two weeks of fighting in the Gaza Strip were dashed Friday as both Israel and Hamas rejected international pleas for a truce and also backed away from a French-Egyptian plan to end the war."
WP. (interesting to note this item is kept relatively low key in the WP because it undercuts Diehl';s "wishful thinking" analysis. The idea that Hamas will gain politically if more Palestinians are killed doesn't say much about the intelligence of the Palestinians who are but dispensable pawns in Hamas's game).
You will also find in the WP that even an Egyptian human rights advocate doesn't want any Palestinians to be allowed into Egypt. (not very nice sort of people to have in one's country is the excuse, so it seems).
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2009 @ 11:38pm
I think you are wrong. According to Michael Moore, Saudi Arabia owns all the politicians in the US.
By the way, cripthink, do you think Israel has a right to exist?
Posted by twillie at 01/09/2009 @ 10:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
twillie,
Oh sure, the Saudis own our Politicians. Obama has just named Dennis Ross Iben Saud and Richard Holbrooke Iben Faisal and Richard Haas Abu Mohammad to be in Charge of his Middle East policy. While our future Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton has just named James Steinberg Iben Mahmud and Jacob Lew Iben Sultan as her Principal assistants on the Middle East. It was also reported that Martin Indyk Iben Aziz is lining up for the next vacancy at the State Department. There are such shortages of Zionists-for-hire in Washington as we speak, that we may draft Benjamin Netanyahu to be our next Homeland Security Chief. But I do appreciate your hint, you almost fooled us.
Do I think that Israel has the right to exist? Good question, but you have to tell me which Israel first. Do you want to keep all the stolen Palestinian lands, keep the Apartheid wall in the West Bank, all the Jewish settlements, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights? What do you think twillie?
Posted by CripThink at 01/09/2009 @ 11:42pm
Hey twillie,
Do the Palestinians have a right to exist? They're the ones being kept in open-air concentration camps under a hail of bombs, missiles, and artillery, while tanks and machine-gun crews roam their fractured dirty streets killing them at will.
What Israel is attacking is not Hamas, but the Palestinians and THEIR right to exist. Let's get some unavoidable facts clear here at once:
1) The current atrocities are part of an evil and cynical ploy by figures running for election in Israel to get elected at all costs.
2) Hamas was democratically elected in an internationally monitored election.
3) Israel responded to this election by breaking off contact with the Palestinian authority and sending soldiers into the West Bank and Gaza to kidnap a good number of the elected Hamas officials.
4) Israel foments civil war in the Palestinian Authority, by pretending Fatah won, when they lost.
5) When Fatah and Hamas broke and the PA collapsed, leaving Hamas with Gaza, Israel immediately pushed crushing sanctions against Gaza, starving the people there in an attempt to get them to attack their own government.
6) After several months of this starvation, Israel broke a cease-fire by militarily attacking Hamas within Gaza without provocation.
7) The number of people killed by rockets from Gaza since 2001 is 20.
8) With the election imminent, and lagging in the polls, Israel's PM, DM, and FM together orchestrated a vicious and brutally criminal, murderous war against Gaza which is shocking the conscience of the civilized world.
And here come Israel's supporters, spouting this canard about Israel's "right to exist" somehow being threatened, as if some bearded gunmen with homemade bombs and rockets is a threat to a nuclear-armed modern military machine.
Posted by syfriendly at 01/09/2009 @ 11:47pm
Hey twillie,
Did the Apartheid regime in South Africa have "right to exist"?
Posted by syfriendly at 01/09/2009 @ 11:47pm
Hey twillie,
If you want to ask me "does Israel have a right to exist?", can you at least tell me what the borders of Israel are?
Posted by syfriendly at 01/09/2009 @ 11:52pm
Certainly took a lot to get a resolution to make Israel back off. It need only look in the mirror as to why this has happened. Its refusal to seriously consider the Arab League proposals to return to the '67 borders are clear indication of what Israel wants, more land. Second, it's backing of an attempted overthrow of Hamas by Fatah failed (ostensibly backed by the US which called for elections and then when the results weren't to Bushco's liking they decided to back the power play which Fatah lost in Gaza). Third, Israel doesn't even try to deal with Hamas (same with the US, which does what AIPAC wants afterall) and puts in a blockade, breaks the ceasefire BEFORE the rocket attacks by killing senior Hamas members and then cries foul when the rocket attacks (fired off as a show of defiance more than anything) took place. There's a reason why most of the planet doesn't agree with anything Israel does. It's not anti-Semitism (although that charge is used to silence dissent in the US even when it's Jewish American critics), but rather the behavior of a rogue state that has never tried to get along with her neighbors without concessions from them. The Dems are showing why they were out of power for so long, Americans sense their weakness. The GOP ram their views through, while the Dems tread carefully trying to do the impossible, please everyone. In this case, most of all, AIPAC. Why not choose J-Street, the new progressive Jewish American lobby? Well, for starters, they don't play the type of hardball AIPAC does. Nor can they yet muster propagandists like Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk (who got slammed by Finkelstein on Democracy Now yesterday). This is the reality of the conflict that the MSM ignores at OUR peril.
Posted by nukemind at 01/10/2009 @ 02:11am
Last night I was watching Oberman. I saw a commercial extolling us to "support Israel" by giving money to help them from the "devastation" they are suffering from.
Posted by FDR43
I also saw this commercial. I thought it was extremely weird. It's the first time I can recall a war being advertised.
I really didn't pay attention too much, I was busy doing something. But, I remember thinking to myself "this is so Goddamn weird."
Posted by koroviev at 01/10/2009 @ 03:32am
Are You A Israel/Palestine Fringer?
Easy quiz (Applies to BOTH sides of the Fringe)-
1. Do you cite the word "Jewish" more than the word "Israeli"?
2. Do you cite the words "God's plan" more than "UN resolution/partition"?
3. Do you think all of Israel should go back to the Palestinians?
4. Do you think Gaza and the West Bank (possibly more) should go back to Israel?
5. Do you think AIPAC runs the Democratic Party?
6. Do you think the Democratic Party wants to endanger Israel?
7. Do you believe there has NEVER been a truly terrorist act from the Palestinians?
8. Do you believe there has NEVER been a truly oppressive act from the Israelis?
and finally
9. Do you think "action" not negotiation will 'settle it'?
Posted by Mask at 01/10/2009 @ 09:36am
by comanchenation at 01/09/2009
COMMANCHE: Once again, got to ask you: Do you believe in Jefferson -- or ultra-con Warren Jeffs? __ Jefferson __ Jeffs
Wikipedia: "Warren Steed Jeffs (born December 3, 1955) was the leader of a denomination known as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS Church) from 2002 to 2007.[3] Jeffs' position in this organization was reportedly that of absolute ruler.
Jeffs gained international notoriety in May 2006 when he was placed on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution on Utah state charges related to his alleged arrangement of extralegal marriages between his adult male followers and underage girls. He was arrested in August 2006 in Nevada, and agreed to be taken to Utah for trial. In May and July 2007 the State of Arizona charged him with eight additional counts--including sexual conduct with minors and incest--in two separate cases.[4] His trial, which began early in September 2007 in St. George, Utah, lasted less than a month, and on September 25 the verdict was read declaring him guilty of two counts of rape as an accomplice.[5] On November 20, 2007 he was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years to life and has begun serving his sentence at the Utah State Prison.[6]
Jeffs is the son of Rulon T. Jeffs. His father, the leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at his death, was survived by 19 or 20 wives and has about 60 children.[9]
Warren Jeffs' official title in the FLDS Church was "President and Prophet, Seer and Revelator"... Jeffs was a counselor to his father Rulon Jeffs when the elder Jeffs held these leadership positions; upon the death of Rulon Jeffs in 2002, Warren Jeffs succeeded him and became FLDS Church leader.[10]"
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/10/2009 @ 11:44am
COMMANCHENATION is thoroughly un-comprehending of, and therefore deeply alienated from, the American tradition in which the poetic liberalism of a Thomas Jefferson is elevated. Instead of favoring the pluralistic (liberal) public square and public education that are cornerstones of America, COMMANCHENATION is a would-be storm trooper for religionist purity and the hideous world of the enclosed compound.
In short, COMMANCHE is the kind of rightwing social waste that allows the sickening likes of ultra-conservative whack-job criminals like WARREN JEFFS to impliment their grim regimes within the compound walls.
More on COMMANCHE's figurehead, the rightist's rightist, WARREN JEFFS from Wikipedia:
"One of Jeffs' statements after his father's death was directed at high-ranking officials in the church: "I won't say much, but I will say this--hands off my father's wives." Then addressing the recent widows, he said, "You women will live as if father is still alive and in the next room." Within a week, Warren had married all but two of his father's several dozen wives.[11] After this, he continued to marry more women, many of whom were close relatives. Because of his claimed descent from Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith, Jeffs has taught that his marriages are necessary to preserve sacred bloodlines...
Jeffs, the sole individual in the church who could perform marriages, was responsible for assigning wives to husbands. Jeffs also had the ability to punish men by "reassigning their wives, children and homes to another man."[12]...
In 2000, the Colorado City Unified School District had more than 1200 students enrolled. When Jeffs ordered FLDS Church members to remove their children from public schools, the enrollment decreased to around 250."
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/10/2009 @ 11:54am
To Mask,
No denying both sides have committed violence, BUT the wording of one of your statements "Does AIPAC run the Democratic party" does not make sense and it is not a fringe view. Here's why. First, AIPAC does not figuratively run the Democratic party, they influence and do shape its Mideast policy views (ALL of them) to the point that they do dictate the decisions made there. AIPAC supported the Iraq war for example and lobbied strongly for it. Hillary meets with and is tied to AIPAC and has publicly stated that she supports all of their positions (feels like some kind of 'control' to me). Martin Indyk is a lying propagandist (and go watch Democracy Now and watch Finkelstein rip him a new one) and a Hillary adviser. Harry Reid backed the AIPAC position as did Pelosi. Obama and McCain, while both claiming to not be beholden to special interests, paid homage to one as if it didn't count, AIPAC. AIPAC does not run the Democratic party, it dictates the policies the Dems have towards the Mideast. Period. I dunno how much more evidence one needs to come to this realization.
Posted by nukemind at 01/10/2009 @ 12:00pm
Posted by nukemind at 01/10/2009 @ 12:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person
It seems clear from the last Senate vote on the Israeli action (basically unanimous) that whatever the mechanism, the famous Israel lobby certainly dictates the US positions on issues of real importance to Israel.
Posted by syfriendly at 01/10/2009 @ 12:04pm
Posted by syfriendly at 01/10/2009 @ 12:04pm
It seems clear from the last Senate vote on the Israeli action (basically unanimous) that whatever the mechanism, the famous Israel lobby certainly dictates the US positions on issues of real importance to Israel.
It absolutely does. It has a mechanism in place with its various 'sister' organizations which work in concert to exert influence and an army ready to go out and denounce dissenters as anti-Semites (such as the baleful Alan Dershowitz, also slammed by Finkelstein on a separate occasion). If they can use this charge against Jimmy Carter (for ostensibly taking a very soft position I might add as he denounces violence on both sides all the time) who has brought more peace to Israel than anyone, then they are indeed an effective lobby on par with the NRA. While their lobbying is 'legal', AIPAC has proven to be an unethical organization that backs the hard right in Israel as well. Then there are spy charges against the organization and its affiliates. Along with the Christian right, neocons, and 'mainstream' thinktanks all backing the Israel lobby, we have an openly powerful organization that dictates our policies in the Mideast. Furthermore, this is also why our name has been dragged through the mud and for what? So Israel can have Arab East Jerusalem and annex settlements with water in the West Bank and continue to illegally occupy the Palestinians? If they want sympathy from the majority of us in this world, they need to accept the Arab League proposals.
Posted by nukemind at 01/10/2009 @ 12:33pm
<i>Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/10/2009 @ 11:54am </i>
Just for the record...Jeffs is comanche's "figurehead"...because?
Posted by Thrawn at 01/10/2009 @ 1:30pm
While the world focused on Hamas militants launching rockets from Gaza at southern Israel, the terrorist organization also voted quietly to implement Islamic law in the Gaza Strip, including crucifixion of Christians, according to reports in the Arabic press.
Posted by comanchenation at 01/09/2009 @ 6:55pm I'm no fan of Hamas, but please share your sources with us, comanchenation, regarding crucifixion in sharia law.
Additionally, when you copy/paste unresearched fear and hate propaganda from the internet, at least use quotations and mention your sources so we are able to tell where the ignorance oozes from.
The text you copied has more to do with inciting fear of Islam than anything else. Stop flooding the forums with hate and just post a link to trash talk you wish to share with TN readers.
Posted by fundamental at 01/10/2009 @ 2:06pm
Perhaps you can name another country in the world where the world demands they share their capital with someone else?
Should we be required to share DC with Canada?
How about requiring France or Germany to share capitals with Belgium or Luxemburg?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/10/2009 @ 2:17pm
Jewish West Jerusalem CAN be their capital. Arab East Jerusalem is occupied territory taken in 1967 and thus is NOT part of their capital or Israel for that matter (except in their own warped perception). Just because Israel thinks they are one city (in the sense of being 'theirs') does not make it so, at least according to international law. Jerusalem can be shared as an international city (which I doubt either side really wants) or for practical purposes can be 'divided'.
And for the record, Berlin used to be divided, although West Germany decided to govern from Bonn. The Germans decided to re-unite and make it one capital. Now if Israel and the Palestinians want one state together, then Jerusalem can indeed by THEIR capital as in both peoples. Obviously, this is unlikely.
Analogies are not always useful since DC is nowhere near Canada and is not part of disputed (and occupied) territory. Nor is Paris, Berlin or Brussels anywhere near each other or of a similar circumstance. If you want to make a point, try finding an ACTUAL parallel.
Posted by nukemind at 01/10/2009 @ 2:44pm
lvliberty1,
Who gave Israel the right to all Jerusalem as its sole capital, is this Biblical Grand Deed you are claiming? Has God placed his seal on that deed?
As far as I know, the United Nations has granted West Jerusalem only to Israel. And with the exception of Costa Rica, no other nation has recognized East Jerusalem as part of Israel; not even Israel's colony the USA.
Posted by CripThink at 01/10/2009 @ 4:29pm
"Just for the record...Jeffs is comanche's "figurehead"...because?"
Posted by Thrawn at 01/10/2009 @ 1:30pm
THRAWN,
WARREN JEFFS is RIO-COMMANCHE's figurehead because...since COMMANCHE announced himself as an unreformed Koreshite in 2006, he has been asked on dozen of occasions what he thinks of WARREN JEFFS. On every single occasion he has been asked, COMMANCHE has failed to opine about JEFFS even when replying to posts that have directly indicted him for JEFFSISM.
On the basis of years of failing to say "No!" to JEFFS and "yes!" to JEFFERSON (Tom not Bill), one can logically conclude that it is because COMMANCHE in fact endorses the concept of the compound with a Maximum Leader who arrogates rights up to and including ploygamy and abusing minors. I can think of no other conclusion to draw. Can you?
It would be easy for COMMANCHE to say, when he has been all but begged to do so pointblank, that "WARREN JEFFS is an utter rightwing freak and a heinous criminal". COMMANCHE refuses to do so and, on these grounds, one can only assume that he finds worthwhile aspects in the Koresh-Jeffs theology of the compound.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/10/2009 @ 5:33pm
Israel's colony the USA. Hardly. Sharon travels to the US to dissuade us from going to Iraq, when it appears plainly otherwise they remain silent so as to suggest tacit acceptance, and yet still the conspiracy theory with very suspect history endures.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/10/2009 @ 5:37pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/10/2009 @ 2:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The UN partition plan, which is what the 19th century Zionists sought from the British and the Four Great Powers, stipulated a shared capital under international administration.
Given that, in reality, the ability of the Western World to make any decisions at all regarding Palestine stemmed from the recent British conquest of Palestine, and subsequent military occupation as a foreign conquering power ruling by guns over a disenfranchised population of subjects.
Posted by syfriendly at 01/10/2009 @ 5:47pm
Should we be required to share DC with Canada?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/10/2009 @ 2:17pm
uh, no thanks.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/10/2009 @ 6:05pm
HA!
Obama to visit Canada first
JOHN GRESS/REUTERS
Barack Obama will make Canada his first official foreign visit soon after he becomes U.S. President, Canadian officials say.
HA!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/10/2009 @ 6:09pm
hey, look. it's a terrorist factory:
Thousands in Europe, Lebanon protest Gaza violence By DAVID RISING – 43 minutes ago
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/10/2009 @ 6:11pm
"Under what conditions do so-called "rogue nations" have a right to exist, generally, in your opinion?" Posted by syfriendly at 01/09/2009 @ 11:30pm
Beats me. what the hell is a "rogue nation"? A nation that does something YOU disagree with?
Posted by twillie at 01/10/2009 @ 6:15pm
Hey twillie, Do the Palestinians have a right to exist?
twillie: it has a right to exist if it can cease committing atrocities and obey international law, the same conditions imposed by the US/UN on Iraq in 2002. Posted by syfriendly at 01/09/2009 @ 11:29pm
1. You betcha. But not the guys firing rockets into Israel.
2. It was a yes-or-no question. Do YOU think Israel has a right to exist? Never mind the conditions you want to impose.
Posted by twillie at 01/10/2009 @ 6:21pm
Hey twillie, Did the Apartheid regime in South Africa have "right to exist"? Posted by syfriendly at 01/09/2009 @ 11:47pm
Do you understand the difference between a particular government, and a country?
Does Israel have a right to exist? Yes or no?
Posted by twillie at 01/10/2009 @ 6:24pm
Hey twillie, If you want to ask me "does Israel have a right to exist?", can you at least tell me what the borders of Israel are? Posted by syfriendly at 01/09/2009 @ 11:52pm
Yes. Does Israel have a right to exist, sy?
Posted by twillie at 01/10/2009 @ 6:26pm
"Do I think that Israel has the right to exist? Good question, but you have to tell me which Israel first. Do you want to keep all the stolen Palestinian lands, keep the Apartheid wall in the West Bank, all the Jewish settlements, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights? What do you think twillie?" Posted by CripThink at 01/09/2009 @ 11:42pm
I asked you first. And it was a simple yes-or-no question. Does Israel have a right to exist, cripthink? Yes or no?
Posted by twillie at 01/10/2009 @ 6:32pm
Posted by twillie at 01/10/2009 @ 6:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I answered your question 3 different ways above. In the last comment, which you repeat above, you miss the point entirely. "Does Israel have a right to exist?"
Well, since you didn't catch on, I'll make it more explicit. Placing aside the fact that the slaughter in Gaza has absolutely nothing to do with Israel's "right to exist" - Hamas is no threat to Israel, a nuclear-armed rogue nation with a modern military machine that could turn into Gaza into a flaming slab of molten glass in less than an hour if Israel's existence was ever actually threatened - I asked you "what are the borders of Israel?" in the third reply.
This is actually an open dispute, in case you haven't noticed, a source of controversy. Not even the head of state of Israel can identify for the public Israel's borders. That is because Israel is militarily occupying and colonizing (by force) land it never had any right to whatsoever, assuming a 1948 UN diktat backed by the force of a Western European Zionist army using British and American military weapons, was legitimate to begin with.
Does Israel have a right to claim all the land to the Litani river (look it up since you don't know why that is relevant)? Does Israel have a right to exist on the West Bank as an apartheid nation on land it simply took by force? Does Israel have a "right to exist" outside of what legal charters define it? It is currently in violation of those legal charters, charters which, incidentally, the people who lived on the land in majority before the Zionist army hit shore never had any say in.
Not that any of this has anything to do with the slaughter in Gaza today, which is about the February election in Israel.
Posted by syfriendly at 01/10/2009 @ 6:42pm
I asked you first. And it was a simple yes-or-no question. Does Israel have a right to exist, cripthink? Yes or no?
Posted by twillie at 01/10/2009
twillie,
The existence of Israel as an occupying racist power is a judgment for history to make; it is not mine. History has never been kind to States that practice racism and Apartheid; they normally collapse from within. Look what happened to the Apartheid entity of South Africa; it collapsed from within. Israel is an entity which thrives on religious purity and the superiority of the Jewish race as the Chosen Race. This type of ideology existed in flashes in modern history and disappeared fast in disgrace; examples of such entities are Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Mistreatment of Palestinians in Israel is engrained in draconian web of Talmudic laws which denigrate other races and hold them in contempt. The horrifying atrocity committed by the Israeli soldiers against civilians in Gaza is the byproduct of these Talmudic laws ingrained in these soldiers.
Posted by CripThink at 01/10/2009 @ 7:07pm
Why did it take Bush et al. 15 days to decry the senseless inhumanity of Israel's military action? This 180 is meaningless in light of eight years of ignoring Israeli apartheid policies.
Posted by galderink at 01/10/2009 @ 8:13pm
Posted by syfriendly at 01/10/2009 @ 6:42pm
It's a simple yes-or-no question, sy. No need to write 2 or three paragraphs. Just answer YES or NO. Does Israel have a right to exist?
Posted by twillie at 01/10/2009 @ 9:09pm
The existence of Israel as an occupying racist power is a judgment for history to make; it is not mine. History has never been kind to States that practice racism and Apartheid; they normally collapse from within. Look what happened to the Apartheid entity of South Africa; it collapsed from within. Israel is an entity which thrives on religious purity and the superiority of the Jewish race as the Chosen Race. This type of ideology existed in flashes in modern history and disappeared fast in disgrace; examples of such entities are Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Mistreatment of Palestinians in Israel is engrained in draconian web of Talmudic laws which denigrate other races and hold them in contempt. The horrifying atrocity committed by the Israeli soldiers against civilians in Gaza is the byproduct of these Talmudic laws ingrained in these soldiers. Posted by CripThink at 01/10/2009 @ 7:07pm
You, too, cripthink. It's a simple yes-or-no question. Do YOU think Israel has a right to exist? YES or NO?
Posted by twillie at 01/10/2009 @ 9:12pm
Eating humble pie, Palestine-style, Secretary of State Condi Rice -- who had earlier parroted the White House line that any ceasefire would have to be "sustainable and durable" and not a return to the "status quo" -- now says:
Who cares what Condi says? A bad liar, she wouldn't know from humble pie. She spews a lot of excrement, though
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 01/10/2009 @ 10:02pm
<i>Israel is an entity which thrives on religious purity and the superiority of the Jewish race as the Chosen Race... Mistreatment of Palestinians in Israel is engrained in draconian web of Talmudic laws which denigrate other races and hold them in contempt. The horrifying atrocity committed by the Israeli soldiers against civilians in Gaza is the byproduct of these Talmudic laws ingrained in these soldiers. Posted by CripThink at 01/10/2009 @ 7:07pm </i>
Right off the top, there is no such thing as a "Jewish race." Let's get that out of the way. Additionally...would you care to justify the extremely broad claims you're making about this supposed ideology that drives Israel? Do they believe that God has appeared to them in a unique way? Probably, yeah. Does that mean they see others as subhuman? I suggest you try and warrant that JUST a bit better...
Posted by Thrawn at 01/10/2009 @ 10:04pm
It's a simple yes-or-no question, sy. No need to write 2 or three paragraphs. Just answer YES or NO. Does Israel have a right to exist? Posted by twillie at 01/10/2009 @ 9:09pm
Not at this rate, I'm afraid. The Jews (at least most of the people I'm familiar with, like my son) on the other hand...
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 01/10/2009 @ 10:09pm
Now ask me if the U.S. has a "right to exist." Let me ponder...
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 01/10/2009 @ 10:11pm
OK, Pax.
1. Does Israel have a right to exist?
2. Does the US have a right to exist?
Again, a simple YES OR NO will suffice.
Why is this so hard? What is so f**king hard about a simple yes or no? Is English a second, third or fourth language for you cripthink, sy, and Pax?
Posted by twillie at 01/10/2009 @ 11:59pm
y'know, I'm really worked up over this crap and I went to the kitchen to toast a bagel with cream cheese and when I cut the bagel I stabbed the thumby flesh of my pickin' hand and it's still bleeding and I might need to go to the local ER for a stitch and I realized that I'm one lucky ass human
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 01/11/2009 @ 12:00am
Direct pressure and elevation. And get a bagel slicer.
Posted by twillie at 01/11/2009 @ 12:36am
Who am I to judge, twillie?
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 01/11/2009 @ 12:36am
Thrawn,
I will quote from Jewish sources to show that discrimination against non-Jews is engrained in the Israeli psyche. This discrimination is largely responsible for the cruel treatment of Palestinians by Israelis.
I will be quoting from the "Hatanya" which is the fundamental book of the Habbad Movement, one of the most important branches of Hassidism. According to this book:
"All non-Jews are satanic creatures, in whom there is absolutely nothing good. Even a non-Jewish embryo is qualitatively different from a Jewish one. The existence of non-Jew is essential whereas all creation was created solely for the sake of the Jews".
In Israel, these ideas are widely disseminated among the public at large; in the schools and Army. According to the testimony of Shulamit Aloni, member of the Israeli Knesset, this Habbad propaganda was particularly stepped up before the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in order to induce military doctors and nurses to withhold medical help from wounded Gentiles.
In the version of the Talmudic Omissions book (Material of obscenities about Gentiles) book, which was published in Israel recently under the title: Hesronot Shas. Jewish children are actually taught what to say when passing near a cemetery. It instructs the children to utter a blessing if the cemetery is Jewish, but to curse the mothers of the dead if it is non-Jewish.
Now, I am almost hearing your cry of Anti-Semitism, but these are all referenced sources and I can recite hundreds more. So just remember, if you live in a glass house, don't toss stones at others.
Posted by CripThink at 01/11/2009 @ 12:36am
I may not have a bagel slicer but I'm a born bullshit slicer. Sometimes it cuts both ways. Still bleeding, hand over head almost an hour
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 01/11/2009 @ 12:54am
So I'm driving myself to the hospital, and it sucks 'cause I have to work tomorrow to ensure a device will be ready to treat cancer patients first thing Monday but compared to the civilian enemies of "The State of Israel" or those poor Israelis under the Hamas gun I am very lucky. And it stinks.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 01/11/2009 @ 01:16am
<i>Posted by CripThink at 01/11/2009 @ 12:36am </i>
As much as I hate walking into an obvious trap, I do have to say that the argument you're making smells very much like propaganda. In fact (and I know you'll probably hate me for this one), this sounds very much in the vein used in the Protocols (a claimed set of agreed-upon religious doctrines that entail hatred of all non-Jews). Though that may not be enough to dismiss it on face, it should at least be enough to put it under a cloud of suspicion.
Lest you think this is simply dismissive, I'll not only say that I'm equally suspicious of the "crucifixion" stuff for the same reason, but also that I'll bolster my suspicion with actual arguments. I think there are four reasons why your argument fails (though they all boil down, more or less, to lack of evidence):
1) The quote seems to lack clear foundation. Outside of people citing Israel Shahak (who according to Emmanuel Ottolenghi also "described medieval Judaism according to the medieval canons of the blood libel"), I have been unable to find any source to warrant your claim. Granted, the fact that spellings tend to vary a bit may factor in, but still...this is surprisingly undocumented...
2) Even if the quote exists, it helps if we're actually supplied with the context, since I don't know that Hasidism regards every bit of content of its texts as infallible.
3) Even if this is "the book" of the Habbad movement, I don't see any evidence that this movement is representative of the entire Israeli political system (a claim your entire argument relies on).
4) I find NO evidence thus far for your claim that claims like the one in the quote were actually used to affect conduct in Lebanon.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/11/2009 @ 02:06am
I just want to add one other quick note (and would love to know, by the way, how you get so many characters in one post; for some reason, it won't let mine go that long)
I understand that my continuing demands for evidence may seem abusive in the context of a blog in which the capacity to thoroughly provide evidence and documentation is very limited.
However, I think this kind of argument is unique. In order to avoid the kind of sloppy generalizations and "rumor-spreading" that has historically allowed antisemitism to succeed, it's important that any claims be very carefully documented and conclusions not go beyond what the evidence allows.
That's also why I get a bit nervous when these kinds of arguments are being made on a blog like this, especially when they morph into broad generalizations and naked assertions. The blog format can certainly pervert political discussion on a lot of issues, and that's certainly something to consider across the board, but I think that becomes especially pernicious in an issue area where legitimately harsh criticism of Israel can sometimes be difficult to distinguish from antisemitism.
As I said, that's why so many of my responses in the last post come in the form of burdens. I don't mean to accuse you of being antisemitic (and no, quoting Jews isn't a complete defense to antisemitism), but I am wary of the arguments you provide because they parallel very closely a form of argument used to demonize Jews. It may be limited to a specific sect of Judaism, but it is no less disturbing for that. No religion or sect should be immune from criticism, but accusations of other-hatred should be made only on strong evidence that I have yet to see here.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/11/2009 @ 02:17am
Not that surprising.. the mission is accomplished.
This is about the US Military Junta, which seized power during the Dallas Coup of 1963, who is now using Israel to debut new Super Weapon technologies in the field. We're putting on a Super Weapon Side Show aimed at sending an ominous message to Russia, China, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran.
"Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian war surgery specialist working in Gaza, told The Times that he had seen injuries believed to have resulted from Israel's use of a new "dense inert metal explosive" that caused "extreme explosions". He said: "Those inside the perimeter of this weapon's power zone will be torn completely apart." the Times Online/UK
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein
Well, I know of five weapons with which WWIII is currently being fought- WHITE PHOSPHOROUS, DENSE METAL SUPER WEAPONS, NUCLEAR STICK UP, MISSILE DEFENSE, AND PROPAGANDA!!!!!
Posted by fakedemocracy at 01/11/2009 @ 03:29am
Thrawn,
When events on the ground support the text, then the matter becomes worthy of investigation. How could an army, the Israeli Army, shoots to kill thousands of children, just because they throw stones at the soldiers? It is documented that since the first Intifada (uprising) against the Israeli occupation begun in the Wes Bank and Gaza in 1987, the Israeli Army has killed 7000 Palestinians and wounded 50,000; mostly children; mostly stone throwers. There is a generation of Palestinians kids, the children of the intifada, who are permanently scared and disabled from this unprecedented atrocity. They lost eyes, limbs and body parts, just because they dared to stone their occupier. Kids in similar situations were considered legendry heroes when they did the same thing in Tiananmen Square as they stood to Chinese tanks; their pictures were on every major front page in America. However, we rarely hear about the children of the intifada. This is another illustration of the complicity of the US media in propagating the Israeli propaganda. I have seen documentaries where Israeli soldiers were literally breaking the bones of Palestinian kids in the West Bank with large rocks, purposely, because they threw stones at the soldiers. There must be considerable amount of deep-seated hatred, religious indoctrination for that Israeli soldier to shoot a child or break his bones, just because the kid threw a stone. This is what I was trying illustrate in my last posting. I will respond to your other points later.
Posted by CripThink at 01/11/2009 @ 03:57am
Posted by CripThink at 01/11/2009 @ 12:36am
I think I'm with Thrawn on this. I've read and heard a lot of this horse pucky over the years and it is totally at odds with my experiences living in an orthodox neighborhood. And let's leave the kids out of this.
BTW my mother told her young brat that if he didn't hold his breath while passing a cemetery some little piece of his body would be buried there when he died. Not wanting to be totally dismembered and flung to the four winds, it was not until I was 21 that I was able to breath driving past a cemetery. The foolish "teachings" of supposed adults! I would love to post a link to one of the Sandmonkey's entries during the fight with Hezbolla the other year, the one where the media told the kids to write on ordinance, gave them the magic markers and took pictures. Gives one a warm fuzzy feeling to know they have implacable foes. I would suggest everyone faces the same implacable foe. And it's not an Arab or a Jane or a Jew.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 01/11/2009 @ 06:50am
Hassidic proverb (as told to me by my neighbor): the road to heaven is paved with good intentions
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 01/11/2009 @ 07:42am
and the road to hell is paved with corpses....
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/11/2009 @ 09:05am
<i>Hassidic proverb (as told to me by my neighbor): the road to heaven is paved with good intentions
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 01/11/2009 @ 07:42am </i>
Huh; that's interesting. A bit of a reversal of the usual though(as I think frosty alludes to).
As for CripThink...I'll wait on the rest of your posts before responding so this can be a clear back-and-forth rather than muddled.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/11/2009 @ 10:24am
There's no doubt in my mind that BOTH sides are warped by this conflict. I have known many Israelis and dated one in fact back when I was an undergrad. Arabs are despised by many Israelis. The view is not unlike many people in this country towards Mexicans combined with the Old South view of African Americans. Israeli Arabs are regularly discriminated against (unofficially and legally) and politicians often call for their removal. The animus that much of the Arab world bears towards Israel has its mirror image in the Jewish state (and make no mistake it is that, just as Syria is an 'Arab' republic that also happens to have Kurds who are not Arabs). My point is that Israel proves itself to not be better than the neighborhood. While there is a progressive undercurrent in various aspects, it is still a chauvinistic society that lives in an apartheid state. It is this hypocrisy that is troublesome as we are led to believe in this country that Israel is a sound 'Western' democracy that just so happens to occupy another people for self-defense, which also includes denying them citizenship, taking their water and land, and destroying them when they try to resist. The chosen people nonsense is trotted out by both as well, except we only hear about the Palestinians. I do believe Hamas are fundamentalists and I don't agree with much of anything they have to say on governing and society, BUT they were elected AND they are being persecuted and attacked for resisting an illegal occupation. Israel has attacked and undermined them for not playing ball the way Fatah has, but has given them little choice. A blockade, targeted killings and no dialogue=provoked resistance. And we in the US have kept this conflict alive by backing the strong over the weak.
Posted by nukemind at 01/11/2009 @ 11:03am
Thrawn,
The Jewish settlers, the most religiously indoctrinated segment of the Israeli society, are known for their infamous raids to uproot olive trees in Palestinian neighborhoods in the West Bank. NBC Evening News reported few days ago, that the Israeli army prevented the dead and wounded civilians from being attended to. NBC quoted The International Red Cross about four Palestinian children who were found in near death of starvation and dehydration clinging to their dead mother's body for four days; while Israeli soldiers roaming around their bombed house and preventing aid from reaching them. This deep-seated hatred is the manifestation of the religious indoctrination of the Israeli society at large. These are some of hundred of documented religiously motivated atrocities against Palestinians in the occupied territories.
According to Israeli apologists, any thing that muddies the picture of Israel is Anti-Semitism and sheer fabrication. However, the same apologists will not hesitate in dumping all kind of unfounded sleazy dirt and falsehood on others, such as Catholics or Muslims, with impunity. The sources I quoted on Talmudic hostility to other religions are not mine; They written and researched by respected Jewish and Israeli scholars; here are some examples:
1. Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel By Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky Pluto press; London, Sterling VA
2. Jewish History, Jewish Religion By Israel Shahak Pluto press; London, Sterling VA
I invite readers to investigate these sources.
Posted by CripThink at 01/11/2009 @ 2:10pm
<i>Posted by CripThink at 01/11/2009 @ 2:10pm </i>
I agree with you that when people say anything that muddies the picture of Israel is antisemitism, that is an unfair use of the word. It trivializes the idea.
However, I am not entirely convinced that some this doesn't dip into it, and let me explain why and how. That Israeli soldiers did or did not do certain things is an objectively ascertainable fact, and seems to be verified by trustworthy sources.
What bothers me, though, is that your analysis seems to go even farther than that. You say, for instance, that the entire Israeli settler population is indoctrinated with certain extreme religious ideas. I'm inclined to regard this thesis as highly suspect because it resonates so neatly with the long tradition of antisemitic thought. And yes, I regard the same treatment of other groups in the same way.
Now, it's possible that a generalization about a specific group of people living right now could be proven, and it might be able to overcome what I think is a substantial burden of proof. The reason I question that, however, is that I question Israel Shahak's credentials here. There remain strong accusations that he has strongly distorted Jewish teachings (and has, as I said, "describ[ed] Judaism according to the medieval canons of the blood libel"). I also know of no Jewish rabbi who would make any of the claims you're describing; is the fundamentalism you're talking about supposed to be unique to Israel?
Posted by Thrawn at 01/11/2009 @ 5:25pm
Fakedemocracy,
I whole-heartily agree with your analysis, that Israel is using Gaza as a laboratory for testing the latest weapon of mass destruction.
One Palestinian doctor in Gaza spoke of treating some patient with severe repertory problems due to inhaling unidentified chemical substances. Some arrived dead to the hospital after being overcome by these unknown substances. The doctor also spoke of children who suffered from total collapse of their blood vessels, he could not identify the cause.
Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak are murdering Palestinian kids to invigorate their lackluster political careers. They have to stand an election against Netanyahu next month. Their success or failure will be contingent on how much Palestinian blood they will have at their hands; the more the better. There is an old saying in Israel: The Good Palestinian is the Dead Palestinian. This precisely the racist Zionist ideology I talked about in my past Postings; unless the victim is a Jew; then no one should shed a tear.
In one crowded hospital in Gaza, they brought in a man, his back and both legs were broken. He told the reporter interviewing him that the Israeli Army bombed the three story building he lived in with his family and relatives. His son and few of his relatives were killed. Then, some Israeli soldiers came to his second story living quarter, they tied his hands and blind-folded him. One soldier dragged him to the door of his apartment; the stairs were half-collapsed, then the soldier pushed him down. He landed on his back on the rubbles of his collapsed building on the ground. These war crimes rival those committed by the Nazis.
Posted by CripThink at 01/11/2009 @ 5:41pm
Thrawn,
Let us draw a distinction between what you don't like and what is not true. Just because you don't like something, it does not mean that it is not true.
Israel Shahak is an Israeli citizen and a Jew, he was a holocaust survivor. He was a Professor of Organic Chemistry at Tel Aviv University; I am not talking about Hassan Nasrullah here. Likewise, Norton Mezvinsky was a professor of History at Central Connecticut State University; a man with impeachable reputation.
Are you sure that you never heard a Jewish rabbi utters racist words? Well, let me ask you to review some of the infamous racist speeches of Rabbi Meir Kahane, as only one example.
As for the extremism of the Jewish settlers in the West Bank, I would want to ask you a simple question. Why a successful Jewish businessman would leave his comfortable life in Brookline, NY and go to steal a piece of land from a poor Palestinian peasant in the West Bank, unless he is ideologically and religiously motivated?
The Zionists ought to stop using guilt to mask their crimes against Palestinians. Having tragic past does not give one the right to inflict on others the same crimes that were once inflicted on him.
Posted by CripThink at 01/11/2009 @ 6:14pm
Lvl,
It does seem that truth is hurting you so much, that you have started to lose your composure. Go ahead start mumbling the traditional obscenities. I did not quote Islamic or Saudi sources, so don't start muddying facts; I quoted Jewish and Israeli sources. Go back and review what I said. Let me repeat, what I posted can be found on:
Chapter 2, Pages 23 and 27 "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" By Israel Shahak, Published by Pluto Press; London. Sterling, VA and not in Saudi Arabia.
By the way, professor Shahak is an Israeli Jew and a Holocaust survivor. He taught Organic Chemistry at Tel Aviv University.
Posted by CripThink at 01/11/2009 @ 8:32pm
lvl,
I almost forgot, do you want to know who is Rabbi Meir Kahana?
Posted by CripThink at 01/11/2009 @ 8:40pm
Two things:
1) Liberty just provided an alternative claim for the Tanya that has two advantages against Shahak. One, it's consistent with the rest of the Jewish scriptural tradition. The "remember you were strangers in the land of Israel" is replete throughout Jewish scripture, so it makes far more sense that this text wouldn't contradict that. Two, Liberty's interpretation bears no resemblance to the infamous "blood libel" (which Shahak is alleged to have supported, and which bears the same ignoble tradition as the form of accusation you're making here).
2) Liberty's already made clear that distorted information about the Jewish tradition is fairly common, so wide-scope accusations should probably be really suspect. Your position becomes much more difficult when you can't contend that truth and distortions have been completely sifted out from one another.
And again...as much as I hate to say this about someone who went through the living hell of the Holocaust, this author's pedigree and history is not sufficient reason to give him carte blanche based on accusations taken from a very untrustworthy tradition.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/11/2009 @ 8:50pm
lvl,
What do you think of Rabbi Meir Kahane?
Posted by CripThink at 01/11/2009 @ 9:33pm
Thrawn,
I take it that you are admitting that there, maybe, multiple versions of what is perceived to be the truth by some. And that all sides of the issue should be allowed to be freely presented to people, thus people can make an informed judgment. I have been monitoring your postings for a while, you, lvl, etc… and you were nothing but a mouthpiece of distortion for historic facts when it comes to the Israeli/Palestinian question. If lvlliberty1 is a true Holocaust survivor, then he should be the first to feel the pain inflicted by the Israelis on the Palestinian people. Why it is that the Palestinians have pay for what the German did to the Jews? Prof. Israel Shahak, in my view, was a Holocaust survivor with conscious; he refused to treat Palestinians the way the German treated him.
Posted by CripThink at 01/11/2009 @ 9:36pm
Posted by Thrawn at 01/11/2009 @ 5:25pm
Good post. But I imagine it's really some kind of modern *edge city* out there and it attracts a lot of strange types. Case in point: about 30 years ago I lived in a sort of boho community into which arrived a young rabbinical student, D, who was a very cool guy. We hung out a lot and partied a lot and in fact he showed me what he thought Hannukah really was which was getting together every night with good friends and lighting the candles and saying the prayers and singing and playing guitars and partying a lot and it was one of the coolest things I ever did. I don't know exactly how Jewish it was, but the last I heard he had married an Israeli girl and moved to the WB and slept with a gun under his bed! I couldn't believe it. Like an earlier friend who became a Moonie, sort of, I guess, but the polyanna in me wants to believe he is jamming with his Palestinian buddies cause that's the kind of dude I remember.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 01/11/2009 @ 9:43pm
<i>Posted by CripThink at 01/11/2009 @ 9:36pm</i>
Wait, where did Liberty claim he was a Holocaust survivor? It could just be me, but I missed that part. I also don't think I've been a "mouthpiece," especially since I've been willing to conceded the possibility of everything except the broad general claims you've been making which bear a disturbing resemblance to long-extant antisemitic arguments.
I want to make my point very clear. I am not saying that your claims about Israeli abuses are antisemitic, or even automatically incorrect. What I'm saying is that the broader generalizations you're making, especially the religious ones, are suspect claims from an individual whose own claims are somewhat in doubt.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/11/2009 @ 9:49pm
well...
israel needs to look at wrapping this thing up fairly soon.
i think they have a legit gripe and will NEVER get a break on the world stage as a whole in thiese things, but...
one thing's for sure...
the democratic party has to figure a way out of AIPAC's ass without going or appearing to go anti-demitic...
that sounds like a job for some independent minded, concerned, democratic jews to spearhead...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/11/2009 @ 11:09pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/11/2009 @ 11:37pm
So a MAN declared you "righteous", Larry?
Shall we cite some Bible quotes on that topic?
Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 09:00am
And I'm not Jewish nor a Holocaust survivor. but I have been declared by both Chabad and Haredi to be a "righteous gentile". An honor I take with deep humility and gratitude.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/11/2009 @ 11:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
well...not jewish neither...
but have been given permission to exchange jewish jokes with a jewish friend who is every bit as wicked as i...
how do you play the jewish defense in football? nickel and dime 'em til you get the quarterback...
ba dum dum psshhh.....
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/12/2009 @ 09:07am
Lvl,
It is refreshing to know that you are one of the Gentiles who devoted their being to the Israeli version of Armageddon. I bet that one of your role model is the late Jerry Fallwell, that God worrier who got most of his inspirations while flying the private Jet donated to him by the Israeli government. Mr. lvlliberty, if I may ask: How many Palestinian children should we slaughter in the way to God's Kingdom?
By the way, have your Chabad and Haredi friends agreed to see the light and convert after the establishment of the heavenly kingdom? Would they still call you "The Righteous Gentile" after they know what you have in the store for them?
Posted by CripThink at 01/12/2009 @ 10:29am
Posted by CripThink at 01/12/2009 @ 10:29am
Actually, Crip, LVLIB isn't a true-blue "End Timer".
He's just a "Israel should be 'Biblical Israel' with borders laid out by the League of Nations and that means they take back Gaza and the West Bank and the Pallies can lump it"....who are allies but not synonymous with the End Timers "Israel can do no wrong...except give up land" types.
Fine distinction, I grant.
Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 10:33am
THRAWN,
You asked:
"Just for the record...Jeffs is comanche's "figurehead"...because?...Posted by Thrawn at 01/10/2009 @ 1:30pm"
So, THRAWN, I am curious about your take on this reply from COMMANCHE:
"Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/10/2009 @ 5:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person
A clear cut case of stupid is as stupid does!!!
Posted by comanchenation at 01/12/2009 @ 12:30am"
Do you see the ringing denunciation of WARREN JEFFS from COMMANCHE? Perhaps it appears a clause in invisable ink?
As previously noted, this has been the pattern for several years. Not a peep of criticism toward WARREN JEFFS, as if that is the beachhead that, once breached, would cause COMMANCHE's world to collapse. One has to wonder whether COMMANCHE is organizing a WARREN JEFFS support group at this very moment to affirm the rightwing fundementalist's gawd-given right to polygmy and whoopee with minors in the self-appointed Holy Man's compound.
Anyway, ignorant and inbred rightwing social exhaust like COMMANCHE may wonder why more and more people are seeing the necessity of cleansing our society of thoroughly disgusting rightwing criminality. His failure to denounce thehideous crimes of WARREN JEFFS is a self-evidently rancid attempt to save face and change the topic. COMMANCHE's tolerance for, or even endorsement of, WARREN JEFFS speak loudly to the kind of creepy, semi-human creatures with whom no compromise can be made.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/12/2009 @ 11:11am
Ultimately though, as I mentioned, only Christ's goodness which is imputed to those who believe and trust in Him, is the only righteousness or goodness that matters.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/12/2009 @ 10:35am
which you obviously know noting about.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2009 @ 11:13am
"Would they still call you 'The Righteous Gentile' after they know what you have in the store for them?"
Posted by CripThink at 01/12/2009 @ 10:29am
CRIP,
Here, I take it that you are referring to LOVIE's oft-stated auto-affirmation of his own unimpeachably erect moral posture that dictates that he will be "riding" The Rapture like a horny teen on a skateboard...while his Jewish "friends" (among all the other non-believing dirtbags) get broiled?
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/12/2009 @ 11:19am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/12/2009 @ 10:35am
If I twist....let us quote you then--
"but I have been declared by both Chabad and Haredi to be a "righteous gentile". An honor I take with deep humility and gratitude."----Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/11/2009 @ 11:37pm
Now, explain why "righteous" doesn't mean "righteous" but something else.
Of course, I can see if it's confusing...
on one hand you have-
Romans 3:10-- "There is none righteous, no, not one."
on the other-
Luke 1:6 "They [Elisabeth and Zechariah] were both righteous before God, walking in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."
Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 11:58am
PhilMcCrevice,
Thanks, you hit the nail on the head. I was aware of the mythology, but the exact words escaped me. If Americans just knew, what is done in their names?
Posted by CripThink at 01/12/2009 @ 12:07pm
<i>Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/12/2009 @ 11:11am </i>
Wait, wait...let me see if I've got this right. You're saying that because comanche's never explicitly denounced Warren Jeffs, that he's therefore in the Warren Jeffs fan club? Is that your argument? Fair enough, though a bit disturbing for you because I've never once heard you denounce:
- Stalin - Mussolini - Vlad the Impaler - Voldemort - Lions - Tigers - Bears - Oh my!
To assume that someone agrees with someone else simply because they have failed to explicitly denounce them, and thereby assume agreement from silence, makes absolutely no sense. If you, in your next post, refused to denounce any of these names and said "this is dumb,"...you'd be right. And I would have no justification for calling you a "Dracula-supporter."
<i>Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 11:58am </i>
I know I'm tying this to Mask's post, but I just want to ask...Liberty, do you mind if I add an additional reason or two why Mask's argument doesn't make sense? Though I've probably done it before, I just want to get the all-clear before butting into this one.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/12/2009 @ 12:21pm
THRAWN,
I happily dencounce them all, with particular vehemence for Stalin and Mussolini. There! Done! Not difficult at all, when the question is explicit and there are stakes in answering or not answering.
That's all COMMANCHE needs to do for what has been an ongoing and explicit request for years now. And he won't. Is it stubborness? Does he not understand the concept of questions and answers? Or is he madly JEFFSIAN and generalizes his sympathies (explicitly stated) for Koreshism to Jeffsism?
Since COMMANCHE refuses to follow the cue and answer the question, yes, reasonable people can start to connect the dots and read reasonable conclusions into it. That's a great deal different than "interpreting" a non-answer to a question not asked.
So, I will say it again: COMMANCHE is at best a JEFFS aplogist if not an outright JEFFSIAN.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/12/2009 @ 12:38pm
THRAWN,
In our campaign for TRUTH, the most worthwhile quest, I invite you to try your hand with COMMANCHE and ask him to explain his position on JEFFS.
I strongly suspect that you will get the same hillbilly defensiveness about his "Deliverance"-calibre cultural inferiority peppered with dittohead stonewalling that I have encountered from him. Buy you are most welcome to try...
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/12/2009 @ 12:58pm
ba dum dum psshhh.....
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/12/2009 @ 09:07am
why are there no jewish drummers?
.
..
. (h/t to mask)
cause you need four skins to play 'em.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2009 @ 1:00pm
Posted by Thrawn at 01/12/2009 @ 12:21pm
Jump in, THRAWN.
I'm sure you've got a good, solid, non-nuanced reason for those contradictory statements from the Bible.
Or go with the original, and why declarations by MEN of "righteousness" hold ANY weight with somebody who believes that ONLY GOD can deliver said righteousness...
outside of hypocrisy and ideology, of course.
Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 1:28pm
Frosty,
Your joke about Jewish drummers was in extremly poor taste.
Posted by FDR43 at 01/12/2009 @ 3:09pm
Did anyone catch Bill Moyers last night on PBS?
He gave an excellent editorial comment about the lack of condemnation for Israel's actions in Gaza (particularly in the U.S.).
Posted by FDR43 at 01/12/2009 @ 3:10pm
<i>Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 1:28pm</i>
Your standard is a little weird from the outset; why is a "non-nuanced" reason preferable? Isn't reality generally nuanced?
So there are really two points here.
1) "Righteousness" statement from Jews
Why does Liberty feel honored by that? Probably because, as he's said, them saying that implies that they hold him in very high regard. In other words, I think he sees it as more or less a "proxy compliment." It's not because he affirms their point ITSELF, but because of what them SAYING that of him means for how they view him.
2) Allegedly conflicting verses
They're not conflicting at all (though keep in mind that I also don't buy into an inerrancy framework and don't see why Christianity requires one). Luke refers specifically to the law as the standard he's using in this case, and says that both Elizabeth and Zachariah met that standard.
What Paul's dealing with is something different. Paul is describing complete lack of sin (which is both under- and over-covered by the law). His statement means only that no one is perfect. Because he erects a higher barrier, the fact that E & Z don't meet THAT barrier does nothing to challenge the claim that they meet the LOWER one.
So, the 2 statements allegedly in conflict are:
1) There is no X such that X is blameless in every way
2) E and Z are blameless with respect to the law
And once we read them this way (the way that makes the most sense given the context), there's no explicit contradiction.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/12/2009 @ 3:58pm
<i>Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/12/2009 @ 12:38pm </i>
This is a little bit different than what I understood you to be saying before. Here are the claims I thought you were making:
A: X person has not denounced Y, even when challenged to do so
B: X person sympathizes with Y
I thought you were saying that in strict logical terms, A gave reason for B. What I hear (or read, rather) you saying now is that comanche has given explicit statements indicating support for ideologies like Koresh's (and perhaps Jeffs'). That's different. If you wouldn't mind...what is it exactly that's been said?
Posted by Thrawn at 01/12/2009 @ 4:03pm
Frosty, Your joke about Jewish drummers was in extremly poor taste. Posted by FDR43 at 01/12/2009 @ 3:09pm
should i have used muslims instead?
(i know it was in poor taste (although i thought ibb's was worse) but i didn't think it was particularly racist -- some of my best friends are jewish drummers ;+]))
here, watch joey baron kick some skin!
John Zorn / MASADA - Beeroth (Joey Baron at its best!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWYWEaDpUNc&fmt=18
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2009 @ 4:17pm
Where, oh where have the democrats gone? Gone to seed everyone. These are the same demorats with a new leader who, despite evidence on no WMD to the contrary, voted for launching the war on Iraq. They were little opposition at all to Bush policies throughout his administration, have refused to launch investigations on Bush war crimes, refused to consider impeachment, and refused to place restrictions on the TARP funding. With leadership like this, Americans should have little confidence in them solving the nation's problems. Senator Dodd was asked recently when the economic crisis began. His response was that it began with the sub-prime mortgage crisis. No, Senator, the sub-prime mortgage crisis began when Congress passed legislation permitting such mortgages to be issued in the first place by ditching the Glass-Steagle Act of 1932 for the falsely named Financial Services Modernization Act pushed by Robert Rubin and the Clinton administration. Similarly, the oil price crisis and the food crisis is largely a product of the "modernization" of the commodities services act supported by the Bush administration. In fact, all we citizens need to do is follow the regulatory or de-regulatory path to understand the criminal role that Democrats in Congress played in foresaking their oversight roles these last 30+ years.
Posted by afrothetics at 01/12/2009 @ 7:04pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/12/2009 @ 3:41pm
Posted by Thrawn at 01/12/2009 @ 4:03pm
Exactly, guys. "Righteous" doesn't mean "righteous" except when it means "righteous", but not when it says "righteous" because that's not talking about "righteousness" but something else....except where it talks about "righteousness".
No...I get it.
Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 08:56am
Agreed. It would appear that you also, by extension, reject this concept:
hom·o·nym (hŏm'ə-nĭm', hō'mə-) n. One of two or more words that have the same sound and often the same spelling but differ in meaning, such as bank (embankment) and bank (place where money is kept).
What you miss is the fact that just as the same spelling may still connote a different word, the same word may possess many different nuances of meaning.
For an analogy, consider the word "justice." In a context where the standard for justice is "X individual receives the sentence designated by law for their crime," someone being convicted and sent to prison for 10 years for a low-grade felony for which that penalty is prescribed may be justice. However, if justice is instead described as "X individual receives a penalty commensurate with their desert" (a higher threshold that is still meaningfully within the concept of justice), we might say that the aforementioned person did NOT get justice.
What Liberty and I are saying should not be that much of a stretch at all. Even within a singular concept (as in justice), the answer to a question "is something X?" may depend on the standard that is employed within that concept. You want another example? How about the question "are you a good person?" (addressed to hypothetical individual Q) If measured against the average person (or, say, following of existing laws)...probably yes. If measured against perfection...obviously not.
So in conclusion...your argument is flawed because it blatantly ignores linguistic distinctions that we can generally recognize intuitively.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/13/2009 @ 12:17pm
Your joke about Jewish drummers was in extremly poor taste. Posted by FDR43 at 01/12/2009 @ 3:09pm
Perhaps, but I'll wager plenty of comedians at Grossingers have told it or a version of it over the years.
May you hear Bob Miles' "The Foreskin Song" one day. May we all die laughing.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 01/13/2009 @ 12:40pm