Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:
"Blithe disregard for real human suffering speaks for itself. "
Good description of our compassionate conservatives, Dan. Neocons too. To them, it's all a game of power. I hope, however, that you don't intend the "disregard" to describe my contribution to this thread.
"And those who embrace Anti-Semitism as part of a fashionable political agenda -- and then cry "Ad Hom!" when they are described as what they are "
I described MYSELF as an anti-Semite. Didn't know that was fashionable. You first described me as a Nazi. Big difference.
"In such cases, the Anti-Semitism is clothed as Anti-Zionism, until the real colors begin to show (as we've lately seen.)"
Semitic is an ethnic description that includes both Jew and Arab. I find the people of the entire region behaving like lunatics. I don't care whether they're Israeli, Jewish, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syrian, Iranian, Iraqi, Taliban, Wahabbi, Druze, Sunni, or Shiite.
"...when you deny the rights of Jews where you would gladly grant those rights to non-Jews, you are an Anti-Semite."
If I'm in your sights, Dan, I'm not granting the right to slaughter innocent human beings to ANY of them.
"...behavior has suggested that the 1/300th of the world which is Jewish has a right, a responsibility, and an obligation to make certain that, if only on one very small patch of land, the Jewish people will be protected from those who desire their destruction."
Not in contention here, but a considerable portion of the 300ths is tiring of the mess, especially when the reaction is, traditionally, so strong and allegedly righteous. The argument appears to be a matter of "proportion." Is it tit for tat, or TIT TIT TIT for tat?
I don't take the rocketing of Israel lightly. It's dastardly, but quite like past Arab incursions it's hardly as effective, on the kill scorecard, as Israeli retalition . Also, the bombing's UNITING THE ENEMY (Arabs and their terrorists throughout the region). Strategic bombing is supposed to break the will of the populace. Since the first bomb was dropped on Spain, it's yet to actually do that. Isreal may be using "smart" bombs,
but as a tactic, that ain't too smart.
After the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the horror of the henceforth unthinkable use of nuclear weapons may have proved to be a deterrent, but, otherwise, conventionally bombing civilians has only pissed them off and inspired them to get even.
"...only responsible stewards for the world's Jewish population are Jews themselves. This goes hand in hand with Wilsonian self-determination."
I'm glad you didn't say Israel, because that country receives one quarter of U. S. foreign aid, mainly for weaponry. We have touted our support of Israel for more than a half century. It's hard to deny that the United States shares in the stewardship of Israel. Also, I think we've been quite careful to pay attention to "the world's Jewish population." Our government has been as least as close to Israel as it has been to Britain and Austrailia. Until Bush took office, we spent years trying to broker a peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
"Our erstwhile fellow semites have chosen the wrong people to threaten with extermination."
Don't mess with Texas!
Can't disagree with this. It's been evident since, what, 1948? I wonder if Shiites feel the same way about Sunnis? What are Shiites, 15% of the Muslim population?
"...there has never been a Palestinian state..."
What was it that the original partition defined, a reservation? A refugee camp?
"First, on the "Nationhood" of Jews, in this sense of the word: A Sephardic Jew in Sao Paulo could discuss the most important things in his world, in a common language, with an Ashkenaz in Minsk; then the two could have a lively debate about it with Chinese, Indian, or African Jews"
This is also true of Red Sox Nation.
"If a Jew considered himself a Frenchman (like Dreyfus,) a German, a Russian, a Ukrainian, a Pole, an Arab, an Iraqi, Jordanian, or a Syrian, the "real" peoples of those nations always set him straight on the subject in short order. This is not something a few words of civilized debate will erase."
I agree, Dan. It's called prejudice. Being "different" is always a problem in Yahoo Land. Currently, it's difficult to be a Democrat in the U.S. Evangelical preachers call us "The Hoards from Hell." We're on the wrong end of the Culture War, which is clearly a strategic effort to manufacture predjudice. Its favorite weapon is hate speech, like calling decent, but dissenting, people "traitors" or "Nazies."
"Regarding expansionism: Israel routinely attempts to withdraw from territories won in war. What other nation do you know of that does this?"
Good question. Did Britain and the U.S. withdraw from mainland Europe after WWI? It's quite difficult for me to name a nation on the globe where our military isn't involved in some way, except in countries, such as Vietnam and Somalia, where we lost the fight.
However, isn't it just in the past year that Sharon decided to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza?
And it took Israel a long time to exit Lebanon. I believe the Israeli troops left because the pressure from Hezbollah was so intense, and international opinion was so hard on Isreal, especially after the business in the refugee camps.
It may be a point that makes Isreal appear more decent than other countries, but since the original partition that defined the borders, Israel grew its territory and pushed its settlements onto land that had previously been surveyed as Arab land. If we're talking about what's happened over 60 years, I think your statement , especially "routinely," is flawed. However, being one of those who doesn't bother to acquaint myself with the history of the conflict, I may be wrong on this count.
"There's a phrase in the Israeli vocabulary, "The Lebanon Mud." "
That sounds similar to the phrase in American English, "quagmire." We first applied it, I beIieve, to the American War in Vietnam. Unfortunately, it's been reapplied to the American War in Iraq. As with the oft-used "gate," I'd much prefer something more original.
I like, "Tar Baby," with its specific reference to crude oil. It's also redolent of racism. Not a small portion of American oil magnates have referred to Arabs as, "sand niggers." The phrase had to have been coined in Texas...out of jealousy.
"You may be right, but I think you're seeing parallels to Iraq, where there aren't any."
Well, Dan, there is one. If you recall, we got attacked by Arabs in '01. That pretty much ends any parallels, because we didn't bomb Saudia Arabia.
"Finally, I hope for those patient, civil, and well-spoken souls watching the back-and-forth and chiming in, that I am not too terribly vitriolic in my point of view -- the last thing I would want to do is put off those people in the "middle," among whom I usually count myself regarding this issue."
This is great, so politically adept. You should run for office.
"Despite needing "and editor" [sic]"
Thanks, I've corrected that. As I said, we all need editors.
"...despite my distaste for the fraternity house style of Israel-bashing,"
Oh, come on. Who am I, Bluto?
"I really do see other sides to the present crisis than the Zionist basics you're seeing me discuss here."
Now, this I'd genuinely like to hear about. You spoke earlier of nuances. I think there may be many, especially involving the relationship between Israel and the U.S., the relationship between Hezbollah and Syria/Iran and how the U.S figures in that. I'd also like to hear if you feel that American foreign policy for the past five years has enhanced the boldness of the terrorists abroad in the land. I mean, lobbing 100 rockets into Israel daily seems a tad more terrorizing than blowing up a train in Spain.
"Oh, and if anybody surprised {sic} I'm happy to say I'm a Zionist... it's not a dirty word."
No problem. I have friends who are Zionists.
Shameless O'Clawson
[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited July 31, 2006).]
|