No nation whose symbols are built on a foundation of death and destruction can sustain itself.
Nearly five years have passed since President Bush stood in the Rose Garden and gave the Palestinians a choice. They could have either a state or they could have terror. But they could not have both.
In June 2007, it is clear that Palestinians have chosen terror instead of a viable state. Not only have the Palestinians continued to choose terror against Israel, but they have chosen terror against themselves. The government cannot provide basic services. There is no free market nor any independent public institutions to speak of. Corruption is the rule, not the exception.
There are also two separate security forces – one loyal to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah and one to Hamas led by Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ismail Hamiyeh. Needless to say, Hamas and Fatah security forces are vying for control where little exists. At the moment, Hamas has the upper hand and Abbas’ days might very well be numbered.
Almost anyone who has been in a first or second year political science class will be familiar with early 20th Century political economist Max Weber’s definition of the state as having a “monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Inside Gaza, nobody has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. Longtime Palestinian activist and politician Dr. Hanan Ashrawi told The Christian Science Monitor, “This is the end of the Palestinian state, frankly. If you have two separate systems, there is no way that you can have a Palestinian state that is contiguous.” Weber couldn’t have said it better himself.
It comes as no surprise to me that this state of affairs has come to pass. After all, what is the Palestinian national symbol but the suicide bomber? Palestinian schools, streets, soccer tournaments and summer camps are named after them. No nation whose symbols are built on a foundation of death and destruction can sustain itself. So long as the worship of the suicide bomber continues, succeeding generations of Palestinians (who survive on misplaced left-wing sympathy) will continue to become inherently self-destructive.
One could argue the Left has helped pave this road to Palestinian self-destruction. With all the focus on the “occupation,” no one on the Left gave any thought to whether Palestinians could actually govern themselves and bring about a viable state. Palestinians are very good at bemoaning “occupation” but when suddenly put in the awkward position of actually having to rule themselves, life under Israel suddenly doesn’t look so bad. Israel’s foundation was built on the sweat and toil of the kibbutzim. The Palestinian foundation rests on a litany of blaming Israel for its problems and then encouraging its youth to take the easy way out by killing themselves and taking as many Israelis with them as possible. How is it that the world expects Israel to cede land to a people not responsible enough to preserve their own lives?
President Bush told the world almost a half decade ago, "The choice here is stark and simple. The Bible says, 'I have set before you life and death; therefore, choose life.'" Clearly, the Palestinians prefer death.
aargold24@hotmail.com
http://www.poetsforthewar.org
Read more articles by Aaron Goldstein
The argument in your article is riddled with such blatantly obvious logical fallacies that I'm surprised it was even published. In the interest of time I won't point all of them out to you, but I'll make an exception for one to ensure that my comment is at least somewhat constructive.
"Palestinians are very good at bemoaning “occupation” but when suddenly put in the awkward position of actually having to rule themselves, life under Israel suddenly doesn’t look so bad."
I think that the Palestinians were making visible progress towards ruling themselves. It went to the point where the right (no it wasn't the left) in the form of George Bush came up with the conclusion that it would be best to give the Palestinians democratic elections to better rule themselves.
And so as they had their democratic elections, they elected Hamas, an outcome the occidental powers immediately decried and attempted to manipulate by forcing them to change the platform upon which they were elected, namely the "liberation of their land", or face a a loss of goverment funding.
To make a long rant short, your fallacy is that you point to the inherent inability of Palestinians being unable to govern themselves as if this is some sort of genetic predisposition and as such they need the oversight of Israel, who must therefore be genetically superior.
Yet every rational person will agree that a government without funds can not function properly. So to ask a nation to democratically elect their government, cut all funds for that government once done so, and then place the blame on that government and those people for being inherently unable to govern themselves is such a ridiculous suggestion, its borderline racist.
In conclusion, I will rebut your quote of "Clearly, the Palestinians prefer death" with a quote from the state of New Hampshire; a state that is considered to be very American, very Patriotic, and very able to govern themselves. The quote is "Live free or die."
Comment by alexkreuz | June 14, 2007
I totally disagree with "alexkreuz" and believe the article is right on the money.
It seems that everyone but the Palestinians themselves are to blame for their problems. All their transgressions, violence, mayhem and killing is ascribed to someone else. Why the Palestinians are blameless!
Alexkreuz mentions money. Well what happened to all the money the West pumped into this abyss? Much went into buying more weapons to exacerbate the killing and the rest into the Palestinian leaders pockets. Yep, that's something we should support.
Personally I say it's time for a reality check. The West should get its head out of its rectum and see things as they are, not as they wish they were.
And while we're at it, what benefits for mankind has come out of this whole region with the exception of Israel? I guess if you're preoccupied with hating everything and everyone else you don't have the time to use your energies for mankind's betterment.
Well I guess that's a topic that will required more excuses on top of the myriad of excuses already being heaped on us.
I resent alexkruez reference to N.H. and it's motto Live Free or Die. If he wants to apply that to the Palestinians he should correctly modify it to Live Free to Kill and/or Die in that endeavor!
Comment by NHGrouch | June 14, 2007
I always love the absolutely silly "Your article is so easily disprovable, that I will take no time to try to disprove it." With such unassailable logic, it's a wonder that there's still a debate on the table!
How can someone seriously point out that Palestinians elected Hamas, and then go on to say that there's no reason to believe they can't govern themselves? They were given a chance at self-goverance, and they made the worst possible choice. It's almost like saying that we can't call a man who freely jumped off a building suicidal.
Comment by WolvenBear | June 14, 2007
alexkreuz is clearly anti-Semitic. I suppose you support the Holocaust, don't you?
See how fun and easy the charge of "racism" is to level in absence of any logical or rational argument?
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | June 15, 2007
Well, I've said everything I had to say. Ranting more won't wake my argument any stronger. But Patrick, I would like to enlighten you with a little fact about semitism.
Palestinians are semitic people. Semitic languages "include the ancient and modern forms of Amharic, Arabic, Aramaic, Akkadian, Ge'ez, Hebrew, Maltese, Tigre and Tigrinya among others."
I don't think its possible to be anti-semitic and argue in favor of the Palestinians. I think logic and rationale are on my side on this one.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 15, 2007
The term "anti-Semitism" has been well understood to refer specifically to Jews since WWII. Not that that had anything to do with my point in the first place. I think my meaning was well understood. Or certainly should be. An argument "riddled with logical fallacies" and the only charge you can specifically manage to level is "racism". Very original. Obviously you hate Jews. And Irish people. So your argument is irrelevant. (Turn your sarcasm radar on and see if you can pick up the inference. I have faith in you)
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | June 15, 2007
Patrick,
That is correct, the term "antisemitism" has always been used incorrectly as a red herring to draw attention to the real cause of the conflict. You're right I did know the "assumed" definition of the word which is that people assume "antisemitism" to be anti-Jewish.
Now that we've cleared that up, I will say no, I'm not anti-Jewish. I don't believe that humans of any specific religion or affiliation are automatically inferior to others, which ironically is what this article inherently seems to argue when it makes the statement "Why group x cannot commit action group y, which action the rest of the modern world seems to be able to carry out."
I don't elaborate because I don't feel I need to explain my lack of support of racism or any form of prejudice to you, but because now that I've explained to you what it means to be anti-Jewish, I can go further to explain that most people who are incorrectly labeled as antisemitic, are not antisemitic by any form of that definition.
I am anti Zionist. I am against the belief that people who have lived throughout the rest of the world for thousands of years at some point in time decide that it is their god given right to occupy a region where people have lived for thousands of years in peace under various rulers and slowly but surely push those people who lived there out of those lands.
Now I won't go into the pros and cons of this argument. Its sufficient enough to say that most of the world, with the exception of those who have this word "antisemitism" stuck in their head, understands that there is an argument on this topic. If you are genuinely interested in the discourse over this topic, check out the discussion link on the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism to see how the wikipedians are arguing over this topic.
To conclude, it is possible to be against the Manifest Destiny, a destiny that claimed it was god's will that America expand across North America, wiping out American Indians in their path, but not be against Americans or Christians on racial or prejudiced terms. It is possible to be against the Inquisition, in which the Catholics were went to kill Christians of various sects that did not agree with the pope, without being against Catholics on prejudiced terms. It is also possible to be against the policies of a government, without being labeled anti-patriotic.
I think the sooner you understand the difference between actions a person carries out, and inherent properties of the person, the sooner you will understand the difference between antizionism and antisemitism.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 15, 2007
"I think that the Palestinians were making visible progress towards ruling themselves."
Anybody seen the news lately? There's a Palestinian civil war going on.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 15, 2007
"I think that the Palestinians were making visible progress towards ruling themselves."
Anybody seen the news lately? There's a Palestinian civil war going on.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 15, 2007
Phillip, did you actually read what I wrote or are you deliberately misquoting me out of context?
"were making progress" is in the past tense because it refers to a period before the democratic election of Hamas that the right is responsible for.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 15, 2007
Patrick, there were multiple arguments I could have levied against this article, but in the interest of time I went with the simplest one.
First I want to say that if the "public" well understands a term to mean something doesn't mean it actually means that. If you are suggesting that I am anti-zionist, then yes, I am anti-zionist just like I am anti-manifest-destiny, anti-insurrection, and so forth.
To keep this short I will simply say that if the author were to say something along the lines of "Those who support violence and oppression can not govern themselvs" then I would have to wholeheartedly agree.
But the author said that "Palestinians" can not govern themselves. This suggestion is a generalization if a certain part of a society engages in certain activities then it must reflect on the entire people, which is a logical fallacy; a stereotype.
The suggestion also means that if Palestinians elect Hamas then it must mean that Palestinians support terrorism. That is also a logical fallacy because it assumes that the the only reason Palestinians elected Hamas is because Hamas is a "terrorist organization", which is so laughable as it assumes that Hamas and the Palestinians are one-dimensional.
You know, white America used to say that black "adult" slaves are like their children because they can not govern themselves. If black slaves were allowed to determine their own future for themselves they would result to violence and savagery.
Yes that is racism to suggest that an entire people can not govern themselves.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 15, 2007
“'were making progress'” is in the past tense because it refers to a period before the democratic election of Hamas that the right is responsible for.”
This is pure sophistry. People don't break into a civil war simply because they dislike the results of the last election and would have preferred that a different candidate win. The election brought to the surface the endemic insanity and corruption that typifies the Palestinian state, exposing these people for what they truly are. That entire society is a corrupt thugoracy. And it always has been; the current situation is not something that ‘suddenly’ happened. Palestinians cannot govern themselves because of what they believe, and the way they express those beliefs. I’m surprised that anybody would be surprised that these people are killing each other at a faster (and more brutal) pace than anything Israel was ever accused of when it ruled Gaza.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 15, 2007
"People don’t break into a civil war simply because they dislike the results of the last election"
I don't know if you're familiar with this, but the Palestinians were happy with the results of the last election. The parties that were unhappy about it were the USA, Israel, and other Western powers.
The reason why there was progress before the "democratic election" was because the government of Palestine had funding to operate. After the democratic election, when the Palestinians were happy with the results of their election, all funding was cut on the idea that we do not fund terrorists.
And since that point, the situation there has unraveled.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 15, 2007
"alexkreuz" inadvertently makes the point that the Palestinians can't govern themselves when he writes:
"Yet every rational person will agree that a government without funds can not function properly. So to ask a nation to democratically elect their government, cut all funds for that government once done so, and then place the blame on that government and those people for being inherently unable to govern themselves is such a ridiculous suggestion, its borderline racist."
His argument implies that the Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves without huge influxes of Western cash.
Oops.
Comment by stutzenbach | June 15, 2007
"His argument implies that the Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves without huge influxes of Western cash."
stutzenbach, Yes that is true. Palestinians can not survive without western cash, or more accurately, foreign aid in general.
But rather than suggest this with this overtone of supremacy, why don't you pose the question "Why can the Palestinians not survive without foreign aid?"
Comment by alexkreuz | June 15, 2007
"The reason why there was progress before the “democratic election” was because the government of Palestine had funding to operate. After the democratic election, when the Palestinians were happy with the results of their election, all funding was cut on the idea that we do not fund terrorists. And since that point, the situation there has unraveled."
This is a civil war between Hamas and Fatah. Hamas is at war with Fatah not because Israel and the West are not funding the new government, but because one group of terroristic thugs wants to dominate the other group of terroristic thugs. If the only thing driving the present hostilities was a dispute over a lack of funds, both sides would be engaged at war with the West rather than trying to exterminate each other.
This is a battle between two groups of thugs for dominance. It is not based on any principle (such as the principles over which the American Civil war was fought). It’s a raw, naked exercise of power. Equating these people, their motives, and skills at governance to the ebb and flow of normal politics is a clear distortion. This is a more akin to a Mafia war in which Phil Leotardo is trying to wipe out Tony Soprano so he can control the spoils of what’s left over. Neither Tony nor Phil are any more capable of governing than Hamas or Fatah are. Threats, intimidation and violence are the only methods they know to “influence” people.
PS: The Palestinians cannot survive without foreign aid because they need this money to buy their weapons to kill each other, that is, when they're not massacring innocent civilians in other countries. They routinely steal whatever aid they get and divert it to this use (or to a private bank account) instead of using it to build indigenous industries and infrastructure that actually help people, which is what legitimate governments do.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 15, 2007
This is a civil war because Fatah is trying to secure western funding for their government by ousting Hamas from power, and Hamas is trying to secure the power owed to them by the "democratic" election by ousting Fatah from power.
This civil war conflict arose when the west cut funding.
If the funding wasn't cut, then Fatah, in the form of Abbas, wouldn't need to desperately try to appease the west by undermining the legitimacy of Hamas.
If you were paying attention to the news right now, you'd realize that now that Abbas has effectively thrown Hamas out of the government, the west is ready to release all funds, including the income taxes of Palestinians owed to them. That was the goal of Fatah and Abbas and the source of this civil war conflict.
"Washington, Europe and Israel prepared to throw open the taps on financial aid to Abbas that was cut off a year ago when Iranian-backed Hamas used its popularity in impoverished Gaza to defeat Abbas's Fatah faction in a parliamentary election."
With Gaza lost, Abbas wins international support
Unfortunately none of these parties have the capability to approach this problem civilly and thats just the sad reality of mankind.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 15, 2007
"PS: The Palestinians cannot survive without foreign aid because they need this money to buy their weapons to kill each other"
The Palestinians need foreign aid because Gaza has been under siege for quite a while now and without a "Berlin airlift" from a foreign power, they can not survive. I hope we're not going to suggest that the West Germans didn't have the capability to govern themselves because they needed American assistance in the form of the Berlin airlift.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 15, 2007
"This civil war conflict arose when the west cut funding".
This was the same reason that Phil decided to whack Tony — a dispute over funding.
Real governments don't kill their own people because they don’t get foreign funding. They also don’t kill people because one side is trying to dominate the other politically. Everything you say to support your position ultimately ends up supporting the basic proposition that these people are inherently incapable of governing themselves. If they were, they would have spent the last 25 years trying to build a real society instead of diverting the foreign aid into secret bank accounts, underwriting domestic terrorism, and lobbing rockets over the border into Israel.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 15, 2007
Phillip, I never argued that a "real government" is in charge of Palestine.
Palestine is a region without international recognition with a pseudo government ambivalent to its own citizens that is continuously under siege by western powers and manipulated by other Muslim nations to further their own national aspirations.
Everything I have said points to the conclusion that in an environment where you have outside nations manipulating your domestic policies, killing your prominent leaders, occupying your land, sanctioning your economy, it becomes impossible for any type of people to govern themselves.
Isn't that what the Soviet Union did to Eastern Europe throughout the better half of the last century? When the iron curtain came down in the 90s, the West found a bastion of corruption and savagery in Eastern Europe which the West constructively addressed throughout the better half of the 90s.
Yet everybody agrees that the state of Eastern Europe in the 90s was not because the Eastern Europeans inherently incapable of governing themselves, but the fault of the Soviet Union which for decades had oppressed that region.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 15, 2007
"Unfortunately none of these parties have the capability to approach this problem civilly and thats just the sad reality of mankind. "
alexkruez seems to be painting with a very broad (and potentially racist) brush. alex, I hope you are not implying that all Palestinians are uncivilized.
Comment by stutzenbach | June 15, 2007
"alexkruez seems to be painting with a very broad (and potentially racist) brush. alex, I hope you are not implying that all Palestinians are uncivilized."
I said "parties" not "Palestinians".
Do my comments sting you a little bit, stutzenbach?
Comment by alexkreuz | June 15, 2007
Alex,
You have described the Palestinians' primary representatives — Hamas and Fatah — as uncivil. This seems to imply some sort of inherent inability of Palestinians to govern themselves. Are you anti-Palestinian?
Comment by stutzenbach | June 15, 2007
“Phillip, I never argued that a ‘real government’ is in charge of Palestine.”
*** You said that the “Palestinians were making visible progress towards ruling themselves.” I would assume that this “visible progress” would manifest itself in something resembling a real government in its developing stage. The actual evidence indicates the opposite. There has been no developing political consensus among the Palestinians that is the precursor to a legitimate government. Rather, there are different clans and factions with radically different domestic agendas/motives united around a common desire to exploit the Palestinian people (when they weren’t attacking Israel).
The election of a so-called “Palestinian government” forced the lie to be exposed that they were anything other than a bunch of self-serving thugs divided into competing, self-serving factions. Killing EACHOTHER because the West withholds aid reinforces my point that this is a mafia war. Hamas and Fatah are not like the Democrats and Republicans, they’re like Tony and Phil. They each want what the other has, and are willing to kill their own people to get it.
To your illustration about the Soviet Union — their “outside dominance” did not breed the same kind of internecine bloodshed in Eastern Europe during the era of Soviet domination that we see among the Palestinians during their present era of “outside nations manipulating [their] domestic policies”. These countries WERE united by a common political identity and value system. Only when a country like Yugoslavia (which was an artificial creation) was freed from Soviet dominance did bloodshed like in Gaza arise. But it hasn’t within Estonia, Latvia, and other Baltic states that had a true national identity.
The dirty little secret of all this is that there is no real “Palestinian people”, just a collection of refugees from Egypt, Jordan and the West Bank who share very little in common with one another other than a hatred for Israel. It’s no surprise that they can’t govern themselves — there is no “themselves”; just a collection of warring tribes and factions.
The only real question in all of this is whether the leader of Hamas is Tony, or Phil? Neither is George Washington.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 15, 2007
stutzenbach, you're assuming that the sole reason for electing Hamas and Fatah is because of their uncivil nature. Hence the Palestinians must therefore be uncivil as well.
If President Bush has properties A, B, and C, that does not mean that all Americans are have or support properties A, B, and C.
Also, I didn't limit the parties to just Hamas and Fatah. I inherently included the parties of Israel, USA, and so forth. I don't believe bulldozing people's homes or sieging cities is civil, nor do I believe providing aid upwards to $8 billion a year to a nation that does the former is civil.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 15, 2007
First, they did not kill each other because the west withheld aid. I said that was the catalyst.
They killed each other because Hamas forcefully enforced their right over the security of the Palestinian people. Hamas was elected because the "grassroots" in Palestine supported them. Hamas was supported because over the last 5-10 years their primary focus was on the betterment of the day to day activities of the Palestinian people.
Fatah lost the election because they were out of touch with the realities of the Palestinian people similar to how our government is out of touch with us. They lost the election because the Palestinian people had adopted the mentality of "throw the bums out". Fatah was primarily concerned with securing western aid in order for their "pseudo-government" to function. It was because the Fatah government was corrupt that they lost the election.
I said there was visible progress. But there was no government by a long shot. Any amount of progress made is always destroyed every couple of years with a siege, or a military strike, or sanctions of some sort by an outside power.
It took America 11 years to realize that the Article of Confederations weren't working before throwing it out in favor of the Constitution. Yet within half a year of Hamas being elected, the west automatically decided this would not work, and killed the "democracy" by cutting all funds.
If its true that we support democracy and oppose corrupt governments then we should have opposed Abbas' Fatah and supported the will of the Palestinians to elect Hamas. Yet even now, we're about to finance Fatah, the corrupt pseudo-government, again to take on Hamas.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 15, 2007
"The dirty little secret of all this is that there is no real “Palestinian people”"
To suggest that there were no people who populated the lands that are today called Israel, West Bank, and Gaza is outright ignorant.
People lived there. Jerusalem existed before 1949. Christians, Muslims, Jews all lived there.
When we talk about Palestinians we talk about the people who lived there, who were promised by a British mandate that if they helped overthrow the Ottomans in World War I they would be given the right of self determination over their land.
Those people lived there for the thousands of years that the Israelis were dispersed throughout the world.
I don't know how comprehensive your understanding of the history of this region of the world is, but I do hope it consists of more than talking points picked up by various pundits.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 15, 2007
“People lived there. Jerusalem existed before 1949. Christians, Muslims, Jews all lived there.”
Yes. A much more diverse and divergent group than that which Hamas and Fatah reflects, to which the refuges of Gaza and Jordan have been added. Thanks again for reinforcing my point.
Alex: I'll make this equally simple for you. When all you need to do to understand what is going on in Gaza is watch the last two episodes of the Sopranos, rather than take a course in political science, there’s not a lot left to be said on the matter
And if you want to match credentials, go to my website and read my bio. Then I'll be glad to compare the basis for my understanding of geopolitics with yours.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 15, 2007
"Yes. A much more diverse and divergent group than that which Hamas and Fatah reflects, to which the refuges of Gaza and Jordan have been added. Thanks again for reinforcing my point."
The issue is like you said, Hamas and Fatah represent only a majority portion of the former "diversity" that was Palestine. But if you posed the question of "What happened to the diversity?" you'll find out that the diversity ceased to exist when Israel declared independence by creating a "Jewish" state.
Hamas and Fatah represent a majority of Muslims not because they are or are not antisemitic, but because the minority Jewish people all relocated themselves to Israel.
So the claim that Palestinian people do not exist is false. Palestinian people do exist. They were composed of both a minority of Jewish and a majority of Muslims. The Jewish relocated themselves to Israel, created by European Zionists, and the Muslims, who by the very definition of the Declaration of Independence that Israel is a "Jewish State" could not swallow their pride and be included in a government of foreigners.
Also the claim that the people in Palestine had no "nationhood" as an argument to support the claim that the European Jewish population had a right to create a nation in Palestine is as absurd as the claim that the American Indians had no nationhood and were a bunch of roving tribes and as such had no argument against the creation of America.
I don't agree with with the principles of Manifest Destiny, Western Hegemony, Zionism, and the like. I think that must be why we have a differing world view.
Ok, before I leave let me just thank you all for a very stimulating discussion before I leave for the weekend. I haven't had one like this for quite a while.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 15, 2007
Alex:
The phrase "Palestinian people" doesn’t refer to a group of people with widely divergent beliefs (Christian, Jew, Moslem) who happened to co-exist in the same geographic space. In political terms, it refers to a shared world view based on a common value system. The so-called Palestinian nation is a cobbled together coalition of refugees from Egypt and Jordan, along with some indigenous population, whose only real unifying philosophy is their hatred of Israel. Otherwise, they have very little (philosophically) in common, as evidenced by the indiscriminate bloodbath currently taking place in Gaza.
Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 16, 2007
Seeing as alexkreuz is getting ganged up on here… .
Surely all can agree that Palestinans shooting each other in the streets cannot be seen as a Palestinian problem but the fault of Israel. I could explain this, but it should be enough to note that Palestinans settling their disputes by bloodshed was almost unheard of until "ISRAEL" turned over the Gaza strip, effectively turning them into animals.
Besides, even if they are killing each other, no one ever promissed that land for peace would mean Palestinans would not be allowed to slaughter each other.
Bloodthirsty? Sure, but how ridiculous is it for us here to criticize terrorists for how they administer government. We should respect that not every government is going to lead the way we expect it to. How arogant?
The techniques employed by Hammas in dealing with its problems clearly were known to the voters, so how can anyone argue that what is going on right now on the Strip is anything but what the voters were driving for when they elected Hammas? The people have a right to elect the leaders they want to govern the way they want.
We in the U.S. are always talking about the importance of democracy and what do we do when Palestinans employ it? That's right, we slam them for it.
We have to remember that while it may appear they are not governing themselves well, different people have different standards for what is civil and we have to respect that diversity.
While the execution of 30 to 50 people in the streets may seem harsh, we have to examine whether we have the moral authority to question it.
What alex is wise enough to realize is that we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of judging others by our own standards.
Here in the U.S., for example, we know how cruel it is to assault the ears of terrorist combatants with rock music, but completely overlook that is some cultures it is traditional to fire an assault rifle round into a person's ear.
Let the Palestinians be. It took them forever to gain control of the Gaza Strip and no sooner than they begin a few reforms in a manner few could argue is anything but consistent with the governing style of the legally and democratically elected majority than we start piling on with the criticism.
Comment by nick adams | June 16, 2007
Nick: Great parody!
Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 16, 2007
Well, everybody at a go at this.
So let pose a hypothetical question. Suppose Gaza were left to settle its own problems without outside interference. Kill each other? Fine, do it. But don't extend you killing spree outside of Gaza or you'll get it back in spades. Now suppose they did that, confined their blood lust solely upon themselves. What would be left?
Let me throw another hypothetical at you. Suppose Gaza tipped over throwing everyone on it into the sea where they all drowned. Would the world be worse off?
It's a puzzlement…or is it?
Comment by NHGrouch | June 17, 2007
Mr. Kreuz , You state the following, " I am anti Zionist. I am against the belief that people who have lived throughout the rest of the world for thousands of years at some point in time decide that it is their god given right to occupy a region where people have lived for thousands of years in peace under various rulers and slowly but surely push those people who lived there out of those lands. "
I do not think I will change your mind so I will not attempt to.
However to omit the fact that Jews have been persecuted for the last one thousand five hundred years while attempting to live peacefully " throughout the world " is intellectualy dishonest. To deny safe haven to a persecuted minority, in this case the Jews , is blatant racism.
Secondly, Jews have also been pushed out of Palestine! How so? Despite international guarantees and in contravention of international law Palestine, as it had been constituded between 1400 AD and 1900 AD , was divided in 1922 into Palestine and Transjordan. Moslem Palestinians made up two thirds of the population but they recieved eighty percent of the land and the most fertile areas. The Jews received the balance and it is from that remaining twenty percent the Palestinian Moslems seek to carve out a second state. Jews can not live in Jordan despite our historical and legal right to do so.
The one half of one percent of the Middle East Israel comprises belongs to the Jews. Of course there are some who think that Jews do not deserve the same rights as others. They seek to deny us our rights despite the moral imperitive and historical record.
Those minds will not be changed and it is fruitless to try.
MBY
Comment by menachembenyakov | June 17, 2007
menachembenyakov,
Persecuted Jews should be given safe haven. The country that prosecuted them should set land aside for them. A sizable piece of land should have been carved out of Germany as reparations for the Holocaust.
How do you justify taking land in a region that did not persecute the Jews? Will you give me a bedroom in your house if I tell you that I am a crime victim?
I don't think so. You will see "How am I responsible for that?"
"The Jews received the balance."
That is intellectually dishonest. It is factually incorrect. Please read the British White Paper of 1922.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/brwh1922.htm
"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view."
Comment by alexkreuz | June 17, 2007
"But don’t extend you killing spree outside of Gaza or you’ll get it back in spades."
I don't think you understand the point of contention.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 17, 2007
Nick,
"Palestinans settling their disputes by bloodshed was almost unheard of until “ISRAEL” turned over the Gaza strip"
That is also factually incorrect. Israel handed Gaza over in 2005. Palestinians didn't kill each other until 2007.
The bloodshed happened because Fatah refused Hamas the power they won in the election and Hamas got violent. Now that Hamas has been kicked out of government, the USA will fund the corrupt Fatah again.
Corruption : 1 - Democracy : 0
I am surprised that most of you are ambivalent to the United States' history of pitting one group against another in foreign nations.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 17, 2007
If we truly looked at this issue in a completely objective manner, we would have to conclude that we ought not be so concerned about the Palestinian-Israeli problem. It is a huge problem for them but it ought not be a problem for Americans.
I didn’t always feel this way. For the longest time I shared the Israeli outrage for the Palestinian terrorism but I have since come to understand that (1) Israel is no friend to the U.S. and (2) we Americans have been grossly manipulated by Jewish domination of virtually all main-stream media.
True, the militant Palestinians are barbarians but they have simply resorted to means that are similar to those employed by Zionists like former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin who used terrorist bombings to drive the British out of Palestine in the 1940s so they could establish Israel in the first place. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin] Since then, Jews/Israelis have:
(1) spied against us more than any other group
[http://wake-up-america.net/jewish_and_israeli_spies.htm]; (2) attacked the USS Liberty and murdered our sailors [http://www.ussliberty.org/]; (3) bombed American and British property and tried to frame others in the Lavon Affair [http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/mossad/lavon_affair.htm]; (4) probably withheld intelligence leading to 9/11 and its agents DEFINITELY celebrated the destruction of the twin towers [http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/herald_spies.html]; (5) manipulated our foreign policy in favor of Israeli interests against our own [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html], and all the while took the lion’s share of American foreign aid [http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/israel050602.html]. We should stop being so stupid.
Jews got themselves in this mess with Palestine. Jews were expelled from more than a hundred countries over time because they have been the agents of left-wing subversion in virtually every country that has hosted them, especially in the U.S in the last sixty years. See Culture of Critique by Dr. Kevin MacDonald [http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html] That’s the thanks we got for defeating the Nazis.
All peoples need a nation of their own but we cannot solve this problem between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Jews are, by far, the wealthiest people in the world. Let them deal with the problems of the Jewish Nation. Let’s stop taking on every problem in the world as it is our own. We have enough problems to deal with such as immigration, social ills, debt, terrorism and every other problem related to Jewish influence in this country.
Comment by Liberius | June 17, 2007
Mr.Kreuz , The British White Paper was a betrayal of previous agreements , ie
" San Remo Resolution - April 25, 1920
This resolution, consisting of the Balfour Declaration and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, is the basic document upon which the Mandate for Palestine was constructed. The San Remo Resolution concerning Palestine and the Jewish National Home was adopted at the San Remo Peace Conference on April 25, 1920 by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the Prime Ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George), France (Alexandre Millerand) and Italy (Francesco Nitti) and by the Ambassador of Japan (K. Matsui). The Resolution was a binding agreement between these Powers to reconstitute the ancient Jewish State within its historic borders “from Dan to Beersheba”, an agreement that was incorporated into the Treaty of Sevres and the Mandate for Palestine.
——————————————————————————–
| |
It was agreed –
(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the proces-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.
(b) that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:
The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.
The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. "
Additionaly persecution of Jews did not begin with Nazi Germany nor did it end there. Many European nations were complicit in the Holocaust. Shall Poland, Germany , France etc, also contribute land to your fictional paradise? Are you not aware that the Mufti Of Jerusalem raised an army to fight alongside Hitler and the Nazis? That he campaigned for Jews to be murdered ?
In any case the Holocaust did not erase Jewish history. Hitler did not erase Moses or Joshua or The Holy Temple. Jewish history predates Islam by three thousand years as does our claim to The Holy Land.
Since you like analogies I will leave you with one -
The Mosque on the Temple Mount is like placing a cigar box on a Cadillac automobile.
Which came first?
MBY
Comment by menachembenyakov | June 17, 2007
MBY,
"in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people"
The White Paper of 1922 addresses your point. The Jewish home was to be "IN PALESTINE". Your quote never suggested that all of Palestine should be under Zionist rule.
"They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.'"
Please read the White Paper of 1922 in its entirety.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/brwh1922.htm
Also if what you say is true then who are the Zionists to question the British change of mind. The British were in charge of Palestine.
"The Mosque on the Temple Mount is like placing a cigar box on a Cadillac automobile."
What difference does it make whether you owned the property before I did? Its mine now. If you trespass I have the right to defend my property, do I not?
Comment by alexkreuz | June 17, 2007
MBY,
Sorry I almost missed this part.
"Are you not aware that the Mufti Of Jerusalem raised an army to fight alongside Hitler and the Nazis"
That surprises you when the Irgun (Zionist Militants) was terrorizing the Arab Muslim population throughout the 30s? You really expect the Arabs to remain ambivalent when the Irgun were committing terrorism in Palestine? Is your understanding of the scenario really so selective?
"every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs and the British; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state"
Do you know what active retaliation means? Here is your active retaliation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
And they call Muslims terrorists.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 17, 2007
Alex.
Your comment reveals a fatal flaw.
All of what "Palestine" now wants is owned by Israel. By your own (lack of) logic, the Israelies have every right to lethally defend their territory. Your argument fails on its own premise.
Comment by WolvenBear | June 18, 2007
"Palestinans settling their disputes by bloodshed was almost unheard of until ISRAEL turned over the Gaza strip. That is also factually incorrect. Israel handed Gaza over in 2005. Palestinians didn’t kill each other until 2007."
Um … the last Israeli soldier left Gaza on September 12, 2005. Then on May 9, 2006 Time magazine ran a story about Gaza, titled “Is a Palestinian Civil War Breaking Out?” http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1192602,00.html
That’s maybe 8 months, not 2 years. Seems like it's not Israel's presence, but absence, that provided the catalyst to this violence.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 18, 2007
"That is also factually incorrect. Israel handed Gaza over in 2005. Palestinians didn’t kill each other until 2007."
You are quite right, alex, and I only hope I did not undermine your efforts.
Like I said, and you remind us by pointing out the "facts," it is important not to judge other cultures by our own standards.
Twenty-two months before dragging their own into the streets and shooting them through their heads may appear to be less than a success to the misinformed debating you here, but they fail to consider what a remarkable achievment it is for the Palestinians.
If these other posters would only realize it is hopeless to bebate us here… . Don't they know we have an answer for every criticism?
Not until they realize the Palestinans are blameless victims of the Zionists and of American foregin policy, will they have any hope of emerging from the seas of their confusion.
Comment by nick adams | June 18, 2007
Wolvenbear,
"All of what “Palestine” now wants is owned by Israel. By your own (lack of) logic, the Israelies have every right to lethally defend their territory. Your argument fails on its own premise."
That is the point of contention. It makes little difference if the "world" recognizes Israel, if the parties involved in the conflict do not. Until Israel is "recognized" by the Palestinians, Israel does not own the land.
Now in the Israeli point of view, yes they do have a right to defend "their" land with lethal force because they believe it is their land legitimately.
But they first have to convince the Palestinians of that before it becomes true.
Until the American Indians accepted being conquered by the Americans, and stopped resisting, America remained the conquerer and the American Indians were "lethally" defending their territory.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 18, 2007
Phillip,
You are right I stand corrected. However it was part of the same problem of corruption and refusal to accept the legitimacy of Hamas.
"Many current and former PSA leaders — all Fatah members — had used their posts to establish lucrative networks and monopolies in Gaza and the West Bank, all of which was threatened by Hamas' anti-corruption campaign platform."
This in no way will be helped by the current attempt of Israel and USA to fund and support Fatah in an effort to rout Hamas. It didn't work in Iran when we supported the Shah over the Islamists, and it won't work here.
Nick, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 18, 2007
For a good article that analyzes the situation, read the following
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/sami_moubayed/2007/06/find_or_create_another_arafat.html
Comment by alexkreuz | June 18, 2007
Great article ling, alex.
I think the line that reads: "When the Hamas leaders were voted into power, they were dying to be recognized as statesmen rather than guerilla warriors" sums it up best.
Most people, again judging only by the standards they are most comfortable with, assume that there can be no such thing as an "armed statesman."
Comment by nick adams | June 18, 2007
Every statesman is an armed statesman.
Whether it was George Washington and his musket or George Bush and his nuclear arsenal. Whether it was Menachim Begin and his Irgun or Ehud Olmert and his IDF.
Even the democrats know that the only electable statesman is an armed statesman. That is why "all options are on the table" with respect to Iran.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/18/opinion/edkhouri.php
http://uk.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUKNOA84074520070618
Comment by alexkreuz | June 18, 2007
And most statesmen have two arms as well. We shouldn't overlook that similarity between George Washington and the leaders of Hamas.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 18, 2007
Alexkreuz:
You are comparing George Washington to a Begin who planted a bomb and blew up the King David Hotel? That would be outrageous. If so, what is your nationality?
The only legitimate reason to bring up GW in this discussion is to say that if GW were here he would say what I said in post #38. He would say, “see, I told you to avoid foreign entanglements”.
Comment by Liberius | June 18, 2007
Alex: sorry for mucking things up. You have enough work here without having to correct me. All I can say is I am a product of public education.
But I am rereading "A People's History of the Unite States" to ensure I never make such a dumb mistake again. I have already gotten up to the part where we learn that George Washington and Hamas are one in the same.
And as for you, Mr. Jackson, you burn me up with wisecracks like that.
Washington may not have attempted to seize the presidency by shooting down his political enemies in the street, but that was chiefly due to practical concerns related to the cumbersome musket reloading process. Nothing more.
Comment by nick adams | June 18, 2007
I said George Washington was an armed statesman. Was he not?
If you want the "terrorist / freedom fighter" equivalent of Hamas, look no further than to the Sons of Liberty. Samuel Adams is your Yassin.
Of course in Public Education you learn that
… dumping the tea in the ocean (economic terrorism),
… intimidating the Tories (pro-English) through threats (inciting fear through terrorism),
… tarring and feathering the government officials (uncivilized behavior),
… shooting at the British military, who had legal claim to America, from behind trees (terrorist tactics),
… conspiring to overthrow the government in violent revolt (regime change through terrorism),
… amassing arms and weapons for violent revolt in Lexington & Concord (terrorist arms cache),
were all in the name of freedom and liberty and are celebrated every 4th of July. But of course to suggest that we celebrate terrorism / freedom fighting every Independence day would be blasphemous.
Thank god that evil rogue nation terrorist supporting regime, the French, helped the terrorists overthrow the British through violent means. If it wasn't for their constant supply to the Sons of Liberty, our attempt to overthrow the British through terrorism (freedom fighting) might have failed.
Since you all like parody so much.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 18, 2007
*constant supply of arms
was having too much fun writing that, I forgot to include that part
Comment by alexkreuz | June 18, 2007
Public Education,
I had to unlearn everything I learned in high school once I entered the department of history in college. Actually George Washington was neither in the Sons of Liberty nor a contributor to the Declaration of Independence.
But he was still an armed statesman. He took up arms against his recognized government and was a commander in a violent insurgency.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 18, 2007
It only took 4 days and less than 55 comments to equate the American Revolution with Islamo-fascist terrorism in Gaza, and assign moral equivalency to the actions of George Washington and Hamas. And this is what passes for a reasoned analysis to contest the main points of Mr. Goldstein's essay?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 18, 2007
lol,
whats wrong you don't find the "parody" funny?
no this is not what you call reasonable analysis.
this is called me emulating you guys when you guys argue with sarcasm and parody.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 18, 2007
"You know what [General Sharelli] said a couple of months ago? 'I don't need any more American troops in Baghdad, I need more jobs.' Thats what he said. We're disconnecting the human dynamic, the human element. The people of Iraq are good people thats not the issue here. But when people have no hope, when there's despair, little else matters. And this is not about terrorists who don't like freedom. Tell that to the Palestinian people who have been chained down for many many years. Terrorism is not a strategy; its a tactic. terrorism is not a belief like democracy or monarchy. Its a tactic. Its tactic. And so its far more complicated than what i think a lot of us are led to believe."
- Republican Senator from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel, to the Foreign Relations Committee.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 18, 2007
Alex, on the contrary. We get it. You think that throwing someone off the top of a 15 story building or shooting them in the head in front of their families because they’re the wrong kind of Palestinian is equivalent to Washington crossing the Delaware. [It’s only a parody if the person saying this actually believes the opposite.]
From the beginning, your basic point has been that Israel is to blame for the people in Gaza butchering each other. Except for Israel’s interference (and the USA and “the West” too, thrown in for good measure), they’re well on the way to governing themselves just like any normal group of people … except that normal people don’t act like Phil Leotardo trying to whack Tony Soprano to take over his territory.
You think the phrase “Palestinians prefer death” is a variation of the sentiment expressed in “Live free or die.” Sam Adams didn’t shoot Ben Franklin in the back of the head to express his patriotism, and when he was directing his efforts toward the British, he wasn’t staying up nights trying to figure out how many schoolchildren he could kill with a suicide bomber or indiscriminately fired rocket.
The moral relativism you assign to the actions of the terrorists thugs presently living in Gaza reduces any other points you wish to make to garbage. What you’ve written is a screed, not an analysis, which is why no one takes you seriously anymore — except for those who think “Jews were expelled from more than a hundred countries over time because they have been the agents of left-wing subversion in virtually every country that has hosted them …” There’s certainly no hyperbole here! The Jewish tailor, Jewish farmer, Jewish housewife and schoolchild are ‘justifiably’ expelled from over 100 countries because ALL Jews are agents of left-wing subversion? Goldstein wrote about opposing political camps in Gaza. This kind of Jewish conspiracy tripe is just idiocy disguised as rational thought.
By the way, quoting Chuck Hagel as a source authority on Middle East policy is like quoting Teddy Kennedy as a source authority on water safety. And Reuters certainly has demonstrated no bias at all in its Middle East reporting, except for the doctored pictures they repeatedly printed during the recent war between Israel and Hamas. You may want to think about broadening your reading material a bit.
There’s no point in pointing out the moral relativism of a moral relativist’s argument, so as someone said earlier, no one is expecting to change your mind. As long as there’s an Israel (or a US, or Western civilization in general), there will be an excuse for Palestinian-Palestinian brutality, at least for those who think Patrick Henry wore a hood while he machine gunned a political opponent to death because, hey, there was violence in the American Revolution just like there’s violence in Gaza, so what’s more to think about?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 18, 2007
Alex,
I'm not going to rip you too hard, because you're probably young, but here's 5 simple mistakes you've made in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict:
1. "Palestinians didn't begin killing each other until 2007."
Palestinians have been killing each other for decades. "Palestinians" have lived, worked, and shopped in Israel for longer than we've been alive. Often times, suicide bombers (not to mention rocket attacks) have killed Palestinians along with Israelis. Try again.
2. "Hamas is the equivalent of our revolutionaries."
Not even close.
While our forefathers fought an unneccessary war, they didn't target civilians. They didn't murder their own to try and convince the British that we were savages that should be given whatever we wanted. And while we fought guerrilla warfare…we kept it to the military.
3. "Israel doesn't own their land until Palestine recognizes it."
This is the equivalent of saying that, if a robber decides he owns your property, that until he recognizes your right to it…anything in your house is not really yours.
This point is devoid of anything even resembling logic.
4. "We want Democracy, but complain when Hamas is elected"
If all of a sudden, the Germans elected a government dedicated to destroying France, the world would be furious. Palestine electing Hamas is little different.
5. "Until Jews came BACK to Israel, the region was peaceful!"
Ignoring that the Jewish "right of return" (pardon the pun) outdates any group in the region to the area…
The middle east is one of the most violent areas in the world and always has been. When Israel returned, all the Arab/Muslim nations turned all their hostility to them, instead of outwards, or to each other.
And this isn't even addressing your ridiculous commentary about Iraq.
Comment by WolvenBear | June 18, 2007
1. "Palestinians have been killing each other for decades. “Palestinians” have lived, worked, and shopped in Israel for longer than we’ve been alive. Often times, suicide bombers (not to mention rocket attacks) have killed Palestinians along with Israelis. Try again."
Well if that is the case Israelis have killed their own every time they said "we do not negotiate with terrorists." It is called collateral damage. You're familiar with it I hope?
2. "While our forefathers fought an unneccessary war, they didn’t target civilians. They didn’t murder their own to try and convince the British that we were savages that should be given whatever we wanted. And while we fought guerrilla warfare…we kept it to the military."
Who said it was unnecessary? You didn't know that the Sons of Liberty harassed the Tories through threats, destruction of property, tarring and feathering, and lynching? Actually they did try to convince the British to give whatever they wanted on numerous occasions and were rejected. Have you never heard of the phrase "Taxation without Representation"? What do you suppose led to the war? Who said we kept it in the military? You did not know that the Tories (Loyalists) were lynched? Are you that ignorant of your own history?
"The expression ‘Lynch Mob’ comes from the American Patriot Judge Lynch who hung anyone suspected of being a Loyalist with impunity. The USA had even attempted to cut off a retreat for the Loyalists, by invading Canada with a large force."
http://www.redcoat.me.uk/index.htm#D
3. "This is the equivalent of saying that, if a robber decides he owns your property, that until he recognizes your right to it…anything in your house is not really yours. This point is devoid of anything even resembling logic."
If I have owned my house for 2000 years and a robber shows up on my footstep there is no contention. I own the house. But if the robber pushes me out and locks the door, and I can't get back in, then I still own the house. Until I give up my "right to return" to that house, I continue to own the house because it was stolen from me.
The contention is that the Israelis argue that they never came up the claim to the land over 2000 years ago, but that is preposterous. Take this to any civil court and the judge will throw out the Israeli argument out of the court room.
4. "If all of a sudden, the Germans elected a government dedicated to destroying France, the world would be furious. Palestine electing Hamas is little different."
That point is irrelevant because there is no contention of land between the two parties. If you gave the example of Ireland and Britain and their battle is over Northern Ireland, then there is, and was, public sentiment in favor of both parties. One party can not unilaterally claim to own that property and that is that.
5. "Ignoring that the Jewish “right of return” (pardon the pun) outdates any group in the region to the area…
The middle east is one of the most violent areas in the world and always has been. When Israel returned, all the Arab/Muslim nations turned all their hostility to them, instead of outwards, or to each other."
See point 3 about the Jewish right to return. In all truthness, the philistines were there before the Jews. Now what do you have to say about that? And for your information, the dinosaurs were there thousands of years before the the Philistines. If you ask me, we should set aside that land right now already for them in case they return in 2000 years. After all we don't want to make the mistake the Palestinians did and not predict the return of a people from 2000 years ago.
Actually the Middle East was one of the most peaceful regions for thousands of years. I believe that was the period when the West was experiencing their dark ages. Nearly all your sciences came from the prosperity of the middle east. The population in urban areas exceeded 200,000 people while in Europe the population in urban areas averages 20,000 people. Should I continue to address your ignorance to any history, American or Otherwise, older than 4 years?
That wasn't my ridiculous commentary about Iraq. That was Republican, Chuck Hagel, one of the most conservative senators in Congress.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 18, 2007
Here read something wholesome for a change.
The Many Faces of Judge Lynch: Extralegal Violence and Punishment in America (Hardcover)
by Christopher Waldrep
"To the numerous books on lynching and the anti-lynching movement in America, Waldrep (history, San Francisco State Univ.) now adds a detailed study of the word lynching and its changing meaning over 200 years of American history. Legend credits Charles Lynch of Virginia as the term's source, based on his suppression of loyalists during the American Revolution through extralegal beatings and killings. The term became common currency during the 19th century to describe the killing by a mob of an accused individual, regardless of race."
http://www.amazon.com/Many-Faces-Judge-Lynch-Extralegal/dp/0312293992
Comment by alexkreuz | June 18, 2007
Oh and in case you're unfamiliar with what collateral damage is. It is unintended deaths and damage in military activities. Like the 7 children we killed who we were supposed to be liberating. Or are you going to argue that we actually intended to kill those to gain international support for our cause?
"We are truly sorry for the innocent lives lost in this attack," said U.S. Army Maj. Chris Belcher about Sunday's raid against several structures, including a school and mosque, near the border with Pakistan. "We had surveillance on the compound all day and saw no indications there were children inside the building."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/world/4900751.html
Comment by alexkreuz | June 19, 2007
There is therefore no juridical or factual basis for asserting that the phrase "in Palestine" limited the establishment of the Jewish National Home to only a part of the country. On the contrary, Palestine and the Jewish National Home were synonymous terms, as is evidenced by the use of the same phrase in the second half of the Balfour Declaration which refers to the existing non-Jewish communities "in Palestine", clearly indicating the whole country. Similar evidence exists in the preamble and terms of the Mandate Charter.
The San Remo Resolution on Palestine combined the Balfour Declaration with Article 22 of the League Covenant. This meant that the general provisions of Article 22 applied to the Jewish people exclusively, who would set up their home and state in Palestine. There was no intention to apply Article 22 to the Arabs of the country, as was mistakenly concluded by the Palestine Royal Commission which relied on that article of the Covenant as the legal basis to justify the partition of Palestine, apart from the other reasons it gave. The proof of the applicability of Article 22 to the Jewish people, including not only those in Palestine at the time, but those who were expected to arrive in large numbers in the future, is found in the Smuts Resolution, which became Article 22 of the Covenant. It specifically names Palestine as one of the countries to which this article would apply. There was no doubt that when Palestine was named in the context of Article 22, it was linked exclusively to the Jewish National Home, as set down in the Balfour Declaration, a fact everyone was aware of at the time, including the representatives of the Arab national movement, as evidenced by the agreement between Emir Feisal and Dr. Chaim Weizmann dated January 3, 1919 as well as an important letter sent by the Emir to future US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter dated March 3, 1919. In that letter, Feisal characterized as “moderate and proper” the Zionist proposals presented by Nahum Sokolow and Weizmann to the Council of Ten at the Paris Peace Conference on February 27, 1919, which called for the development of Palestine into a Jewish commonwealth with extensive boundaries. The argument later made by Arab leaders that the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine were incompatible with Article 22 of the Covenant is totally undermined by the fact that the Smuts Resolution – the precursor of Article 22 – specifically included Palestine within its legal framework.
The San Remo Resolution on Palestine became Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres which was intended to end the war with Turkey, but though this treaty was never ratified by the Turkish National Government of Kemal Ataturk, the Resolution retained its validity as an independent act of international law when it was inserted into the Preamble of the Mandate for Palestine and confirmed by 52 states. The San Remo Resolution is the base document upon which the Mandate was constructed and to which it had to conform. It is therefore the pre-eminent foundation document of the State of Israel and the crowning achievement of pre-state Zionism. It has been accurately described as the Magna Carta of the Jewish people. It is the best proof that the whole country of Palestine and the Land of Israel belong exclusively to the Jewish people under international law.
The Mandate for Palestine implemented both the Balfour Declaration and Article 22 of the League Covenant, i.e. the San Remo Resolution. All four of these acts were building blocks in the legal structure that was created for the purpose of bringing about the establishment of an independent Jewish state. The Balfour Declaration in essence stated the principle or object of a Jewish state. The San Remo Resolution gave it the stamp of international law. The Mandate furnished all the details and means for the realization of the Jewish state. As noted, Britain’s chief obligation as Mandatory, Trustee and Tutor was the creation of the appropriate political, administrative and economic conditions to secure the Jewish state. All 28 articles of the Mandate were directed to this objective, including those articles that did not specifically mention the Jewish National Home. The Mandate created a right of return for the Jewish people to Palestine and the right to establish settlements on the land throughout the country in order to create the envisaged Jewish state.
In conferring the Mandate for Palestine on Britain, a contractual bond was created between the Principal Allied Powers and Britain, the former as Mandator and the latter as Mandatory. The Principal Allied Powers designated the Council of the League of Nations as the supervisor of the Mandatory to ensure that all the terms of the Mandate Charter would be strictly observed. The Mandate was drawn up in the form of a Decision of the League Council confirming the Mandate rather than making it part of a treaty with Turkey signed by the High Contracting Parties, as originally contemplated. To ensure compliance with the Mandate, the Mandatory had to submit an annual report to the League Council reporting on all its activities and the measures taken during the preceding year to realize the purpose of the Mandate and for the fulfillment of its obligations. This also created a contractual relationship between the League of Nations and Britain. A contract Britain violated with issuance of the " White Paper ".
Comment by menachembenyakov | June 19, 2007
Alex:
You did not answer my question. Are you an American?
It is foolish, defamatory, and treasonous (if you are American) to equivocate George Washington with a Palestinian terrorist. George Washington would never contemplate killing innocent civilians to advance a political agenda. That’s what terrorism is all about and the American Revolution was nothing of the kind. You don’t know anything if you do not understand the fundamental difference between the values of American patriots as compared to terrorists.
I cannot and will not deny that certain atrocities have been committed by Americans in time of war (e.g. tarring and feathering) but I don’t think that GW ever advocated that, nor the American revolutionary government. The bad actors were freelancing thugs and no one died of tarring and feathering. Can that possibly compare to a Hamas-funded suicide bomber who murders women and children in a restaurant? Of course not.
Personally, I wish that the Founding Fathers had been more patient about gaining independence through peaceful means but if you are going to fight then you are simply stupid if you don’t seek cover being trees while fighting a professional army. That’s not terrorism.
As you can see from my earlier posts, I am not pro-Israel. Neither am I pro-Palestine. But I am pro-America.
You’ve been brainwashed by leftwing, anti-American teachers and professors.
Comment by Liberius | June 19, 2007
Liberius,
"That’s what terrorism is all about and the American Revolution was nothing of the kind."
I'm sorry to burst your bubble Liberius, but if you were to look into treatment of Loyalists by the Patriots, you'd find out otherwise. If you really are concerned search the web about treatment of Loyalists.
"The bad actors were freelancing thugs and no one died of tarring and feathering."
They are members of the Sons of Liberty and supporters of the Sons of Liberty. They are the same people who signed the declaration of Independence. And people were lynched and killed. Sorry to burst your bubble again.
"but if you are going to fight then you are simply stupid if you don’t seek cover being trees while fighting a professional army."
I agree, if you are going to fight a professional military there is little you can do but lobby rockets from afar or use suicide tactics.
"You’ve been brainwashed by leftwing, anti-American teachers and professors. "
The rightwing pro-American teachers and professors used to teach that Slavery was a positive experience for the black man because we brought him out of savagery. Who is brainwashing who?
And yes I am American, but that neither strengthens nor weakens my argument. Is simply serves to anger you more. It angers you the same way that it angers me when I find out that "Americans" are ignorant of their own history.
Also to set the record straight I don't believe George Washington was a freedom fighter and not a terrorist so no, I am not treasonous. I believe whatever happened was necessary for the Americans to live free and unimpeded. It is you who believes Hamas are terrorists and not freedom fighters.
By your logic I am only committing treason because George Bush labeled Hamas as terrorists. George Bush is not the King of America.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 19, 2007
menachembenyakov,
"Agreement Between Emir Feisal Husseini and Dr. Weizman
ARTICLE IX
Any matters of dispute which my arise between the contracting parties shall be referred to the British Government for arbitration.
Given under our hand at LONDON.
ENGLAND, the THIRD day of
JANUARY, ONE THOUSAND NINE
HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN.
Chaim-Weizmann.
Feisal ibn-Hussein. "
Is that the same British Government that the Zionists terrorized through bombings and intimidation when they acted in their role as arbitrators.
Wouldn't you suggest that the British should not have negotiated with terrorists?
Comment by alexkreuz | June 19, 2007
The Americans had a policy of tit-for-tat. You send tax collectors, we tar and feather them. You tax our tea, we'll throw it into the harbor. You refuse to let us have weapons, we'll import them from the French.
You massacre our civilians in the Boston Massacre of 1770, and we will lynch your loyalist supporters and rout them out wherever they are. We will force them into Canada and Florida. We do not want their kind here.
The British even negotiated for us to return the loyalists' stolen property to them in the Treaty of Paris, but we did not care. We would be damned before we let those traitors back into America.
To argue that killing civilians is immoral when you forget that the Israli army has been systematically killing civilians continually. I hope I don't have to post pictures of places like Jenin, but I'm sure you're familiar with it. You expect the Palestinians not to retaliate when their population is being massacred?
No, normal people who have had over 4-20 decades of financed growth have had time to become "civilized". Let me see, do you remember what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina when there was no food, water, electricity, or security? Oh thats right, it only took 2-3 days before the civilians resorted to rape and murder; savagery. Americans don't behave like that? Cut their food, water, and electricity and we will see.
"he wasn’t staying up nights trying to figure out how many schoolchildren he could kill with a suicide bomber or indiscriminately fired rocket."
I wish there were documents around about that time. Suffice it to say, there was systematic prejudice and persecution of the Tories. Entire families, including children, were ousted into Canada. I'll let you fill in the dots.
I think I stopped with the analysis quite a while ago.
"There’s certainly no hyperbole here! The Jewish tailor, Jewish farmer, Jewish housewife and schoolchild are ‘justifiably’ expelled from over 100 countries because ALL Jews are agents of left-wing subversion?"
Sorry, I never wrote that. I was the one that wrote that I did support reparations to the Jewish population and it should be in the nation that committed the crime. Germany is famous for the Holocaust, let them be famous for giving 25% of their land to the Jewish population.
"You may want to think about broadening your reading material a bit."
lol, i'll make sure to remember that quote the next time someone points out to me how according to Ronald Reagan, (insert arguement here).
Comment by alexkreuz | June 19, 2007
Alex: I would ask that you please give me a heads up if you expect me to be a more effective supporter here.
I am new to taking the leftist position, and I have found that one of the hardest things for me is overcoming residual logic.
The article here asked the question of why Palestinians cannot rule themselves and suggested that the answer is that they cannot stop killing, even among themselves.
Applying what I have learned about leftist debate, I dutifully defended their actions as reasonable and expected, pointed out the evils of Israel and the U.S. and urged others to respect the governing styles of different cultures.
But you left me behind when you took up the moral equivalency angle.
I can see the advantage of removing the debate from the here and now of the Middle East, and taking it to 230 years ago in America and changing all the faces, but we can beat these fools without time travel.
Jews and Israel are evil enough. American policy today clearly is to blame and Palestinians clearly have no choice but to act the way they do.
I can try to catch up and work the moral equivalency angle, but I don't want to start coming up with good comparisons if you plan to switch gears and take the debate in yet another direction. Additionally, I will need some help coping with that damned vestigial logic.
If Hamas and Geroge Washington are the same, and I am to believe what was in the welcome package I received when I joined the Leftist movement,Washington is an evil man whose actions on all fronts are to be condemned.
Are we saying Hamas is evil like Washington or are we saying Hamas is good like Washington?
My copy of the Leftist manual says if anyone brings up these types of challenges to immediately call them a racist, and optionally a homophobe, but I wanted to check with you first.
Anyway, I'm trying with the new angle, but I might have to settle for waiting for this to get back to the original debate.Be assured I am ready and still have some pretty good defenses for Palestinaian behavior in my playbook.
Just to tease a little and show everyone here just what they are up against: I mean really you guys, if Israeli soldiers pull out of Gaza,and there are no Jewish civilians around, just who do you conservative wing nuts expect the Palestinians to kill? Your false outrage is laughable.
And there's a lot more where that came from.
Comment by nick adams | June 19, 2007
alexkreuz:
There were some cases of shameful mob violence around the time of the American Revolution but it was not analogous to the terrorism we see in the Middle East. Not even close. Terrorism targets innocent civilians, whereas the patriots targeted particular persons who engaged in alleged offensive behavior. Terrorism usually involves murder of those innocent civilians. The patriots were not about murder. We have seen thousands of innocent civilians murdered in cold blood by terrorists in the Middle East. Can you identify even a single case where the Sons of Liberty were responsible for murdering a civilian loyalist?
I did not indicate that being an American strengthens or weakens your argument. It was only relevant to the issue of treachery.
Correct, President George Bush is not the King of America but he has every right to say Hamas is a terrorist organization. Even I, a mere citizen, have a right to say that. To say that does not make anybody a king. As I have tried to indicate before, I think the Palestinians have a right to have their own nation but they don’t have a right to target and murder innocent civilians in order to obtain that goal. That being said, I advocate total neutrality regarding the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. I disagree with giving money to both the Israelis and the “Palestinians”.
My main point in this post is to defend the honor of our American heritage which you have assailed by equating American patriots to terrorists. If you want to advocate for the Palestinians or criticize the Israelis you should find another way to do so.
Comment by Liberius | June 19, 2007
"That being said, I advocate total neutrality regarding the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. I disagree with giving money to both the Israelis and the “Palestinians”."
I agree with you 100%. I am a strong opponent of violence. I believe all sides in this conflict are contributing to the problems. I believe both sides are terrorists or freedom fighters (choose your flavor). I believe the Israelis are fighting for their freedom and the Palestinians are fighting for their freedom. Similarly, I believe the Israelis are committing terrorism against the Palestinians and the Palestinians are committing terrorism against the Israelis.
With regards to American Heritage, let me tell you why I believe our nation is a great nation. It is because we have the strength to come clean about our past and admit our mistakes. We don't gloss over our treatment of the American Indians. We repent about our treatment of the Black Slaves. We apologize when we sent Japanese to the concentration camps.
"Terrorism targets innocent civilians, whereas the patriots targeted particular persons who engaged in alleged offensive behavior."
Pointing out our less than stellar times doesn't mean anybody is attacking anybody's heritage. It is true that the Sons of Liberty targeted innocent civilians for the sole reason of supporting the Crown over Independence. The "alleged offensive behavior" was supporting the Crown. I'm sorry if this is something you don't want to look into further.
The thing that differentiates us from the Zionists is that when a persecuted group confronts us about our past, we acknowledge our dark past and move on to reconcile. Yet to this day the Zionists celebrate the bombing of the King David Hotel. Just the other day, during the anniversary of the 67 war, the Israelis were discussing how they "mistook" the USS Liberty for an Egyptian ship when the Liberty was flying the US Flag up high.
It is outrageous. Until Israel begins to address their centuries of war crimes and terrorist activities, they will never come to any reconciliation with the Palestinians. Until then, they are both freedom fighters and both terrorists. Neither one holds a monopoly over morality.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 19, 2007
lol,
Ok guys you really twisted something on me. I never equated the terrorism aspect of Hamas with George Washington.
I equated the "armed statesman" aspect of Hamas with George Washington.
You guys clearly haven't recognized yet that Hamas, like any entity, has multiple properties and is not one dimensional.
Hamas.Terrorism = Samuel Adams
Hamas.ArmedStatesman = George Washington.
I am not aware of any terrorism on George Washington's behalf. He was reluctant to both go against the British / Loyalists and to serve as President. But he was an "armed statesman." Does that clear things up?
Nick, I also like how you automatically label me as a "leftist" when you hear my argument. I always thought the non-interventionist approach was a "rightist" approach.
Let me guess? You guys are voting for McCain? I'm a Ron Paul / Chuck Hagel supporter myself. But I'll let these two conservatives know that Nick said they are "leftists".
Comment by alexkreuz | June 19, 2007
Of course George Washington was armed. But what was your point of stating this obvious fact? The context of the statement suggested some equivocation with terrorism to which I took objection. If that is not your position I will move on.
I will not vote for John McCain. As a traditional conservative Republican, I don’t like him. He has betrayed the conservatives far too many times. His obstruction to the so-called “nuclear option” regarding judicial nominations and now his promotion of the immigration bill are the worse of many examples.
I strongly agree with Ron Paul’s non-interventionist ideas but some of his other libertarian positions are troubling and he just has no realistic chance of getting elected.
I’m considering Romney as the most talented Republican but I’m worried about his previous statements in trying to appeal to the liberals of Massachusetts. I am seriously considering Fred Thompson as well but I’m not 100% convinced that he is a reliable conservative. There are things I like about most of the Republican candidates but I think the nomination will come down to Romney or Fred Thompson.
Comment by Liberius | June 19, 2007
Chuck Hagel is a conservative? Only in the eyes of the New York Times.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 19, 2007
I love how you guys demonize any conservatives that are anti-war. I had no idea conservatism became so one dimensional.
Chuck Hagel
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm
# Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
# Rated 87% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
# Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
# Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
# Rated 92% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Comment by alexkreuz | June 19, 2007
Like I said, when I think of modern day conservatism, I always think of the Reagan-Hagel legacy. lol
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 19, 2007
Modern day conservatism. Oh you mean support illegal immigration so that Walmart can have their cheap labor? Spend upwards of 400 billion in Iraq, a country with no ties to Al Qaeda or WMDs, and call yourself fiscally conservative? Give up our national security for the national security for Israel? Illegally wiretap the entire country in the name of freedom?
Could you remind me again what it means to be conservative? I must have lost my road map somewhere along the way.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 19, 2007
Alex, have a look at National Journal Group Inc., which identifies itself as “a leading publisher of magazines, newsletters, books and directories for people who have a professional interest in politics, policy and government. Based in Washington, D.C., National Journal Group Inc. is committed to providing publications and services that are nonpartisan, reliable and of the highest quality."
These types of analyses are infinitely more reflective of reality than one interest group's self-serving designation based on their small subset of interests, which is something you'd really know if you really knew something.
As explained by NJG, the following ratings are based on calculations by the organization of economic, defense and foreign policy voting records. These percentages are calculated through a complex mathematical formula to determine how liberally a member of Congress voted in relation to the rest of the House or Senate.
Here are the 2005 (not 2003) rankings for that uber conservative Hagel
2005 According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2005, Senator Hagel voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 31 percent of the Senators.
2005 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Hagel voted more liberal on social policy issues than 43 percent of the Senators.
2005 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Hagel voted more liberal on foreign policy issues than 35 percent of the Senators.
2005 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Hagel voted more liberal on economic policy issues than 12 percent of the Senators.
By the way, as far as your roadmap goes, you can't lose something you obviously never possessed. lol
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 19, 2007
Phillip,
Can you link me directly to that publican. I can't seem to find it on the site.
2005. Would that happen to be the same year when the Republicans were kissing Bush's ass? I wonder if that study considers voting for the Patriot Act as conservative. Im curious to see if I can cross reference the Senators who were "more" conservative than Hagel with the Senators who support Bush's amnesty bill and see what I can come up with.
Oh thats right, I had my road map all along. But I never got a memo that you all tossed yours out and replaced it with the nonconservative pro-amnesty road map.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 19, 2007
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc#vr
More liberal than 28% of senators in 2006.
Doesn't that also mean he is more conservative than 72% of all senators? That makes him a liberal?
LOL
You guys are hilarious
Comment by alexkreuz | June 19, 2007
Alex: We all understand that complex reasoning is a skill you lack. You identified Hagel as a conservative of the same degree/commitment as Ron Paul. Going to the link you provided, there are 28 US Senators MORE CONSERVATIVE than Hagel. That makes Hagel #29 in the US Senate, but even more significantly, it makes him #29 out of 49 in HIS OWN PARTY! Hagel scores 28 on the liberal scale, DeMint scores 7.5, but you want us all to believe that Chuck is the epitome of modern day conservatism
It’s a small point, and like most of the topics you bring up not relevant to the main discussion, but it’s just another indicator that you just make up a lot of what you say. Your “analysis” consists of quoting from Hagel’s own website to prove his ultra “conservative” voting record, citing Reuters as an impartial source on the Middle East, and going back to your very first comment, make silly comparisons like “I will rebut your quote of ‘Clearly, the Palestinians prefer death’ with a quote from the state of New Hampshire; a state that is considered to be very American, very Patriotic, and very able to govern themselves. The quote is ‘Live free or die.’”
Not only is this a-historical and nonsensical, half the time no one can figure out what you are saying because you wander all over the place. To prove a point you insist there were 2 years between Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza and the beginning of the Gaza civil war. When I show you there were 8 months, you simply say that proves your point anyway. This is a juvenile, moronic way of debating an issue. You throw around words like you know what they mean when all you are really doing is pushing a political agenda, not engaging in a real debate. So in the words of Vinny Gambini, “I’m tru wit dis guy.”
Oh, and by the way, you’ll notice that no one uses lol or any cute smiley faces on this website, unless of course we’re just making fun of you for not being bright enough to figure out this isn’t the Daily Kos.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 19, 2007
"but you want us all to believe that Chuck is the epitome of modern day conservatism"
No i believe it was you who equated him to Ronald Reagan. Being #29 of 49 is still considerably right of center. But with reasoning like yours its no wonder that republicans all over the spectrum are leaving the party.
I won't continue since I don't even know what we are debating at this point anymore.
"by the way, you’ll notice that no one uses lol or any cute smiley faces on this website, unless of course we’re just making fun of you"
Thats funny because thats the only time I use LOL and :D myself. When I'm making fun of plain ignorance.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 19, 2007
"You identified Hagel as a conservative of the same degree/commitment as Ron Paul. Going to the link you provided, there are 28 US Senators MORE CONSERVATIVE than Hagel"
Oh and for your information. Ron Paul is MORE liberal than Chuck Hagel. Ron Paul has a liberal rating of 61%. He's more liberal than *gasp* 61% of the house members. I guess that makes Chuck Hagel MORE CONSERVATIVE.
But I guess according to you guys, Ron Paul is a liberal anyway, so my argument is just foolish.
Anyways, lets let this page die. 80+ off topic comments is too much recognition for a silly article such as this one.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 19, 2007
"In this case, Rudy Giuliani is as acceptable to me as the Party’s nominee as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Fred Thompson."
– Phillip Ellis Jackson
I'm sorry I had to throw one more in. I couldn't resist myself.
McCain is more liberal than 43% of senators. That means he is 43 of 49 among republicans. He is more liberal than Chuck. And I guarantee Rudy is more liberal than McCain. And you call me a liberal? You call Chuck Hagel a liberal? And you'd vote for McCain or Guliani?
You have thrown conservatism out of the window in favor of strong foreign interventionism.
Anyways haze away, I have everything out of my system now.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 19, 2007
Alex
You summed it up best when you wrote: "Well, I’ve said everything I had to say. Ranting more won’t wake (sic) my argument any stronger." Post #5, June 15, 2007.
You know, you were absolutely right. It never did get any stronger.
It's been fun/funny.
Comment by nick adams | June 19, 2007
Well said Nick, but I suspect it will be lost on a man who thinks that a political moderate is a philosophical conservative and lets his reasoning flow from there.
For a guy who says he's going away, he seems to have trouble finding the door.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | June 19, 2007
Ah yes. Those lovely Palestinians …..
http://pmw.org.il/bulletins_jun2007.htm#b190607
Comment by menachembenyakov | June 20, 2007
I liked the article. Some of the post have a lot to be desired though.
With all of the money that has poured into the palestinians they should have a wonderful country with the best medical, education, and human services around. Sadly they bought weapons with the money. Their choice not mine. The world now has a choice on how to deal with them. Further support makes no sense. I think things have to get so bad that they are forced to think of their survival instead of killing their neighbors. This will of course make for a great photo opportunity for the left. The world needs to turn their back to the palestinians just as they have turned their back on humanity.
This is so sad. I pray for them but can't support them.
Comment by fbaginski | June 22, 2007