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.
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”.
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.
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.
*constant supply of arms
was having too much fun writing that, I forgot to include that part
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.
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?
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.
“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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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 “.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
“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.
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”.
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.
Chuck Hagel is a conservative? Only in the eyes of the New York Times.
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)
Like I said, when I think of modern day conservatism, I always think of the Reagan-Hagel legacy. lol
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.
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
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.
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
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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
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.
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.
Ah yes. Those lovely Palestinians …..
http://pmw.org.il/bulletins_jun2007.htm#b190607
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.