WW3 might have just started, God help us all!

Off Topic
61

Mark, I disagree. If your goal is to “stand out from the herd” so to speak, you can be a maverick by probing beyond the shallowness of the American media to learn just how deplorable the ideological situation of the Arab world really is, culminating in its hatred of the West and continual antisemitism. The American public has little to no awareness of the teachings of Wahabiism (which are the gospel of Hamas and Islamic Jihad), and they have even less awareness of the influence of Wahabiism in determining the TENOR of debate throughout the entire Muslim world.

I think the American media treats the Palestinians with kid gloves (although it has been a little better since 9-11). In Arafat’s Arabic speeches to his people he continually promises “Palestine from River to Sea.” He calls the suicide bombers martyrs and gives honor to their families. He prevented Abbas from using his police forces (60,000!) to prevent suicide killings. The American public at large believe that the goals of the current leadership of the Palestinian Authority are fundamentally different from Hamas’ in regard to Israel, but that’s not the case at all. Has the American media publicized the admission of members of Arafat’s cabinet that the Second Intifada was at his instigation?
Do most Americans know that the Palestinian version of Sesame Street, (which we gave money for to teach tolerance) aired a little Muslim girl announcing her aspirations to kill Jews in Jihad?

The news frequently includes a tally of Jews and Palestinians dead without telling that the number of Palestinians dead includes (1) the suicide killers themselves, (2) anyone killed in an accident while making a bomb, (3) anyone killed by bullets raining down when Palestinians shoot at a funeral of a bombmaker (besides, not indicating that the difference in medical treatment hugely inflates the ratio). This seems to indicate the opposite of a pro-Israeli bias.

Is the American public truly aware of how the existence of the state of Israel violates the Koranic status of Jews as “dhimmis”? Is it aware that Jerusalem is only a “holy city” in Islam (never mentioned once in the Koran) because ANY great city taken over in Jihad becomes a holy Islamic city (their greatest mosques are built on churches and synogogues)? Mark, you’ve raised the notion of “Biblical Israel,” do you think the American public is aware that the analogous notion in the Koran is the whole freakin’ globe–a struggle which Mohammad exhorts his followers to as their unending responsibility–and this is why Bin Laden and his cohorts are our sworn enemies? Is the American public aware that a watered down version of this idea has spread throughout the entire Muslim world so that mainstream Arab culture speaks deprecatingly of “Americanization,” when they discuss their social failures?

Out of curiosity, Mark, what do the Crusades mean to most Americans? If you answer a Medieval prototype of Western imperialism, it may show the influence of the American media. “Crusader” is an evil word among virtually ALL Arabs, but any decent history book will show you that it was a DEFENSIVE measure against Islamic imperialism that was primarily unjust in its effects on other Christians and Jews.

Mark, I respect your desire to look beneath the surface of news clips and official government positions, but I would encourage you to look for the problems in all nations, not just in Israel. That’s a double standard I know you don’t want to fall into, because I don’t believe that your interest in the matter is solely about “standing out from the herd.”

62

Mark just got his ass handed to him.

63

Oh, I just saw your recent post. I guess I have 4 direct questions for you:

(1) What do you mean by “ethnic cleansing”?
(2) What do you mean by “apartheid state”?
(3) Tell me how you think Jewish settlers got most of their land before the 1948 attack by the Arabs, and how many people lived on it before the Jewish owners.
(4) Are you telling us that you believe in the moral correctness of a Palestinian state and not a Jewish state?
(5) Do you believe in a version of the “two-state solution” that we’ve never heard of before, whereby there is a “Palestinian state” set up alongside a “nonspecific state” (formerly called Israel) where Jews can live if they so choose?

64

mark r, i have to admit you do come across as having an “israel is evil” mentality/bias.

just as you defend the general palestinian populace as victims, you must also defend the general israeli populace who is caught in the middle of this mess. there have definitely been policy failures on both sides that can only be blamed on the respective leaderships.

while i mostly blame sharon for instigating the violence in the last couple of years (an opinion i’ve developed over the years), there are some unnamed palestinian/islamic leaders that are quick to call for suicide bombs in tel aviv and haifa.
if you do the research on both sides, you’ll find out that there is no clear “good vs. evil.”

the issue here is not “which side is good/bad?” it is rather “how do we prevent WW3?”

a simple solution involves a change in leadership across the board.

arafat should relinquish his control over the palestinian security forces to give the PM credibility as a palestinian negotiator. sharon should dissolve his coalition government, call for new elections, and give credance to israel as a nation capable of negotiation (as glute mentioned, many people are weary of sharon and feel he is calling attention to israel’s national security problems to escape domestic problems). the US electorate should vote against any neo-con/likudnik influence (feith, wolfowitz, libby, lieberman, pearle, etc.) in the 2004 presidential election in order to viewed as an impartial arbitrator and to effectively broker a peace deal between israel and palestine. only when the respective parties take these or similar actions, can we address the problems at hand.

sidenote regarding the 2004 elections: it is increasingly more likely that the neo-cons/likudniks will fall out of favor with the US as more “america-first” conservatives such as buchanan, novak, etc. begin to speak out against our substantial economic and military subsidy of israel, and as grassroots democratic candidates such as clark and dean, who are not necessarily linked to any existing political networks, gain ground.

Howard Dean: United States should ?not take sides? in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Wesley Clark: When asked if he would support NATO troops being deployed in Israel and the Occupied Territories, Clark responded by stating: ?Well, at some point, yes. At some point, there may be a time to do that.

Pat Buchanan: “The neoconservatives who plotted this war before they ever met George Bush, and who prodded and pushed him into it, are now pushing for confrontation with Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Their agenda is not now and has never been America’s agenda.”

Robert Novak: persian gulf 2 = “Sharon’s war”

neoconservatives: “Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history. Their admiration for the Israeli Likud party’s tactics, including preventive warfare such as Israel’s 1981 raid on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for “democracy.” They call their revolutionary ideology “Wilsonianism” (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as the Palestinians.”

if you want the sources to the quotes, just google them

and, again, for the record i am part jewish (but always american fist)… so don’t accuse me of anti-semitism for despising our neoCONS.

65

the issue here is not “which side is good/bad?” it is rather “how do we prevent WW3?”

At last!

66

Dahn, you keep saying how you’re 1/4 Jewish. Are you asking for a Hannukah card?

67

haha. very funny.

i’ve been called anti-semitic. and on this very post i was called a nazi.

a common tactic of neoconservatives and those who support their policies is to label their critics as anti-semitic and thus discredit their work. ask pat buchanan and he’ll tell you how many times he’s been called an anti-semite for questioning the iraq war. (btw, i don’t like buchanan’s isolationist visions, but i admire him for his america-first attitude.)

it is the obligation of non-neocon jews to expose this tactic, as it is one of the lowest forms political mudslinging.

68

Brian,

Yes, I did notice that you disagree with me. Most people do, at least on this issue. By the way, I didn’t arrive at my conclusions to ‘stand out from the herd’. In fact, I am a paleo-conservative (an America-first type like Pat Buchanan, but not as isolationist), so it was difficult for me to move away from my neo-con brothers. (I also mention that so no one here thinks I’m some liberal.)

As for your earlier post, it’s obvious that, unlike most Americans, you at least know about the issues. However, you do tend to respond with the typical pro-Israel talking points. For example, you compare Israeli and Palestinian behavior, as if there is a moral equivalency between occupier and occupied people. Israelis also frequently justify their occupation by pointing out the weaknesses of the Palestinians.

Do the failings of the Palestinian people truly legitimize this decades-long occupation and subjugation of Palestine? This is like the US excuse for stealing Indian lands, when we said that Indians were ‘just savages’ that hated White society and people. Were they supposed to like White people and society? Did the French people ‘hate’ German occupiers? Are these people mere racists, or do most occupied people ‘hate’ their occupier?

As for the Crusades, I’m fully aware of the Moorish invasion of Spain. The Crusades were partly an effort to drive out foreign invaders, but were also an effort to maintain Western control of Jerusalem. Arabs are still angry over this, but so are we. This is fine with me – we have a right to defend ourselves.

In closing, I am not pro-Arab. I am pro-American. Also, while it may appear that I’m more interested in Israeli mistakes than those of the Palestinians (and there are plenty of those to go around), it’s because Israel is the occupier. I do support the right of Israel to exist. In fact, I support their right to either annex the Occupied Territories, as long as they absorb the population as well, or to go with the ‘two-state’ solution, as long as they don’t steal half the West Bank for themselves.

69

No, doogie, I didn’t. You got your ass handed to you, in that you fell for the standard false argument form, which is the statement of opinions as facts from which to start debates. You’re not alone – most Americans are as well, and this is what will start WWIII.

70

Danh, my point is that your 1/4-Jewishness is irrelevent since some of the most notorious antisemites throughot history have had Jewish blood. I can remember when Farrakhan declared his possible Jewish to deflect charges of antisemtism!

I’m going to have to bust out of this thread because it’s getting to be a little too “grassy knoll” for me, as William Buckley used to say (nod to the paleo-conservatives) but Dahn, please quote me where someone says Pat Buchanon was antisemitic BECAUSE he didn’t support the Iraq war.

When people suggest Buchanan is antisemitic, they usually mean the time he convinced Reagan not to bow to “Jewish pressure” and put a wreath on NAZI soldier graves, a major embarassment for our country and its veterans who served in WW2. Also, they might be referring to the language of the kind refered to below (from http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/800/804.html):
Steven Hayward: The way this falls out is, Pat uses language like cabal, the left by the way uses the same language–a conspiracy, mostly when you say neo-conservative that’s often a euphemism for somebody who’s Jewish, even though many prominent neo-conservatives aren’t.
Peter Robinson: Bill Bennett, Gene Kirkpatrick… [Brian’s note: Francis Fukuyama, etc.]
Steven Hayward: Michel Novak, the Catholic theologian. Right. Okay. And then the return fire from the other side, what gets in the New York Times and elsewhere as well, there’s anti-Semitism behind all that. And this distracts us completely from the nature of the argument, which Taki just raised in a very reasonable form I think. Now, I have a lot to say about this–I take the heterodox view, oddly enough, that most of the Arab regimes there want the status quo with Israel to continue for the very simple reason that–the existence of Israel and its alliance with the United States is a way to channel the frustrations and discontent of their own people.
Taki Theodoracopulos: Oh sure.
Steven Hayward: And if Israel were to disappear tomorrow, the region would probably be in worse shape and/or it would have to pivot even more fully to anti-Americanism. And one of the problems you see all around the world, I mean there’s anti-Americanism in areas far remote from the Middle East and part of what it is is people are resentful about McDonalds, they’re resentful about, just that Americans dominate the globe. And that sort of thing goes on…
Taki Theodoracopulos: That is to be expected.
Peter Robinson: Okay can I–Taki, we just have to deal with this. You have said you believe in Israel’s right to exist, Pat Buchanan has said the same thing, absolutely no question about it, but you make the point that Israel’s interest and American interests do not always coincide…
Taki Theodoracopulos: Are not necessarily the same.
Peter Robinson: …or do not always coincide and that when our interests differ from theirs we should put our interest first. Now that strikes me as pretty reasonable. However, you’ve got Pat saying stuff like this–he writes, again in your magazine, you’re co-editor, in other words, you’re associated with this stuff in one way or another. Pat wrote not long ago that for neo-conservatives it is a matter of, I quote him, “One nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.” Now that is an obvious play on the Nazi slogan, “Ein volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer.”

Mark R., I think your description of the bipolar opposition “occupied vs. occupier” sounds much more out of the New Left book then anything paleoconservative and Buchanan (who I can’t imagine showing any overwhelming sympathy for the Indians!) has always contended that his opposition toward Israel is precisely BECAUSE of his foreign policy of isolationism (which you say you reject!) Honestly, I don’t know where you’re coming from.

Danh, try to be sympathetic. When Jews hear talk that sounds like a international conspiracy theory and puts them in the center, they tend to bristle and shout NAZI. They’re a little hypersensitive after the whole attempted genocide thing. So if someone says “antisemite” to you in this context, just calmly try to explain to them why what you’re saying may be significantly different from comments like those made this week by outgoing Malaysian PM Mahathir: “The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.” (He also added that Jews “invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy” to avoid persecution and gain control of the most powerful countries [AP Asia], so I guess the USA can thank them for the last two…)

And Bluey, as to what we can do to prevent WW3…I think if you stop fucking your mother, God will take pity on this world and prevent WW3 from starting in the Middle East or anywhere else. …Just kidding, man.

Anyway, guys it’s been fun, but I have to get away from the computer screen and contribute to the betterment of my life (for example, by lifting some weight). Take care.–Brian

71

Brian,

I don’t reject Buchanan’s isolationism. My only difference is that I am accepting of free trade, while Buchanan tends to oppose it. I’m about as isolationist as he is otherwise. As for my opinions on the occupation of Palestine, I’m in line with other paleoconservatives.

I have to ask – how can one not draw a distinction between occupier and occupied? By the way, my description of the Indians is an illustrative one – I don’t advocate giving them back the land.

Well, it sounds like you have no argument in favor of Israel. I do congratulate you for the valiant attempt. It’s not your fault – the occupation is morally and legally indefensible. Their only argument is that God gave them this land.

Have a good workout, bro. If you can think of a good reason for Israel to occupy someone?s country for 36 years, please let us all know.

72

In the last post, I meant to say “Well, it sounds like you have no argument in favor of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. I do congratulate you for the valiant attempt. It’s not your fault – the occupation is morally and legally indefensible. Their only argument is that God gave them this land.”

73

political mudslinging often deviates from the issues at hand. no one is actually going to say “pat buchanan doesn’t support the war in iraq ERGO pat buchanan is an antisemite”. instead they resort to name calling and journalism based on bad research.

here’s the JDL on buchanan:
http://www.jdl.org/action/action/jdl_v_buchanan.shtml

here’s the jerusalem post: http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030328/comm2.shtml

it’s funny that you say some of anti-semites are actually jewish. it seems to be the same tactic the jdl is applying to sam cohen (jew) as of late for not falling in line with neocon foreign policy (read the first jdl article).

i hope i’ve defended my point that anti-semitism card as a political tool is 1) despicable yet 2) often used by neocons to this day.

i too wish to separate myself from this post.

my main point: we new need leadership across the board

74

Cuda says my post on Israel’s human rights abuses in the Occupied Territories is too long, and he’s right. The long list of atrocities committed by Israel against Palestinians is FAR too long. Most of the world recognizes this fact, as the UN frequently tries to sanction Israel for this behavior, only to be stymied by the US veto. In fact, votes on Israeli atrocities are typically about 161-2.

My problem is that the US subsidizes Israel’s heavy-handed actions in the Occupied Territories with foreign aid, military subsidies, and loan guarantees. In fact, it’s mostly US-manufactured weaponry used to suppress the Palestinian people. It’s this entanglement, combined with the schism in world opinion, that’s likely to cause WWIII.

75

I strongly believe that Israel IS evil
and i’m not against jews…but you have to believe that they are pushing their luck a bit.

76

Oh, know, I have to keep looking at this thread… Retard, you wrote in another post: “…if I were palestinian you can bet your ass off I would blow myself up just to kill some of those SOBs!!!”

Do you realize that you’re talking about women and children eating at a restaurant. You must be a real man…

77

Retard and Mark and you other Jew haters,

Do you really believe Israel could do anything to keep the Palestinians from wanting to wipe them off of the Earth? If every Israeli up and moved to California tomorrow, in 30 years Palestinians would still be a bunch of poor, rock throwing, Jew hating scumbags. They would still blame all of their shortcomings on Jews.

“Hey, Achnad, I burned my toast this morning.”
“Of coures, Omar. The Jews have conspired against our breakfast pleasure for 2000 years.”

I can’t understand where any of you are coming from. If the choice were living in a world full of Jews with no Palestinians or full of Palestinians with no Jews, how could you choose the Palestinians? You can’t think the Palestinians wouldn’t be looking to kill you soon. Can you imagine living in an autonomous Palestinian state?

78

Doogie,

Your idiocy hardly merits a reply but, for some reason, I’ll waste ten minutes of my life that I’ll never get back to do so.

First of all, you called me a Jew hater. This is a typical Israeli tactic – any critique of its governmental policies is immediately branded as anti-Semitism. Well, I criticized Israel, not Jews, and I’m not a ‘Jew hater’, so you can feel free to kiss my ass.

You ask if Israel could do anything to keep the Palestinians from wanting to wipe them off of the earth. Well, I suppose Israel could start by not occupying Palestinian lands and subjecting Palestinian to humiliating atrocities. However, I believe it’s your point of reference that’s invalid. The issue is not one of which people are ‘more desirable’. Rather, the issue is of one of basic human rights. Besides, just because you believe the anti-Arab propaganda that passes for news in the US doesn’t make it true.

Are other atrocities justified by comparisons between perpetrators and victims? By your logic, Hitler’s murder of 1 million Gypsies was justified, as Germans may make better neighbors than Gypsies. Am I understanding you correctly?

79

doogie,

if you have a point to make, please support it with substance.

name-calling, hypotheticals, and two-line skits are not really substantive.

and, NO, i’m not a jew hater. how many times do i have to say that i’m part-jewish (politically independent).

please read the arguments and respond to the arguments if you disagree with the points or the citations.

for example, brian obviously has an inclination to side with israel on various issues, and he presents and develops his arguments with thought and with citations. follow his lead if you have something to say. let’s be adults here and avoid 3rd-grade analyses of a complex problem.

and may i remind you, the subject of this thread was the probablility of ww3 as a result of the airstikes on syria by israel, not whether a palestinian is toasting his bread correctly.

80

I don’t know if Mark R. is exactly “a Jew hater.” It does seems to me that this mapping of “occupied and occupier” onto Israel, with the “occupied” being justified in all their hate, and most of their crimes, fails in several ways. Off the top of my head:

(1) Various “occupied peoples” have responded to their occupiers in different ways. Does this mean that the most savage, inhuman response indicates the most suffering and deserves the most moral absolution? Of course not! And just it’s just the opposite when it comes to the moral issue. I’m sorry, but Ghandi and Mandela were more commendable fighters for their peoples than the Algerian terrorists who murdered French teenagers in soda bars.
(2) The Palestinians have jurisdiction in VIRTUALLY ALL the land in the “occupied territories”. They want national sovreignty, yes, and won’t have it as long as they face incursions. Of course.
(3) The VAST majority of Israel wants to move ASAP into a situation which their soldiers have NO jurisdiction in the territories and man NO incursions. They only tolerated in the meantime for security.
(4) Unlike the imperialist model, Israel does not thrive on the resources, material or human, of the occupied territory. In fact, Palestinian tradesman WANT more interaction with Israelis in order to prosper, and the checkpoints to halt the progress of suicide killers, screw up their opportunities for trade.
(5) It’s not like Jews just showed up in the Middle East, arousing the rancor of the Arabs, who were suddenly deathly frightened of becoming dispossesed. Jews had always lived in the region in significant numbers (now virtually all evicted and living in Israel). Jews who had always formed a large part (by many counts, a majority) of the population in Jerusalem. The Arab world had understood the Jewish presence in their biblical homeland, and understood why their tribesman from Europe would come there to join them, but they could not accept it when the desert started to thrive and cities began to be built around the Jews. Thus, they made life even more miserable for their Jewish neighbors who naturally began to head for the Jewish land developments in the British colony. This is not like when the White man suddenly appeared in America to the Indians. It would compare better to a scenario in which poor white families are getting pissed off because they see that in the poor black neighborhood, middle-class African-Americans from out of state are moving in, buying real estate and developing the ghetto into the good side of town.

Mark R. seems to be combining some nativist Pat Buchanon stuff with Third World Liberation stuff, which I haven’t found to fit together.

Retard on the other hand seems like a retard.

And Bluey, I’m sorry for that joke a few posts back. That was harsher than I intended.