A Further Perspective
A Peace of Obama’s Mind
Jerusalem is in the news again.
There is a wall of sorrow
Standing in
Jerusalem
Repentance, joy and knowledge
Are her adornments, her refrain,
You can build yet upon her
The foundations deeply lain
Though she’s all that does remain…
The many travelers near her
Taking pictures, going home
Never see her sorrow
Never hear her moan
I’ve been to her midst darkness
And I almost passed her by…
She is our reminder
Her expression not quite stone
Her silence is her beauty
And her sorrow is our own…
— Avraham Rosenblum
The Kotel Song, 1980
The last time I said Kaddish at the Holy Wall
I looked at those stones
At those holy stones
And I realized those stones are not made out of stone.
The holy stones are made out of tears
Tears of my father
Tears of my grandfather
And I looked at those holy stones and I saw six million little
tears…
— Shlomo Carlebach
I Heard the Wall Singing, 1968
Jerusalem is in the news again. Something to do with a few housing units being announced in a way calculated to anger Vice President Biden upon his arrival in Israel. An insult, said Joe, echoed by Hillary, amplified by Gibbs, magnified by Axelrod. No thought of the insult expressed by the visit of Biden, with Obama still loath to come in person after 15 months in office.
Putting the proximate cause of strife aside, a much larger issue emerges from this event. It is of utmost historical significance and is ignored at the peril of reality.
It is the notion that Jerusalem will be divided in a final peace treaty. This is now just short of explicitly accepted in all government and media discussions of the negotiating process. What is more, diplomats, bureaucrats and pundits have now begun to signal comfort in the expectation that the Arab half of Jerusalem will then become the capital of the Palestinian state.
This is one of those classic bits of myth that lodge themselves into otherwise reasonable crania but explode upon the minutest examination.
Assuming no other barrier existed to ceding the land itself, this could never workably be the capital city of Palestine. No way could Israel allow Jerusalem to be the capital of another country while moving its capital to Tel Aviv. This would be a national humiliation beyond imagining. Has any nation ever moved its parliament building out of a city to make peace with a stateless group of indigenous people? The idea is absurd. The other solution, for Jerusalem to function simultaneously as the capital of two separate countries not hitherto noted for comity, is yet more ridiculous.
For the United States to encourage Palestinians in this dream is to foster a delusion that can only end badly.
This utilitarian argument is the least of the problems. The essence of the holy land of Israel is captured in Jerusalem. Both temples stood there, and the Wailing Wall remains as the heart of the nation. As the great poet, Judah Halevi (1075-1141), expressed (in a line later absorbed into Naomi Shemer’s song Jerusalem of Gold): “I am a harp for all your music.”
The Jewish People will never again accept the city being divided. The Israel Defense Force would mount a large-scale mutiny. The entire country of Israel would erupt into demonstration. No government could impose this without a referendum and no referendum would get upward of 20 percent, or whatever the number of college professors on the voting rolls.
Religiously, romantically, symbolically, sentimentally, Jerusalem is Israel in the eyes of world Jewry. Ironically perhaps, Jews outside Israel identify with Jerusalem as their spiritual home more so than Israelis who live in other cities. It is not unrealistic to expect hundreds of thousands of Jews to stand up at their desks across the globe and head to the airport to block the division of Jerusalem with their bodies.
Ain’t happenin’. Jerusalem, all of it, will belong to the Jewish People forever and no Israeli government can put it on the table in a horse trade of any kind. Too many tears have been shed, too much blood has been spilled. The prophets promised this return and against all logical trend of history it has been achieved. No one is about to dismantle it to pacify some bullies.
This would be true even if the Palestinians were reasonable people represented by leaders empowered to obligate them in national arrangements. Instead the Palestinian territory is already divided into two hegemonies, Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza, and only Fatah is potentially negotiating.
If Obama, Biden and Clinton entertain legitimate aspirations for peace between Israel and Palestinians, they can begin by abandoning the foolery about Jerusalem.
“Jerusalem is surrounded by great mountains (I.e. threatening nations) but God encircles His nation from now until forever.” This verse in Psalm 125:2 is one of many in this vein. And if you were waiting for a sign from Heaven that this promise will be honored, here it is: Prime Minister Netanyahu’s son, Avner, won the National Bible Quiz in Israel this very week. The father of the Prime Minister, just turned 100, tutored his grandson to prepare for the competition. The tears of the grandfathers will continue to water the fertile spiritual fields of Jewish Jerusalem for a very long time.
In honor of the birth of my sixth grandchild, Benjamin Stern, in (yes!) East Jerusalem.
About the Author
Jay D. Homnick, commentator and humorist, is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator. He also writes for Human Events. Here he speaks at the Rally for Religious Freedom in Miami on June 8, 2012.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (177) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Jay D. Homnick
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/19/a-peace-of-obamas-mind
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 7:28AM
"Nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded."
- President George Washington
"Not seldom it has seemed as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States."
- Russell Kirk
Berkovits| 3.19.10 @ 12:19PM
Not seldom it has seemed as if some eminent whoever mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of Israel.
Alan Brooks| 3.21.10 @ 8:51PM
What makes Toddler suspect IMO is he cried crocodile tears over the Confederacy (naturally, he would qualify his past statements re Dixie by writing "what-I-meant-to-say...").
Does Todd-lard expect us to believe that a guy in 2010 New England cares sincere-diddlysquat about a Confederacy that was dissolved in 1865?
Alan Brooks| 3.21.10 @ 8:56PM
... a Yankee in the 21st century gives a you know what about the Confederacy that finished as a state 145 years ago? what sort of chumps does Turddered think we are?--
please don't answer that question.
Alan Brooks| 3.19.10 @ 9:40PM
Russell Kirk?? is he supposed to be the Oracle of conservatism? Why don't you also quote Sobran and Buchanan?
What bug is up your arse? Are more Jews well off than your ethnic group? is your name in fact Justin Raimando?--
that might explain it.
Alan Brooks| 3.20.10 @ 9:47PM
Turddered mentioned Kirk twice, so the question has to be repeated: since when was Kirk ever considered a Buckley, a George F. Will?
Alan Brooks| 3.20.10 @ 11:26PM
Look at Tatum's comment below, he is extremely careful to hide his opinion of Israel, he doesn't want to give his game away by writing:
"tourists go to Israel pro-Israel and come back anti-Israel, because they are turned off by the Jews."
He is very cleverly hiding his antisemitism behind analytical objectivity, and the more he denies such (which he will do so if he has the gall to continue) the more his antisemitism will stand out against the background of his disingenuous "objectivity".
Why not just be honest, Tater, and say you dislike Jews? is it so hard? There exist so many of your ilk that you will never be alone in your antisemitism. It is absolutely safe to be an antisemite. If you are Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, etc, etc... you can write books on the subject of how you dislike Jews yet you are no antisemite.
I will ask this question for the rest of my life: everyone must be forgiven except Jews? They must be the universal scapegoats forever? Jews must be crucified for all eternity?
Alan Brooks| 3.20.10 @ 11:32PM
"Hamas and Shas are interchangeable proponents of ethnic cleansing."
What breathtaking dissembling. You've got to hand it to Tater, he could be another Sobran.
JewishOdysseus | 3.21.10 @ 10:50PM
Can't let that context-tortured Russell Kirk quote go without response. It was from his 1988 speech, "Neoconservatives: An Endangered Species?," and was obviously a jesting nudge in the midst of a long list of all THE GOOD THINGS neoconservatives had done for American politics to that time. Here is the excerpt:
"H aving dreed the weird of the faction called the Neoconservatives, I proceed to praise them. For despite the seeming harshness of the judgments I uttered a few minutes ago, I have many sympathies with the Neoconservatives, and admiration for some of them. Permit me, then, to touch upon their achievements.
The Art of the Possible. First, in a time when riotous students and urban mobs did very much as they pleased; in an era when the Academy and the learned societies were dominated by radi cal doctrinaires; when the blunders domestic and foreign of the Johnson Administration enfeebled the nation - why, at that juncture the Neoconservatives came forward, proclaiming that politics is the art of the possible, and did their best in the cause of sound sense. They drubbed sentimental liberalism and scorned radical fanaticism. In that hour they maintained stoutly the rule of law and the politics of prudence.
Second, we are in debt to the Neoconservatives for their founding of several intelligent se rious journals - somewhat narrow in their scope and their readership and in their circle of contributors, perhaps, but containing many valuable articles on public policy, education, and other major subjects of the day. These publications have helped to demonstrate that, after all, conservatives are not so stupid as John Stuart Mill fancied them to be.
Third, in the realm of domestic politics at least, the Neoconservatives began discussion of practical alternatives to mere social drifting; they, or some of them, knowing that the national clock could not be turned back to the year 1928, endeavored to frame public policies that would meet realistically the necessities of the concluding three decades of the 20th century.
Fourth, in foreign policy the Neoconservatives have opposed manfully - or, in the case of Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, womanfully - the designs and menaces of the Soviet Union. They have been well aware that America is not merely opposing a national rival, but (graver peril) combatting an armed doctrine - as Burke said of British resistance to the Jacobins two centuries ago. Sometimes, true, they have been rash in their schemes of action, pursuing a fanciful democratic globaIism rather that the national interest of the United States; on such occasions I have tended to side with those moderate Libertarians who set their faces against foreign entanglements. And not seldom it has seemed as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States - a position they will have difficulty in maintaining, as matters drift in the Levant. Yet by and large, I think, they have helped to redeem America's foreign policy from the confusion into which it fell during and after the wars in southeastern Asia. In this they have re dressed the balance in the conduct of foreign affairs. In a little while, nevertheless, I shall utter some misgivings about possible long-run consequences of their understanding of America's international undertakings.
A Matter of Judicious Speculation. In short, the Neoconservatives have exercised considerable intellectual influence (though not conspicuously in the Academy), and have taken a vigorous hand in the decisions of the national government, during an era when the conservative movement in this country needed reinforcement. "
Gregory Tatum| 3.19.10 @ 8:06AM
In response to this very sad article, I can only invite Americans to visit occupied East Jerusalem to see for themselves the situation. Unfortunately, in my experience, Americans come to visit the Holy Land pro-Israeli and leave anti-Israeli. While the situation itself is far more complex (both sides have good arguments and bloody hands) than this simple transformation, it does reflect the reality that the Israeli treatment of Palestinians is morally outrageous and politically shortsighted. Hamas and Shas are interchangeable proponents of ethnic cleansing.
Nick| 3.19.10 @ 9:37AM
Mr. Tatum,
Enough with the moral equivalency argument, please.
Israelis aren't getting their children to strap on bombs and blow-up civilians.
Any atrocities committed by individual Jews are outweighed by the thousands committed by Hamas, Hezzbollah, al Aqsa, et al.
Gregory Tatum| 3.19.10 @ 11:49AM
Nick, I stand by the interchangeability of Hamas and Shas. Do they not both espouse ethnic cleansing? As to my comment that both have blood on their hands, my comment was a defense of Israel.
Nick| 3.19.10 @ 12:26PM
Mr.Tatum,
How many rocket attacks has Shas committed?
How many Shas leaders hide among civilians while conducting attacks on Gaza and the West Bank?
How many children has Shas trained to strap on bombs and blow-up civilians?
How is strictly interpreting God's command in the Bible for Israelites to live seperately from others the same as saying Israel should be "pushed into the sea?"
Again, no moral equivalency.
Gregory Tatum| 3.19.10 @ 4:00PM
Dear Nick, I in no way support terrorism and condemn Hamas without hesitation. I also condemn Shas and point out that their goal is simply Hamas' in reverse. It has not resorted to terrorism but then it hasn't needed to because it is part of a coalition government. Every Israeli government since the Second Arab-Israeli war has de facto colonized occupied territory displacing indigenous populations. As to reading the Bible, the Law and the prophets have a great deal to say about justice for resident aliens. Using the Bible selectively to dispossess but not to render justice is simply perverse. You seem to be fixated on the expression, "moral equivalency." The greater problem is a one-sided view of a very complex situation.
Nick| 3.19.10 @ 4:40PM
Mr. Tatum,
Can you provide the link to Shas stating that they want to push Arabs into the sea? Or Hamas? Or Gazans? You get my point.
Here's a simile for you:
Shas is to Hamas, as John Brown is to Quantrill's Raiders. It is "simply perverse" to compare the two.
Even the Zionist Jews that have committed atrocities (which I do not condone), don't come close to Hamas' evil deeds.
It's like comparing the acts of Jack the Ripper to those of Pol Pot. They are both evil, but it is the quantity that matters.
Raving Rabbi| 3.23.10 @ 2:42PM
Nick: More, it's like condemning all 1888 Londoners for not stopping Jack's spree.
audax| 3.20.10 @ 3:02AM
Ethnic Cleansing! Ethnic Cleansing! What has EVERY ARAB STATE in the world done but "Ethnic cleansing" of every Jew from their countries??? And now they want to ethnically cleanse Israel of jews by 'driving them into the sea". You are an idiot!
Christopher Holland| 3.20.10 @ 1:34AM
Pig's arse!
audax| 3.20.10 @ 3:10AM
You are an Islamofascist shill and an idiot. Anyone who has lived and worked in Israel as you claim would know better than to push this hornswaggle off as anything but pure garbage. Speaking of garbage, that is what you see in every Arab/Islamic society in the world. They have ZERO pride in their land other than words, and words do NOT clean up streets. They teach their CHILDREN to strap bombs on and kill other children! Your are more than an idiot, you are a moron and a nut.
audax| 3.20.10 @ 3:12AM
The idiot, moron, nut case is Gregory Tatum. see this was under someone elses comment.
KyMouse| 3.19.10 @ 9:01AM
Speak for yourself, Mr. Tatum. I've been to Israel repeatedly during the past 12 years and have come away with gratitude for the miracles that the Jewish people have worked there -- miracles of infrastructure, agriculture, commerce, medicine, and much more.
I've seen East Jerusalem and other Arab-controlled areas for myself. In Arab neighborhoods, I saw litter on every street, and piles of garbage awaiting someone other than the owners to clean them up. In Jewish neighborhoods, I saw no litter on the streets, but did see lots of immigrants from Russia and other countries doing their best to show pride in their modest homes.
In Jewish neighborhoods, I was welcome to visit synagogues and treated graciously. But when I visited the Arab-controlled Temple Mount, I was treated like an enemy spy -- forbidden to have a Bible with me or to have a cross showing (as in a necklace). An Arab followed us closely the whole time we were up there, listening to our conversation and scowling whenever we said something he didn't like.
The Arabs treated the land of Israel very badly while it was under their control, as Mark Twain noted in the 19th century. A drive through Israel today reveals modern cities in which people from any nation are welcome to live, if they will live in peace. Fields are bursting with all manner of fruits and flowers, from oranges to roses. And a recent survey of Arabs in Israel found that the vast majority would rather live in Israel than in any other Middle Eastern country. So would I.
KyMouse| 3.19.10 @ 9:09AM
I must correct myself -- the survey I mentioned, conducted by Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, found that 77 percent of Israeli Arabs would rather live in Israel than in any other country in the world -- not just in the Middle East.
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 10:26AM
"Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas."
- General David Petraeus
Christopher Holland| 3.20.10 @ 1:45AM
In 1990, during the first Gulf War, the George HW Bush administration thought Israel was undermining American efforts by existing. Israel was talked into not retaliating when it was attacked by Iraqi Scud missiles - a huge mistake. The Olso 'peace' process followed - another huge mistake. Israel withdrew from Lebanon and then from Gaza - terrorism continued. During the second Gulf War, the George W Bush administration said that Israeli-Palestinian tensions were undermining the war. Israel made offers, including East Jerusalem and they were rejected. Now a different administration says the same things. Not matter what happens, no matter what the circumstances, Israel gets blamed.
General Petraeus is advised to first win his own war for his own country before he starts telling others how to win theirs. Americans are going home next year, they have already surrendered. Expecting Israel to do the same is wishful thinking - they have no other place to go.
Joe Hamilton| 3.20.10 @ 12:54PM
If Petraeus actually said Israel is to blame for his ineffectiveness it is because:
Petraeus is a failure as a general. The US has been in Afghanistan for almost 9 years! Any competent military commander(s) would have ended the conflict which has no end in sight. Petraeus (if the quote is true) is using the age old device to divert attention from his failure : Blame the Jews.
Jania| 3.20.10 @ 10:59PM
General Petraeus may or may not be a good general, but is he an historian? Does he understand Middle East history and politics? The U.S. supports "moderate" Arab dictators and tryants who, in turn, suppress their own citizens and cause them misery. These Arabs—mostly the young males among them—blame the U.S. and want the U.S. military out of their lands. So they commit acts of terror against us. Of the 19 terrorists who on 9/11 hijacked American planes, 15 were from our moderate friend, Saudi Arabia, two were from our moderate friend, United Arab Emirates, and one was from our moderate friend, Egypt. If the legitimacy of those countries’ regimes are weakened (especially Saudia Arabia and Egypt), it is due to the horrendous way their treat their own people. I’m not saying that Israeli actions don’t make Arabs mad. When Israelis simply breathe, Arabs get mad. But this is no reason for Israelis to stop breathing. Nor should the U.S. even suggest it will accommodate the hatreds and bigotries of the terrorists.
Nick| 3.24.10 @ 6:44PM
"[General David Petraeus] also refuted blog reports that claimed he thinks U.S. support for Israel endangers the U.S. mission in the region.
-Philip Klein, AmSpecBlog
Gregory Tatum| 3.19.10 @ 12:06PM
Dear KyMouse, I was speaking for myself, as I said, "in my experience." You came away from your visit with a very positive view of Israelis and negative view of Palestinians. That is your experience. Your observations on cleanliness and litter, relative wealth and poverty are indisputable. So what? People who litter don't have basic rights to life, liberty, and property? You don't appear to know about the increased difficulty to get visas here. You mention not being able to wear the Cross on the Temple Mount. Did you try to wear one at the Western Wall--you would have been forbidden. Did you spend much time in the Jewish Quarter wearing a Cross? It is amazing that no haredi spat on you. Moreover, you would have been welcome in any Palestinian neighborhood church or mosque as you say that you were in neighborhood synagogues. You apparently didn't bother to try.
Tom| 3.19.10 @ 2:06PM
"Unfortunately, in my experience, Americans come to visit the Holy Land pro-Israeli and leave anti-Israeli.”
How many Americans have you surveyed to reach this conclusion? Or are you talking simply about yourself? If so just say "I went to Holy Land pro-Israeli and went away anti-Israeli". The use of hypothetical Americans none of us has any way of quantifying hardly bolsters your argument; in fact it weakens it. Did you do pre and post visit questioning? It is a variation of the some say phenomena in media today; we never know who those some are just as we’ll never know who your hypothetical Americans are. My two biggest pet peeves for those who post on the internet is the use of un-named to bolster arguments and those who claim credentials which are at best unverifiable. Make your argument, if it is powerful enough,even if you are the only one who went to the holy land and came back anti-Israeli, it will still be persuasive to those who are able to be persuaded.
Gregory Tatum| 3.19.10 @ 3:37PM
Dear Tom, as I said, "in my experience." I do not claim scholarly studies or statistics, I simply speak of my experience. I have lived in Jerusalem for five years and have had many American visitors. I am not anti-Israeli myself, I fully recognize Israel's right to self-determination and security and appreciate the complexity of the issues involved. Just as I cannot agree with the Left's blind anti-Israeli prejudice, I cannot agree with the Right's blind pr0-Israeli prejudice. My argument was simply come and see that the situation is not as clear cut as author made it out to be. The responses to my post do not appear to have bothered to read it.
Tom| 3.19.10 @ 5:04PM
Gregory,
I read your response. However, I give zero credence to hersay as evidence. There are very valid reasons why I think America should re-think its approach in the Middle East. However, I do not think whether visiting the Holy Lands and leaving with anti-Israeli feelings is on of those reasons.
Gregory| 3.20.10 @ 2:34AM
Dear Tom,
You are from what I can tell from our exchange a reasonable man. You objection still strikes me as off-point. I am not using hearsay as "evidence" in an argument, but rather as an illustration. As I wrote, "the situation . . . is far more complex than this simple transformation" from pro- to anti- sentiments. I am inviting people with too rosy a vision of Israel to actually visit the country and get information for themselves from a variety of sources and experiences. I would say the same to those who have too rosy a view of the Palestinian side of things.
Nick| 3.20.10 @ 7:54AM
Mr. Tatum,
How about those links?
Still waiting.
Josh| 3.19.10 @ 9:05AM
Here's the reality of the situation. Firstly, Jerusalem has never been the capital of any state but Israel. Ever. Secondly, there is not now, nor has there ever been, a Palestinian state or a Palestinian nation. There are no Palestinian people, per se. Rather, these are Arabs living in a region that historically has been called many things, including "Palestine" (which is a derivative of "Philistines," the enemies of the Israelites in ancient times). Israel did not go to war against a Palestinian state and occupy its land. Rather, six Arab countries attacked Israel at once. Israel defended itself, defeated the attackers, and won the so-called territories, not from the Palestinians, but from Jordan and Egypt.
Finally, Jerusalem, under the current Israeli control, is a free and open city. Israel, as a democracy, guarantees freedom of religion within its borders. In fact, Muslims make up 16% of the population of Israel. And for the record, Israeli Muslims are full citizens with full civil and political rights. They are free to teach Islam to their children in their own schools, and there are a number of Islamic universities and colleges in Israel and the territories. Just try to be a Jew or a Christian in a Muslim country and see if you can get the same rights and freedoms. Oh wait, don't do that, because you'll either be imprisoned or executed.
bob alou| 3.19.10 @ 9:26AM
A fine post.
Joe Hamilton| 3.20.10 @ 1:01PM
Very good post. I just would differ with how long there has been a significant Arab muslim presence.
According to Joan Peter's "From Time Immemorial"
The Muslims living in Palestine in about 1900, were predominantly not Arab. They were Turks, Kurds, and other non-Arab Muslims. This point strengthens your correct assertion there are no "Palestinian" people. Since the so-called Palestinians are Arab Muslims, they were a small minority until the British began to greatly encourage Arab Muslims from Syria , Lebanon, and Egypt to move into the Jewish National Homeland agreed to at San Remo by the League of Nations.
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 9:36AM
"Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas."
- General David Petraeus
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 9:46AM
Isn't it the Commander In Chief's responsibility to listen to his military commanders and aggressively engage any situation that endangers The Troops and undermines U.S. national security? Because according to General Petraeus - commander of United States Central Command - "perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel" does just that.
Berkovits| 3.19.10 @ 12:34PM
If you and Patraeus want perfect situation for creating Jeffersonian democracy in Afganistan, Iran, Iran or any Moslem country anywhere, forget it. This fake political-military estimation blaming Israel for practically everything is not getting anywhere. He only wants to support obama's moslemfil politics as a loyal employee. In the meantime it gives more ammunitions to the ememies of Israel.
Nick| 3.24.10 @ 6:45PM
"[General David Petraeus] also refuted blog reports that claimed he thinks U.S. support for Israel endangers the U.S. mission in the region.
-Philip Klein, AmSpecBlog
Nick| 3.19.10 @ 9:51AM
Toddard,
So what?
Why should we care what our enemies think about us?
Should we stop being an ally to the United Kingdom because it "foments anti-American sentiment" from Argentineans?
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 9:57AM
"Why should we care what our enemies think about us?"
Why should we care whether The Troops are endangered, or whether our national security is threatened? What a bizarre question.
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 10:12AM
Nick, you previously argued that the benefit to the US of our one-sided support of Israel was that Israel served as a valuable "partner in our war with the terrorists" (as though there was such a single war). But according to Gen. Petraeus, that alliance "foments anti-American sentiment", "limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world," that "al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support," and that it "gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas."
Since the "perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel" clearly does more harm than good in the "war with the terrorists" - thus nullifying the single justification you could come up with for the alliance - I ask again: What vital interest is served by this alliance? Why should it continue? What justification can there be to damage American vital interests in the way Gen. Petraeus describes? Shouldn't our government value American national security first and foremost?
Nick| 3.19.10 @ 10:29AM
Toddard,
Your assertion that our alliance with Israel "clearly does more harm than good" is purely subjective and not quantifiable in any way.
I freely admit supporting Israel makes many Moslems hate us. This is not a reason on which to base our foreign policy. We can't please everone, not should we try. I ask agian, should we drop the United Kingdom as an ally?
Red Phillips just admitted to me, on another thread, the he doesn't want to drop Israel as an ally. Why can't you?
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 11:40AM
"I freely admit supporting Israel makes many Moslems hate us. This is not a reason on which to base our foreign policy."
I agree. We should base it solely on our own national interest. Our one-sided support of Israel does NOT serve that interest, seeing as how according to Gen. Petraeus, that alliance "foments anti-American sentiment", "limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world," that "al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support," and that it "gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas."
Since the "perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel" clearly does more harm than good in the "war with the terrorists" - thus nullifying the single justification you could come up with for the alliance - I ask again: What vital interest is served by this alliance? Why should it continue? What justification can there be to damage American vital interests in the way Gen. Petraeus describes? Shouldn't our government value American national security first and foremost?
Still waiting for your answers, Nick.
Nick| 3.19.10 @ 12:10PM
Toddard,
You're not waiting for anything, you just can't handle the truth. I rebutted everyone of those arguments, try reading more carefully.
And, repeating yourself, over and over again, is not productive. Nor, does it refute my points.
I don't have a "single justification", I have many. I don't know how you missed them, after all this time. We share intelligence with Israel. We have a long history of mutual support during the cold war. They didn't retaliate during Operation Desert Storm. Do you need more?
Why should we drop our alliance with Israel, and not with the United Kingdom? Why aren't you constantly calling for our withdrawl from NATO?
Our "one-sided support for Israel" is based on years of friendship with them, on the one hand, and years of having our citizens murdered by the PLO and other Arabs on the other.
Try being more open minded, like your buddy Red Phillips.
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 12:30PM
"We share intelligence with Israel. We have a long history of mutual support during the cold war. They didn't retaliate during Operation Desert Storm. Do you need more?"
Yes, obviously. We supported Israel during the Cold War because it made sense strategically, and it was believed that the benefits of doing so vis a vis the Soviet threat outweighed whatever problems it caused us with the Islamic world. That Soviet threat no longer exists, and our alignment with Israel is *exacerbating* the very problem (Islamic terrorism) that is used to justify the alliance. If our alliance with Israel intensified the Soviet threat and detracted from our security it would not have been justifiable.
"Why should we drop our alliance with Israel, and not with the United Kingdom?"
I honestly didn't think that was a serious question. Actually, it's not a serious question. It cannot be said that our alliance with the UK "foments anti-American sentiment", "limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world," that "al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support," and that it "gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas."
"Why aren't you constantly calling for our withdrawl from NATO?"
What does that have to do with anything? Israel is not part of NATO.
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 12:10PM
"Red Phillips just admitted to me, on another thread, the he doesn't want to drop Israel as an ally. Why can't you?"
It depends entirely on what you mean by "ally". I am arguing against the alliance as it currently exists - against our literally unconditional support of Israel and our insistence that Israel's interests and our own are identical in every sense. I am not categorically opposed to Israel remaining a MNNA, or to cooperating with Israel in joint ventures etc. Nor am I arguing that should Israel ever face destruction we should not come to her aid.
bob alou| 3.19.10 @ 12:21PM
Why should Nick be quick to respond to your comments? No argument is going to change your mind. The idea that, as you refer to it "our one-sided support of Israel" is detrimental to American interests may be true in the sense that it does not endear us with those who hate Israel and Jews in general. As I have previously asked you before; do you really believe that if we abandon Israel, a liberal democracy that, we somehow become safer and that our vital national security interests are strengthened? I like and admire General Petraeus but he is not making an argument for abandoning Israel, rather that decisions have consequences. Were we to allow Israel to be destroyed down to the last man, woman and child would you think that would be in our interest? Would that make you happy? Have you been paying attention to England, France, what is going on in the Netherlands? Who would you believe we should abandon next? I ask you again, as I have previously, when people are firing thousands of rockets at you, when they are strapping bombs on themselves in order to try and kill your friends and families, when they have called for your complete destruction, what should be the proper response? What would you do?
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 12:45PM
"Were we to allow Israel to be destroyed down to the last man, woman and child would you think that would be in our interest? Would that make you happy?"
Remember when I noted how stupid you are yesterday (or the day before)? It's because you write things like this, that are so glaringly imbecilic they defy any response.
"The idea that, as you refer to it "our one-sided support of Israel" is detrimental to American interests may be true in the sense that..."
It is true in the sense that it intensifies and magnifies the terrorist threat and strengthens Al Qaeda and our other enemies, thus having a detrimental effect on our national security and endangering the lives of our citizens and soldiers. THAT is reason enough to cease our one-sided support and maintain a stance of neutrality. That our doing so would lead to Israel's destruction is an assertion so profoundly moronic, so very deeply stupid that I don't credit that even you believe such a thing.
"As I have previously asked you before; do you really believe that if we abandon Israel, a liberal democracy that, we somehow become safer and that our vital national security interests are strengthened?"
I do not know what you mean by "abandon". Israel is not a baby we are proposing to leave on a stranger's doorstep. I do not propose "abandonment", I propose neutrality. And yes I do believe neutrality would enhance our national security, because we would no longer be maintaining a policy that "foments anti-American sentiment", "limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world," that "al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support," and that "gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas."
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 12:46PM
Also, wop Bob Alou bop, balop bam boom?
NavyBrat | 3.19.10 @ 12:56PM
Wow Doddard. What an intelligent & witty riposte! I'll bet you're the star pupil of your 4th grade class. Now go read your copy of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." If all the pages aren't stuck together, that is.
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 1:10PM
"Wow Doddard. What an intelligent & witty riposte! I'll bet you're the star pupil of your 4th grade class. Now go read your copy of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." If all the pages aren't stuck together, that is."
What a magnificent, brilliant argument. Kudos. Your grasp of the dynamics of Middle Eastern politics is impressive indeed. You, sir, must be a genius.
NavyBrat | 3.19.10 @ 1:14PM
"What a magnificent, brilliant argument. Kudos. Your grasp of the dynamics of Middle Eastern politics is impressive indeed. You, sir, must be a genius."
"Such praise, coming from so degraded a source, was degrading to me, its recipient."...Cicero
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 1:06PM
"I ask you again, as I have previously, when people are firing thousands of rockets at you, when they are strapping bombs on themselves in order to try and kill your friends and families, when they have called for your complete destruction, what should be the proper response? What would you do?"
I would hate them with all my being and fight them until my last breath. I have answered your question honestly - you answer mine:
When a massive influx of foreign colonists from another continent settles in your land and claims it for their own, when they then ethnically cleanse your people from the land your people have occupied for centuries, when they force you and your family from your homes at gunpoint, when they commits various acts of terrorism (King David Hotel), various massacres (Deir Yassin) in doing so, when they then force you and all your people into a massive open-air prison where you were denied freedom of movement or access to medical supplies and basic nutritional needs to the extent that your children were malnourished and stunted, when that hostile foreign army controlls their airspace, borders and internal affairs, and continues to seize, occupy and shrink that land perpetually, when they meet any resistance with crushing force and collective punishment slaughtering thousands – what is the appropriate response? What would you do?
Be honest.
http://www.justicefirst.info/i.....s_crop.jpg
Jania| 3.20.10 @ 11:23PM
"When a massive influx of foreign colonists from another continent settles in your land and claims it for their own, when they then ethnically cleanse your people from the land your people have occupied for centuries, when they force you and your family from your homes ..."
Thank you, S.L. Toddard. You have accurately described the Arab invasions of almost all the countries in the Middle East beginning after the death of Mohammed. Great job, I must say.
Unfortunately, the people who lived in most of those countries were absorbed, killed, beaten into submission, or otherwise Arabized by force, so they are not around to fight back. Only the Jews are still around to fight for their rights. Actually, so are the Kurds, but they are in no position to fight back and take back what is theirs. Maybe someday they will do just that.
bob alou| 3.19.10 @ 2:15PM
What's next from you jackass? You believe it is imbecilic and stupid to ask why we should cozy up with people who are advocating the complete destruction of Israel, down to the last man woman and child and my asking you to explain if that is your position validates ad hominem attacks? U.S. neutrality towards Israel in the face of overwhelming adversity from the Muslim world may not guarantee the immediate destruction of Israel, but what do you think would ameliorate it in the long term? Again I ask you, jackass, what do you think we gain from the Arab world by remaining neutral towards Israel when Israel is, and has been, a democratic ally and is clearly not the aggressor? You are the one who is intellectually deficient, or perhaps merely dishonest, when you suggest that Iran's support of Hezbollah and Hamas would end if we were neutral towards Israel. Again, jackass, your explanations lack credibility of they fail to confront very foreseeable outcomes. And to end on a high note with a remark that speaks to your level; Bob Alou your momma balop bam boom.
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 2:45PM
"What's next from you jackass?"
Nothing. What's next is from YOU - an honest answer to my question, as I answered yours. Or, if you prefer not to answer then we can discontinue our little conversation.
I'm fine either way.
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 2:47PM
"Bob Alou your momma balop bam boom."
Hahaha. Well, that was good anyway.
bob alou| 3.19.10 @ 4:28PM
I am perfectly willing to continue civil discourse provided it is a two way street. How about this; I apologize for calling you a jackass and won't cast anymore innuendo in your momma's direction. In trying to address your question; Is your basic position that the persecution of Palestinians is improper by Israel because they are only trying to destroy the Nation of Israel because it should not exist, or should never have been allowed to have been created in the first place. Is this the question you are asking me answer? If so, I think that Israel has a right to exist for a lot of different reasons. I think that peace could be achieved in the region whenever those content to use the Palestinians for their own devices decide it is no longer worthwhile to do so. I don't believe that were we to withdraw our support of Israel that it would change our relations with Iran as it currently exists, now, or in the future. Syria? Probably not. Jordan, definitely and not for the better. Saudi Arabia? They hate us for who we are, love us for needing oil enough to help protect them. Again, I am not trying to be obtuse but if your position of that abandoning Israel, which will surely lead to increased hostilities in the region by those who have pledged its destruction is a good thing for the U.S. your position is wrong-headed, immoral, and little different than that promoted by the Arabs in conjunction with the Nazi's before the Nation of Israel even existed.
Jania| 3.20.10 @ 11:12PM
Of course we should care about the security of our troops. The reason our troops are being killed in Iraq and in Afghanistan is because our troops are in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Isn't it possible that the reason people from Iraq and Afghanistan are killing our soldiers is that our soldiers are killing them? Every time our soldiers justifiably kill insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, doesn’t it endanger our soldiers? Isn’t that what happens in war?
KyMouse| 3.19.10 @ 9:59AM
Speaking of the Temple Mount, as I did earlier, I understand that non-Muslims are forbidden to pray up there at present, largely because Jews and Christians praying could incite Muslems to violence. In contrast, anyone is welcome to pray at the Kotel, the Western Wall.
Muslims also don't like visitors to photograph the famous "demon face" that is on one of the Dome of the Rock's vertical marble slabs. If you haven't seen it, it's on the Web (search "Is the devil's face on the Dome of Rock?" and you'll find a good photo of it at answeringmuslims.com.). Yes, it really looks like that; I took a picture of it myself. The photo below the one on that Web site shows where the slab is in relation to the rest of the building.
Apparently, the image doesn't bother the Muslims, but it gives plenty of visitors the creeps.
Gregory Tatum| 3.19.10 @ 12:17PM
Dear KyMouse, At the moment Muslim men under the age of 50 are also not allowed to enter the Old City much less worship on the Temple Mount. No, not anyone can pray at the Kotel. Last year, Cardinal Schoenborn and a group of Austrian bishops were refused entry because they were wearing their pectoral crosses. The rabbi of the Kotel tried to treat the Pope the same way but luckily the government overruled such anti-Christian bias.
NavyBrat | 3.19.10 @ 12:49PM
"At the moment Muslim men under the age of 50 are also not allowed to enter the Old City much less worship on the Temple Mount."
Uh, maybe that's because many, if not most, Muslim men under 50 are the same ones who enjoy the latest semtex fashions in crowds of infidels (Jews OR Christians). Or maybe its because of a PLETHORA of incidents such as this latest one:
http://www.israelnationalnews......spx/123350
Gregory Tatum| 3.19.10 @ 3:47PM
Dear NavyBrat, the Christian population in the Holy Land is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The muslims kill them for not being muslim and their religious and civil rights are denied by the Israelis although they do not pose the threat that the muslims do. Further, to glamorize the Kotel as a place where everyone is welcome is simply insane.
audax| 3.20.10 @ 3:18AM
Oh, I see the Israelis don't take away the Christian's MOST FUNDAMENTAL of rights...the right to life..but you admit the Muslims do...you are an idiot!
PJ| 3.19.10 @ 2:52PM
Kymouse,
Just saw the picture. You're right, it is a bit creepy. Rationally, it's probably typical markings for that type of marble. You would think they would want to change the slab so as not to give ammunition to those who already think it's the religion of hate.
ncatty| 3.19.10 @ 10:09AM
"The essence of the holy land of Israel is captured in Jerusalem." Once you admit that there is such a concept as "holy land" you are asking for trouble. "Holy land" gives spiritual significance to an object. Isn't that idolatry?
Raving Rabbi| 3.23.10 @ 3:04PM
No, not unless you serve it.
People can become holy by becoming more G-d-like, cleaving to G-d, serving G-d, etc.
The land is holy because G-d chose it, because my grandfather Abraham consecrated it, because Israelites tithed its produce for millenia, etc.
Sorry if the concept disturbs your modern sensibilities, or if you see that as being unhelpful in carving out Mideast peace.
KyMouse| 3.19.10 @ 11:10AM
No, it is not idolatry. "Holy" means "set apart," as in special and separated. "For I am the Lord who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God; you shall therefore by holy, for I am holy" -- Leviticus 11:45. He is saying that they are set apart, special.
By calling Israel the "Holy Land," I (and others) mean that it is the land in which most of the Bible takes place, and in which God has already fulfilled many of his plans for humanity -- and will fulfill more as time goes on. It is holy because of the men and women of God who have lived, served Him, and died there, including Moses, King David and many others. It is the homeland of Messiah Y'shua (Jesus), and God repeatedly says in the Bible how special Jerusalem is. Do a Bible study on "Jerusalem" in your concordance and you'll see what I mean.
ncatty| 3.19.10 @ 11:22AM
I understand your definition. However, taken as a whole, Mr. Homnick's article depicts the "holy land" as a sacred object.
KyMouse| 3.19.10 @ 11:52AM
If you'll read the Bible, you'll see that the land is holy to God, and therefore it's holy to people who believe that God knows what He's talking about.
ncatty| 3.19.10 @ 12:42PM
Perhaps Mr. Homnick should advise us what he means by the use of "holy land", as he penned the words to the article, not you and I.
Jeremiah| 3.19.10 @ 11:11AM
It reflects the state of our moral and intellectual degeneracy that there should be any argument at all about who is to blame for the violence in the middle east. If a great sorcerer appeared and offered to create a two-state solution that would allow both sides to have peace and prosperity, Israel would embrace it. The Palestinians would strap a bomb onto a six-year-old and send him to hug the sorcerer while their fingers twitched on the detonator. And after all was blown to bits, the world would condemn Israel.
Malicious anti-semitism has been resurgent in Europe for several decades. It rises in America now. And the left, oh the left, they do not combat it. After jihadists, they are the primary source of it. The left just busies itself making anti-semitism respectable in elite circles.
Now Israel is surrounded by hostile armies in a way it never has been before. It stands alone, with even its old friend, America, joining those that would stone it into oblivion.
This episode has been greeted by astonishment by many of those of us who are conservative, as an object lesson in Obama's diplomatic ineptness. It is more than that. For decades now we have watched yammering, anti-intellectual yahoos sell themselves as an actual intellectual elite. They are in charge now and we have entered not just perilous times, but prophetic times. We lacked the vigor to check their assault on decency and freedom. Now we are about to enter into the greatest crisis in the history of western civilization. Will we find the vigor to stand, to recover the decency and liberty that we have already forfeited? The fate of Israel is the fate of the west.
Wesley Mouch| 3.19.10 @ 11:29AM
With the settlements in the West bank as they are, a two state solution looks very unlikely. So the issue of the location of a Palestinian capitol is beside the point. The bigger issue is what the demographics of Israel will look like in a few years. With a likely Arab majority of the population the moniker of "the only democracy in the middle east" will probably no longer be true.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.19.10 @ 11:49AM
Mouch,
You are as clueless as the character in the book. Go do something useful, and shoot yourself in the .....foot.
Mr. Homnick
Evil walks the halls of our whitehouse these days.
We even see it dribble in here at Am Spec from time to time. Texas sends God's blessings to Israel.
We remember the Alamo.
ncatty| 3.19.10 @ 12:51PM
While we are remembering things, lets remember the 34 dead and 171 wounded on the USS Liberty.
NavyBrat | 3.19.10 @ 1:10PM
ncatty. While I understand that the Liberty incident is a good enough reason for people to be hesitant about Israel, let's consider something. If one goes under the assumtion that the incident was friendly fire (which I do), then we can take the argument & turn it in other ways.
In Afghanistan (I'm not sure of the year), one of our A-10s accidentally strafed & killed 10 Canadian soldiers in an armored column. While this isn't the same number of deaths on the Liberty, would the Canadians be justified in thinking that we did that on purpose? I think not. Shat happens when bullets are flying. Sometimes, the wrong people die. That's war. Please don't misunderstand me. I think that the Liberty incident was a tragedy of the first order. It could've been MY Dad on that boat. But I also don't think that it was a delliberate attack.
ncatty| 3.19.10 @ 1:27PM
It was not only deliberate, it was repeated and in waves. However, if Israel thought it was in their national interest, then I understand their position. We should use the same analysis towards Israel, and any other nations. Also, what about the spy Pollard? Another "tragedy?"
Christopher Holland| 3.20.10 @ 1:51AM
What about the Alamo - don't that deserve a mention? There must be some way of blaming Jews for that one.
Wesley Mouch| 3.19.10 @ 1:06PM
From what I see God has blessed the US more than any other country in the world & I hope this continues.
NavyBrat | 3.19.10 @ 12:13PM
So if we follow Doddard's thinking, if we leave Israel to twist in the wind, then the jihadis will kill less of us. Uh huh. And I've got an oceanfront villa in Death Valley to sell you.
The fact of the matter is that Israel is a good strategic partner to us. They are the buffer between the west & the maniacal visions of the Hamas, Hezbollahs, & Irans of the world. Remember, we are, & have always been, The Great Satan to those people. Israel is The Little Satan. The Muslim beef with us LONG predates the birth of the state of Israel. The Barbary pirates come to mind. When asked for their reasoning behind the attacking & capturing of our ships, they responded that we were their enemy due to our religion. Nothing has changed since then.
As for Doddard's recent assertion a few days ago that Israel is an "alien" state? Well, Doddard, don't look now, but your swastika is showing. No amount of obfuscation you post on this site will ever change my mind.
PS. Iraq didn't go nuclear in the 80's. Gee, thanks IAF!!!
Nick| 3.19.10 @ 12:44PM
Mr. Toddard,
"I am not categorically opposed to Israel remaining a MNNA, [...]."
This is the first time I have seen you come close to admitting as much. This is progress, indeed.
If you believe we give "unconditional support" to Israel, are you unaware of what O'Biden and Shrillary the Hut have been saying to them lately?
How about the way Bubba the pervert's administration treated Israel? All he wanted was a peace deal. As I told Mr. Phillips, I don't think we have a "magical" cure for the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Bottom line, I just don't agree with you that the support we give Israel is more of a detriment than it is a benefit. Or, the right thing to do.
NavyBrat | 3.19.10 @ 12:53PM
Nick. I think Doddard is just throwing you a bone. All I needed to know about his feelings were summed up in his "alien state" comment a couple of days ago. Give the fools enough time, & they'll eventually tell you how they REALLY feel.
Nick| 3.19.10 @ 1:17PM
NavyBrat,
Good point.
After I posted my comment, I started to remember other things Toddard has written in defense of the Arabs, in previous arguments.
But, still, I got him to admit that he wouldn't drop Israel as an ally altogether.
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 1:19PM
"This is the first time I have seen you come close to admitting as much. This is progress, indeed."
I agree - your understanding is progressing along, though not at a pace I would call "brisk".
"If you believe we give "unconditional support" to Israel, are you unaware of what O'Biden and Shrillary the Hut have been saying to them lately?"
No, I'm not. What support have they withdrawn?
"How about the way Bubba the pervert's administration treated Israel?"
What support did Bubba withdraw? Economic aid? Military? Did he pledge neutrality?
"Bottom line, I just don't agree with you that the support we give Israel is more of a detriment than it is a benefit."
Well, whether it is a detriment or not doesn't effect your thinking either way, does it? No matter what arguments or evidence I brought forth it would not change your stance. Talk radio has taught you that being pro-Israel is essential to being a patriotic conservative, and that is your starting point - THEN you go looking for arguments as to why you're right. You start with a conclusion, and then work backwards, as do all hard-core ideologues. You have cited absolutely NOTHING that offsets the fact that our unconditional, blind support "foments anti-American sentiment", "limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world," that "al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support," and "gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas." Nor have you demonstrated how Washingtonian neutrality would damage our national security esp vis a vis the positive effects it would have (with regards to Petraeus' analysis).
Jeremiah| 3.19.10 @ 2:05PM
You are right, Toddard, that 'hard-core ideologues start with a conclusion and then work backwards - and you are the prime example.
About that unconditional, blind support for Israel you speak of...the Palestinians lob bombs daily into Israel, send women and children strapped with homicide-bombs regularly and that persuades us that we should talk to them. The Israelis build houses and apartments in land that is undisputably theirs and we rip them a new one and pressure them to make the sort of concessions that have always failed while putting Israel in harms way. There is certainly something mindless about that - but it isn't support of Israel.
Meantime all of this is the result of an attempted war of annihilation Arab states mounted against Israel. When the Arabs left with their tails between their legs, a whole lot of Arabs were displaced, the Palestinians. Instead of absorbing those displaced Arabs into their own, friendly countries, they decided some of Israel ought to be carved out for them, hoping to achieve by diplomacy what they failed to achieve by war. This gives those Arab states the dual benefit of not having to deal with fellow Arabs they consider too dirty to be part of their countries while maintaining a base to continue the existential attacks on Israel.
As for fostering anti-Americanism, in any dispute, the elements that do not find themselves persuading America to their cause will find a rise in anti-Americanism. That is in ANY dispute that America weighs in on. So the question is not whether weighing in on a dispute creates some negative fallout from the other side, but whether weighing in is in our interests. Is it in the interests of America to support a free, democratic state in a volatile region? Or is it in the interests of America to support a people who harbor and nurture jihadists and terrorists and aim to destroy the one stable, working democracy in the region? The answer to that is obvious except to hard-core ideologues such as yourself who refuse to join the reality-based community.
Here's my plan for the Middle East. We have offered the Palestinians a state, and Israel has supported it, provided that they drop their stated aim of wiping Israel off the map and recognizing her national legitimacy. Last chance, Palestinians, to accept that offer. Refuse again and there is only a one-state solution: Israel. You will have to go be absorbed back into the Arab states from whence you came. If you continue to attack Israel, we will support her in wiping you from the face of the earth.
As fot the use of human shields by these terrorists, our new policy is simple. We will henceforth warn civilians that when terrorists strike we are coming for them. If they hide among civilians, the civilians better toss them out or get out themselves. We are coming. If the terrorists hide in a mosque, the imam better toss them out or get out himself because we are coming.
Oh...and about those civilians that danced and sang in the streets celebrating after 9-11...they might want to watch that. My new contingency plans would include intelligence on Palestinian gathering places so that, in the event of a repeat of that display I would know where to send the bombers on a strafing run.
You want cowboy, I'll show you cowboy. We want peace, but if they insist on war I would give it to them with no sense of proportion. Quick, total and annihilating. Then what's left of them can whine to the United Nations.
Nick| 3.19.10 @ 2:16PM
Mr. Toddard,
"I agree [...]"
Is this an attempt at sarcasm, or are you this dense? It is you who has made progress, or so I thought.
"No, I'm not. What support have they withdrawn?"
Diplomatic support.
"What support did Bubba withdraw? Economic aid? Military? Did he pledge neutrality?"
The operative word was "unconditonal." Bubba the pervert put many CONDITIONS on Israel during his "peace" negotiations.
You also stated, previously, that we give "one-sided support" to Israel. Bubba proposed supporting Arafat and the P.A.with military and economic aid. President Bush provided the P.A. with economic aid.
Thus, making your statement NOT TRUE! Or a LIE. If you are as informed as you claim to be on Israeli-Arab affairs.
I resent the implication, after all of our debates, that I can't think for myself. I have proven my independence time and time again. Especially from your cookie-cutter, simplistic view that unless I agree with your isolationism, this makes me a neocon.
Don't make things up, just because you don't like that I point out the fact that you have a bigger problem with our alliance with Israel than you do with our alliances with the U.K. and others.
What was the benefit of belonging to NATO all those years? Didn't it make the Soviets hate us? Was it not a detriment to our national security? Would we have been better off to just defend OUR territorial boundaries against the Soviets?
Your criteria for who we should be allied with has no logic.
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 2:40PM
"Is this an attempt at sarcasm, or are you this dense? It is you who has made progress, or so I thought."
My position has not "progressed" - your understanding of it has.
"Bubba the pervert put many CONDITIONS on Israel during his "peace" negotiations."
What conditions? And did Israel hold to them? When they did not, did we withdraw support, or instead did we prove those "conditions" to be toothless fictions?
Regardless, I was speaking primarily to the unconditional support we lend Israel now. These new settlements are a violation of those "conditions", of course. More toothless fictions.
"I resent the implication..."
I'm sorry that you resent it, but I believe it's true, and I believe you are demonstrating it here.
"What was the benefit of belonging to NATO all those years?"
It benefited us by acting as an assurance against Soviet expansion into Western Europe. The Soviets posed an existential threat, and America sought allies in countering it. Our membership in NATO did not, obviously, intensify or magnify that threat - it lessened it, as it denied the USSR territorial expansion and the resources such expansion would have given them access to.
"Didn't it make the Soviets hate us?"
No.
"Was it not a detriment to our national security?"
OBVIOUSLY NOT. Are you serious?
"Would we have been better off to just defend OUR territorial boundaries against the Soviets?"
I think that argument can be made, to be honest, with the benefit of hindsight. I do not subscribe to the notion, though, that the Cold War was unnecessary as some libertarians do. I think NATO made perfect sense considering the unprecedented magnitude of the threat facing us.
"Your criteria for who we should be allied with has no logic."
I have not even touched on my "criteria for who we should be allied with." I have discussed why our unconditional support for Israel is unjustified. You have STILL failed to counter it. Because Israel shares intelligence? Do you think we get more out of that bargain than they do? Do you think if we maintained neutrality Israel would refuse the intelligence our agencies - the most massive, well informed and well funded in history - have to trade?
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 2:42PM
Nick - I have to run for a bit. I will get back to you later or tomorrow.
Have a good day.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.19.10 @ 1:37PM
Nick,
What does MNNA mean?
NavyBrat,
Thank you for joining the conversations here. You bring a unique viewpoint that I really appreciate.
A while back, I copy pasted ALL of the context of President Washington's views:
If you are very nice...I will share with you and our fellows some of my most horrible screw-ups. I know those will get some laughs
George Washington Quotes
As any of you who actually read the entire speech will recognize, President Washington was speaking to the citizens George Washington Farewell address http://www.earlyamerica.com/ea...../text.html
So many people pull Washington’s thoughts out of context, sorta’ like some people pull “proof scriptures” out of the Bible. Both are stupid.
I have linked President Washington’s entire speech here for those among us who care to know the full meaning of his last public speech. (Heh), which would never, ever, get past the TV sound-bite speeches we hear today.
Margie,
thank you so much for moving me to write this essay, and taking our sincere brothers and sisters to the source of the words that some here would distort for their own twisted
egos’ sake.
of a very young, still very weak, nation. He was terrified that we would get involved in the endless European wars, and he explained precisely why here.
37 Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Then Mr. Washington made a very rational observation about our circumstances as a “detached and distant situation”…..
38 Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel
Each honest reader here who is educated enough to understand a compound sentence, will see Washington’s vision of a future powerful nation… a day to come for our nation…”when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.”
Finally, he wrapped up the discussion of international affairs thusly:
49 The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavour to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.
In closing, please read the article 49 above caaaarefully. Never again will you be misled by some idiot using Washington’s brilliant words to deny our nation, “the command of its own fortunes”…that we have achieved and he so prayed for.
3 The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped, that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives, which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement, from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence impelled me to abandon the idea.
the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; than, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing, as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation, which is yet a stranger to it.
The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.
laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.
20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
27 Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices ?
32 In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.
35 Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
stop.
37 Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
enmities.
38 Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
caprice?
40 It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
48 The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.
49 The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavour to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes. ""
Folks, I hope each of you will copy paste the above in your documents file.
Toddard is an idiot. George Washington proves it here above.
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 2:02PM
It always puzzles me why you post this. No non-interventionist believes we should not "choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.” Nor does any non-interventionist not recognize that the US, in the early years of the republic, faced dangers far, far more profound than those we face now, and that Washington was guarding against them. We are in complete agreement.
What matters is that NOTHING in that address (and Ken is hoping no one bothers to read it all) contradicts Washington's assertion that "nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded," or that "against the insidious wiles of foreign influence... the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake". Nor does Washington imply that the United States, once it was more secure, should *abandon* Washington's principles.
I fear you have failed to understand the address at all, Ken.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.19.10 @ 2:17PM
Toddard,
I will allow each reader to decide for themselves. I am content.
The only reason I re-posted it is for the benefit of our new conversationalists who may have not seen it.
Personally, I think you are a myopic idiot.
S.L. Toddard| 3.19.10 @ 2:43PM
I don't know why you have to be so crass and rude.
Anyway, MNNA means "Major Non NATO Ally".
audax| 3.20.10 @ 3:25AM
Whew! Glad we cleared that up! I thought it meant Major Nattering Nabob of Assininity
Tim| 3.19.10 @ 2:34PM
Apparently . Jewish Americans voted 77 percent for Obama.
If they don't give a crap,why should the rest of us.
Pingback| 3.19.10 @ 2:50PM
The American Spectator : A Peace of Obama's Mind Information links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.19.10 @ 3:02PM
Hi Tim.
Good point. I have wondered the same for years.
A little mystical perhaps, but I wonder if God himself has "pulled a veil across their eyes".
Evidently, Jesus will have to come again in power and majesty, before the Jews will be able to recognize Him as their very own Messiah....and the son of David.
They seem to have forgotten their own scriptures of "The Suffering Servant" prophesies.
Whatever, I consider myself an "adopted Jew"...adopted by the Jew...Jesus.
God WILL sort it out justly. I am content.
Nick| 3.19.10 @ 3:50PM
Mr. Toddard,
"What conditions? And did Israel hold to them? When they did not, did we withdraw support, or instead did we prove those "conditions" to be toothless fictions?"
Wow.
Really? Are you really this ignorant?
Have you never heard of "Land for Peace?" The Oslo Accords? The Hebron Agreement?
If you are this uninformed on this subject, it is pointless to discuss it further.
I supply fact, after fact, to make my arguments; and all you offer is assertions, opinions, and obtuse questions.
the permanent newbie| 3.19.10 @ 5:53PM
Precisely. I'll keep it concise:
Here is a complete list of everything Hamas and the PA (and before them the PLO) has promised Israel in exchange for land for an independent Palestinian state:
Thank you for your rapt attention.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.19.10 @ 4:01PM
Nick,
Toddard is not ignorant.
Toddard is a myopic idiot.
Worse, he is a myopic peasant who cannot see beyond the edge of his (virtual) farm.
Finally, he is embarassing. Get used to it. Get a giggle listening to his one stringed violin.
Pingback| 3.19.10 @ 8:47PM
Top 0 Interest Credit Card Guide! | Michigan Mortgage | Credit Finance Wisdom links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.19.10 @ 9:16PM
Where can I get a bad credit auto loan without phonecalls from dealerships? | pc-cras links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.19.10 @ 9:22PM
How to Raise the Perfect Dog: Through Puppyhood and Beyond (Hardcover) links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.19.10 @ 9:24PM
How to Raise the Perfect Dog: Through Puppyhood and Beyond links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.19.10 @ 9:25PM
How to Raise the Perfect Dog: Through Puppyhood and Beyond (Hardcover) links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.19.10 @ 10:16PM
3 Ways You Can Understand Panic Attacks | Stress Relief Guided Meditation links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.19.10 @ 10:35PM
How to Raise the Perfect Dog: Through Puppyhood and Beyond links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.19.10 @ 11:07PM
Get Help to Stop Smoking: Can I Stop Smoking With Laser Therapy? | Smoking Health Wis links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.19.10 @ 11:44PM
How to Overcome Exam Stress Easily With Self Hypnosis | Instant Hypnosis links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jackie| 3.20.10 @ 2:30AM
As the best DVD Creator software, FLV to DVD can easily can quickly burn FLV files to DVD Disc, convert FLV to DVD Video, decode FLV movie to ISO files. With just a few clicks, you can convert FLV to DVD with superfast speed and high quality.
Pingback| 3.20.10 @ 6:04AM
The Amazon Kindle – Doing Great Business For Amazon | Current Events: mySpot4news.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.20.10 @ 5:36PM
How do I get Acai Burn to stop calling me? | links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Michele San Pietro| 3.21.10 @ 10:56AM
It is clear that Obama only wants destruction of Israel and triumph of islamic terrorism, he's simply infamous.
eqrger | 3.22.10 @ 6:29AM
Well done! Nice shoe
hqert | 3.22.10 @ 6:32AM
Pray for a nice environment!
hertr | 3.22.10 @ 6:34AM
newenergy plays an important role!
raving rabbi| 3.23.10 @ 3:15PM
Thanks for those marvelous pingbacks, and all the wonderful products you spammed us about. However, Jay Homnick is a Torah-observant Jew and wants none of your spiced ham. All the pings and pongs ARE a welcome diversion from Tattered Toddard, though.
Nick| 3.24.10 @ 6:46PM
"[General David Petraeus] also refuted blog reports that claimed he thinks U.S. support for Israel endangers the U.S. mission in the region.
-Philip Klein, AmSpecBlog
andy k| 4.20.10 @ 5:38PM
the neoconservatives have done considerable intellectual influence (though not conspicuous at the Academy), and has taken a strong hand in the decisions of national governments, Microsoft points at a time when the conservative movement in this country need to strengthen.
Trackback| 4.21.10 @ 3:11AM
visit website, on visit website, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
daniel | 5.8.10 @ 3:34AM
This situation is really not easy, and all the parts should see that there is no future in making war. Compromice must be find !
Scrabble Cheat
steve | 9.27.10 @ 6:23PM
I suspect there is so much hatred there never will be any peace. All I see is a bunch of liars.
The other countries don't give up any of their land to the palestinians either.