The American Spectator

Sean| 1.7.09 @ 11:34PM

People should remember that Israel looks after their own interest and is not above attacking a U.S. warship to accomplish its goals. The U.S. should look after their own interests also. There is no need for the US to be giving out foreign aid to Israel or any other country in the Middle East.

ruth| 1.7.09 @ 11:35PM

He must be a Ron Paul fan.

Paul| 1.7.09 @ 11:47PM

Or Jimmy Earl Carter!

Alan Brooks| 1.8.09 @ 12:15AM

who, Sean? or Tacky Theodora-poop-onya?

Alan Brooks| 1.8.09 @ 12:20AM

Tacky's of Grecian ethnicity, so he knows more than we do about the mideast.
right?

Alan Skools| 1.8.09 @ 12:24AM

Sean, Israel looks after "its interests" not quote their interest unquote.

Glad to see the skool you went to was worse than mine.

Alan Skools| 1.8.09 @ 12:28AM

alrighty, one more message,

at least Tacky Theodoracopulatus can write-- unlike SOMEBODY we know! nighty night, Sean, baby.

Sean| 1.8.09 @ 12:59AM

Ruth must be one of those Bob Dole, George Bush, and John McCain Republicans. Not much difference between you and a Democrat most likely.

William R| 1.8.09 @ 1:09AM

I miss the days when James Bovard was a regular at The American Spectator for all those years. Now he's a regular at Antiwar.com

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/01/06/why-not-kill-all-gazans/

ruth| 1.8.09 @ 1:49AM

Thought so, Sean. Another Ron Paul nitwit.

WendyG| 1.8.09 @ 7:55AM

It's open season for the anti-Israel crowd at the moment. All the usual crazies have some out (and are gathering at waterholes like antiwar.com, which isn't antiwar.)

You never hear these sorts of rants against the Islamofascists. Did Taki have anything to say after the slaughter in India last month? Or did he blame that on Israel as well.

C Bowen| 1.8.09 @ 8:52AM

WillR,

I remember those days, too, back when AmSpec was a conservative magazine rather than a hangout for Soccer Mom Republicans.

William R| 1.8.09 @ 10:13AM

Vatican calls Gaza a concentration camp.

Israel Admits Claims About Attacked School Baseless

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/01/07/un-israel-admits-claims-about-attacked-school-baseless/

WendyG| 1.8.09 @ 10:29AM

William R | 1.8.09 @ 10:13AM

Vatican calls Gaza a concentration camp.

**********
This was a statement by Cardinal Renato Martino. No friend to Israel or Jews. A fool nobody pays attention to.

Here are some past statements by this man:

****
A top Vatican official said Tuesday he felt pity and compassion for Saddam Hussein and criticized the U.S. military for showing video footage of him being treated “like a cow.”

“I felt pity to see this man destroyed, (the military) looking at his teeth as if he were a cow. They could have spared us these pictures,” he said. “Seeing him like this, a man in his tragedy, despite all the heavy blame he bears, I had a sense of compassion for him,” he said in answer to questions about Saddam’s arrest.

On 6 November 2006, after the death sentence had been passed on Saddam Hussein, Martino said that:

"...punishing a crime with another crime – which is what killing for vindication is – would mean that we are still at the point of demanding an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth..."

He pleaded for clemency for Hussein and called for a peace conference aimed at solving all the major conflicts in the Middle East and reiterated his position that invasion of Iraq by U.S.-led coalition was wrong.

Speaking in Cuba he once emphasized that solidarity precedes individual rights, and in fact solidarity forms the foundation of all other rights.

*****

There are leftists and and Arabists in the church.

BTW, are we now to be targeted at this site by the loons at antiwar.com? What a bore.

j| 1.8.09 @ 11:10AM

Taki of Gstaadt has lost money in the Bernie Madoff scam. Understandably, he is mad at Madoff. But his ranting at Israel reveals that under his Greek pesudo-aristocratic mask lurks a non-Greek barbarian.

Wiglaf| 1.8.09 @ 2:28PM

Philip Klein says: "One can criticize Israel, we are told, without being anti-Semitic".

Are you stating that since it's hearsay, you will continue to believe the criticism of Israel equals being anti-Semitic?

Of course, if you, Philip Klein, are willing to call Palestinians schmucks who deserve to be blown up, doesn't that make you an anti-semite? After all, Palestinians are semitic as well.

ruth| 1.8.09 @ 2:57PM

C Bowen, so does that mean AS is only for manly men? Women can read, too, or is that not allowed in your world?

George| 1.8.09 @ 5:43PM

Ahh Sean and C Bowen, as an early and strong Obama supporter I am really enjoying watching you and your ilk engage in a circular firing squad. Keep at it - with the hope that there are no more crazy wingnuts like you left to finish off the last vestiges of our constitution and the bankrupting of our country.

charles| 1.8.09 @ 5:43PM

What you quoted is a criticism of Israel. What exactly is anti-semitic about it?

JoeMama| 1.8.09 @ 6:20PM

He's absolutely right! Israel was a bad idea from the very beginning! Israelis have been having a party at someone else's expense since the beginning of their history. Israel is a flim flam that extorts 2 billion from Germany every year and 3 billion from the US. All the money is used to perpetuate a slow motion Holocaust on the Palestinians. The Palestinians are as subjugated by Zionists as American Politicians are. You will rarely see an American Politician speak critically of Israel. Reason? They are afraid and should be. Israeli lobbyists are termites eating away at America's tax base and the good will we possessed around the world. Israel's enemies have been America's enemies for too long. America is a slave to Israel and that needs to stop.

C Bowen| 1.8.09 @ 6:31PM

Ruth;

Taki use to pay the bills around here, but Mr. Tyrell found working for the Man pays better. He ditched his old friend H.L., even.

George;

Any serious person knows there is no difference between the parties. Do you want to do an over under on Obama's body count or, lets be honest, you really don't care, just so long as you get to root for the winner?

DLane| 1.8.09 @ 6:45PM

In what way are his comments anti-semitic? The excerpt printed above contains factual statements that no serioius person can possibly dispute. Isreael has stolen Palestinian land; it has lied to the world about its intentions; and it has done so with the support of American tax money. I acknowledge that those facts are true. Does that make me an anti-semite?

As for the error about the number of troops Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 (I'm assuming you're correct about the numbers), the real number is more damning to Israel than the lower number.

WendyG| 1.8.09 @ 6:48PM

JoeMama | 1.8.09 @ 6:20PM

He's absolutely right! Israel was a bad idea from the very beginning!

*******
Why is it that Israel is the only nation on Earth whose very right to exist is questioned???

For them I quote Abba Eban:

“Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its 'right to exist.' Israel's right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel's legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement...."

WendyG| 1.8.09 @ 6:53PM

BTW - In 1984 Taki was arrested for cocaine possession at Heathrow Airport, for which he served a three-month jail term in England's Pentonville Prison.

Not exactly a model citizen. But so goes it with the Greek jet-set. :)

DLane| 1.8.09 @ 7:00PM

WendyG: I couldn't help but notice that you have yet to dispute a single fact about Israel. Rather, you have lobbed ad hominem attacks at the Cardinal and Taki, and alleged that people haven't spoken out sufficiently against radical Islam. That last point is puzzling given that radical Islam has been one of the main topics of discussion in the U.S. since 9-11.

Again, care to dispute the facts?

Buster Bunns| 1.8.09 @ 7:18PM

Ah Israel: damned if it does, dead if it doesn't. That another person of European descent is lambasting Israel does not surprise me. They created the problem and now cry foul when Israel defends itself. Damn hypocrites.

WendyG| 1.8.09 @ 7:18PM

There are no facts to dispute. Taki posted a screed. Nothing but invective. Israel is not on "stolen" land. That's preposterous.

The notion that Israel is a terrorist state is laughable.

As far as the Cardinal is concerned, I posted his own words. It's for others to determine the sanity of a man whose heart bled for the Butcher of Bagdad.

What's amusing to me is that Taki had no problem investing his money with a Jewish money manager, but what does Madoff's swindle have to do with Israel? Nothing. I mean really, it's all very transparent and an old story with Taki.

DLane| 1.8.09 @ 7:25PM

The quote is that Israel has "stolen Palestinian lands continuously since 1948." Putting aside the founding of the country, under international law (and common sense), each and every Israeli settlement in the occupied territories is stolen. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. You can disagree with international law, but you cannot disagree with the fact that Israel has stolen Palestinian land.

Nor can you disagree with the statement that the stealing has been carried out with the assistance of American tax money. That is another fact that you have yet to dispute.

Your dogmatism isn't allowing you to even acknowledge the fact that there are facts to dispute!

WendyG| 1.8.09 @ 7:34PM

The quote is that Israel has "stolen Palestinian lands continuously since 1948." Putting aside the founding of the country, under international law (and common sense), each and every Israeli settlement in the occupied territories is stolen. That is a fact that cannot be disputed.

*************
Ah yes it can be. To wit:

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/rumsfeld.html

"My feeling about the so-called occupied territories are that there was a war, Israel urged neighboring countries not to get involved in it once it started, they all jumped in, and they lost a lost of real estate to Israel because Israel prevailed in that conflict. In the intervening period, they've made some settlements in various parts of the so-called occupied area, which was the result of a war, which they won."

In other words, Israel acquired land in wars it didn't start but WON. That's called the spoils of war.

Have we given foreign aid to Israel? Yes. And why should we not give military aid to an ally in a region as vital as the Middle East? We also give aid to Egypt BTW.

jeebus| 1.8.09 @ 7:46PM

What about that is anti-Semitic? Don't just assert that it is: explain, exactly, which parts of this indicate antipathy towards Jews as a race or Judaism as a religion, rather than opposition, however fierce, to the nation-state of Israel.

ruth| 1.8.09 @ 7:48PM

More anti-Israel screeds.

ConservativeWanderer| 1.8.09 @ 8:10PM

DLane, I am sure you can specify when this nation of "Palestine" was founded, what it's boundaries were, and such... and without using anti-Israel sources or other questionable sources such as Wikipedia.

Please enlighten us poor idiots.

Kermit| 1.8.09 @ 8:54PM

Wendy is uneducated, both about Israel's history and about international law. "Spoils of war" are not legally recognized: you cannot take territory by force. It is a lie that Israel was a "land without people for a people without a land" - the land was populated by Arabs, the wealthiest and most highly educated in the Middle East at the time. The founders of Israel were terrorists - Irgun, Stern Gang, etc. Since we're citing past Israeli leaders, how about Ben-Gurion, who acknowledged in his memoirs that Palestinians would never forgive Jews for stealing their land, and he regretted not completing the ethnic cleansing at the start. Or how about Golda Meir, who said "Israel does not need peace; she has strength". Nothing in Taki's statement is anti-semitic, and as others have noted, his statement is factual. The settlers have no right to live in Israel whatsoever - they should go back to Long Island and Brooklyn where they belong, and stop being parasites on the US taxpayer, endangering all our lives, and causing horrific suffering to innocent Palestinians. All you make-believe conservatives, try Googling USS Liberty. People like Wendy aren't loyal to America, only Israel.

WendyG| 1.8.09 @ 9:08PM

ruth | 1.8.09 @ 7:48PM

More anti-Israel screeds.

************
Yes Ruth, this forum has become infested. This too shall pass. These types get bored easily and move on. But this happens any time Israel defends itself.

WendyG| 1.8.09 @ 9:12PM

And the usual suspects always show to call Israel a terrorist state (again, laughable) make charges of dual loyalty (how tired is that!) - and never a word about the Palestinian crimes against Israelis (and Jordanians) etc.

Hey - anyone remember that a Palestinian murdered Bobby Kennedy???

ruth| 1.8.09 @ 9:13PM

More lies from Kermit and his frog friends. Just noise from the swamps.

ruth| 1.8.09 @ 9:17PM

Wendy, do you think the anti-Israeli rhetoric has increased now that Obama has been elected? It just seems to be more prevalent now.

WendyG| 1.8.09 @ 9:18PM

Well this thread served a purpose. Taki had to retract. Heh.

UPDATE: In 2005, Israel removed 8000+ settlers from Gaza. The number of 800, which appeared when this column was originally published, was a typo. We regret the error.

Sure, a typo. Gee I hope he read this thread. :)

WendyG| 1.8.09 @ 9:24PM

ruth | 1.8.09 @ 9:17PM

Wendy, do you think the anti-Israeli rhetoric has increased now that Obama has been elected? It just seems to be more prevalent now.

*********
Ruth it's hard to say. Nothing has been posted here recently that I haven't seen before. Yes, it's possible that Obama is perceived as hostile to Israel, so the dogs come out. But I think it has more to do with Israel defending itself. That just does not sit well the Jewhating or anti-Israel crowd. And when times are bad, ignorant people look for scapegoats. But Taki has always been like this. And not just about Jews. He's called Hispanics "beaners." He's all class. :)

ruth| 1.8.09 @ 9:33PM

I know about Taki, but maybe the other negative comments are just showing up more at AmSpec.

Charlie| 1.8.09 @ 10:28PM

Wow. What a site.
Kermit: Its not easy being Jewish around here my friend. Your comments are pretty nasty. Give some solutions, thoughts idea. I am open minded but when you call peope parasites it pretty much kills it for me and many others. You sound a tad like Fritz Hippler making the film "Eternal Jew" (if I recall the name correctly). Please stop with the name calling.
Neither Iaraelis not Arabs are parasites. They are people, who, for the most part, want to live in peace.

Charlie| 1.8.09 @ 10:38PM

Pardon my typo at the end. My error. I meant to say:
Neither Israelis nor Arabs are parasites. They are people, who, for the most part, want to live in peace.

WendyG| 1.8.09 @ 11:22PM

Charlie | 1.8.09 @ 10:28PM

Wow. What a site.
Kermit: Its not easy being Jewish around here my friend. Your comments are pretty nasty. Give some solutions, thoughts idea. I am open minded but when you call peope parasites it pretty much kills it for me and many others. You sound a tad like Fritz Hippler making the film "Eternal Jew" (if I recall the name correctly). Please stop with the name calling.

*********

Yep. Right out of that playbook. Jews as parasites. Right out of The Eternal Jew.

DLane| 1.9.09 @ 12:46AM

Look, defenders of Israel. You have lost the debate in this thread, and with any luck you will soon have lost it in this country. I pray that the Gaza massacre creates a tipping point, leading to U.S. citizens no longer standing for the bizarre, unqualified support this country gives to Israel.

Please go back and read the thread. Who is talking about facts, and who is making ad hominem attacks?

Wendy's one attempt to challenge the facts was soundly rebutted by Kermit.

Kermit| 1.9.09 @ 1:21AM

Wendy's a one-trick pony: anti-semitism, anti-semitism, anti-semitism. Oh wait, two: terrorist, terrorist, terrorist. What she is not, is a student of history or law. Charlie has a fair point, however: no human being is a parasite, and I should not have said that. Note, however, I was speaking of the settlers, and I meant it in the sense that because of their reckless and immoral and indulgent choice, others have to subsidize them and have to pay the price in bloodshed and terrorism. No serious reader on this thread can tell me the settlers do not make peace in Israel impossible. If Israel seriously wants peace, it must dismantle the settlements, end the occupation of the territories, and end the complete blockade on Gaza. The crisis in Gaza now is a direct result of the blockade, which Israel refused to end, and in fact increased, when it pulled out the settlers. Gazans must be given a chance to live and develop, not just survive. Right now it is an awful, horrifying prison, and Israel bears moral responsibility for it. Current death count: 750 Gazans, including mostly civilians and several hundred children and their mothers; 11 Israelis, including four from Israeli friendly fire and almost all soldiers. What's wrong with that picture? Thou shalt not kill, hmmm?

jeebus| 1.9.09 @ 1:50AM

Earlier I asked for someone to explain to me what exactly is anti-Semitic about the excerpted remarks. I have yet to receive a response. Are you all just being rude? Or do you simply not have an answer?

Dory| 1.9.09 @ 2:37AM

People should read Jeffrey Goldberg's blog.He is thoughtful and even-handed with a perspective gained by living in different "worlds".

One comment from January 6 is quite illustrative of some of what is going on in this present situation. He says, "It's absolutely astonishing to me how interested the world is in Israel's failings. This is the source of a bitter but hilarious observation I once heard a Kurdish leader make: He was complaining to me that his people were cursed, and I asked him what he meant: Cursed by geography, cursed by their proximity to Kurd-hating Arabs, what? He said the Kurds were cursed because they didn't have Jewish enemies. Only with Jewish enemies would the world pay attention to their plight."

I, as a mother, cry and become horribly upset when seeing the Palestinian children who've been hurt and killed, as much as for an Israeli child. But honestly, where is the same outrage over the situation in Darfur, or Zimbabwe or for that matter, where was it during Rawanda and Yugoslavia. . .

truthynesslover| 1.9.09 @ 2:55AM

I rhink the pals and israelies deserve each other,since both are semites does that make me ant-semetic?

Jenny| 1.9.09 @ 3:06AM

Yeah, yeah. You're all working pretty hard on proving that you're "right". Even if you are: So?

Much more interesting would be ideas about what will actually *work* on the ground over there. And what will *work* politically here.

Go ahead, have at me.

S.L. Toddard| 1.9.09 @ 8:32AM

"which parts of this indicate antipathy towards Jews as a race or Judaism as a religion, rather than opposition, however fierce, to the nation-state of Israel. "

Nothing. This is nothing more than the typical AIPAC-style slander used to silence debate or criticism of Israel, a nation who uses our jets to drop our bombs on people who are not *our* enemies, then uses our money to bulldoze their houses and build walls around them and blockade them to prevent their children from receiving medical care or food.

This is how discourse is disabled. The charge of "anti-semite" is so potent and poisonous, the implications so noxious, that most Americans - especially in Washington - live in mortal terror of having it applied to them. Why else would both houses of congress march in lockstep to the beat of Israel's war drums when the people they are supposed to represent *overwhelmingly* wish our government to take an *even-handed* approach to the conflict? The unfair use of that epithet – entirely without justification or explanation on his part – says far more about Philip Klein than it does about Taki. It is Philip Klein who equates the government of the nation-state of Israel with the entirety of the Jewish people, not Taki, and the implication that Taki did so is nothing short of a despicable, repugnant lie. Men like Philip Klein construct and knock down strawmen because they are incapable of honest debate with honest gentlemen with whom they disagree.

With the fall of Soviet communism Israel's interests are no longer our own. Can anyone name any way in which American security, in which the tranquility that is our birthright, is *enhanced* by our one-sided support of, and subservience to, this relatively insignificant nation on the other side of the world? What justification is there to subsidize their war against the arabs, or their occupation of Palestine? What American interest is served that is so profoundly significant, so important that it is worth making Israel's enemies - i.e. the whole of the muslim world, on whom we depend for the very lifeblood of our society - *our* enemies?

Israel’s right to exist is predicated entirely only on their ability to do so by their own means. The same goes for every nation. I have been waiting for decades for anyone to explain why we should pay billions of dollars a year to have our security *decreased*, to have our tranquility imperiled. What has that $3 Billion per year bought us – besides implacable and ferocious enemies in the part of the world where, more than any other, we need allies to provide us with oil, without which we as a nation cannot survive?

Bruno| 1.9.09 @ 8:55AM

A neutral spectator will read more "tacky" rhetoric about Greeks on this page than direct anti-semitic content in the column you so revile.

Red Phillips| 1.9.09 @ 9:15AM

I don't much care what side individual Americans take is this heated debate. The point is that our government should be neutral. We should follow the wise advice of Washington and avoid entangling alliances. No foreign aid for anyone. (It is an unconstitutional expenditure anyway.) No implied defense guarantees. No brokering peace deals. No exporting democracy. None of it. We should disengage and walk away. This is really the ONLY defensible conservative position.

And if someone wants to call me a "Ron Paul nitwit" then be my guest. I was a conservative non-interventionist when non-interventionism wasn't cool. (1st Gulf War.)

Non-interventionism is the conservative wave of the future and the interventionists know it. Five years ago this debate about the wisdom of officially supporting Israel would not have happened to the degree it is now. And the interventionists are running scared. They know they are losing their grip.

Non-interventionism has already won the day on the "far right." It is now the default assumption. And the mainstream right is next. And Obama and his interventionist fake anti-war ways is going to help it along.

The interventionists are going to have to join forces with the liberal internationalist globalists which is closer to where they belong ideologically anyway. There is nothing conservative about "creative destruction." Get right, or get out of the movement.

S.L. Toddard| 1.9.09 @ 9:31AM

"The interventionists are going to have to join forces with the liberal internationalist globalists which is closer to where they belong ideologically anyway."

They already have. If you noticed, the Democratic "opposition" in congress offered no serious opposition to the democracy-exporting, nation-building, imperialism of the Bush/Cheney/Perle anticons. They supported every ridiculous, illegal measure taken, from the invasion of Iraq to illegally spying on American citizens to the eradication of habeas corpus and now to this destructive war being waged by an American proxy satellite with American weapons.

The idea that anything significant now distinguishes the "two" major parties is truly ridiculous. Except, perhaps, that Republicans are for even more irresponsible spending, more government growth and more state-sponsored violence.

WendyG| 1.9.09 @ 10:14AM

DLane | 1.9.09 @ 12:46AM

Look, defenders of Israel. You have lost the debate in this thread, and with any luck you will soon have lost it in this country.

**********
As far as our losing the debate, just because you say it doesn't make it so.

Americans overall will always support Israel and will understand why we do. In fact just yesterday the Senate passed a resolution supporting Israel's right to defend itself in the current conflagration.

So you see, YOU are the outliers in this debate.

A whole slew of (small contingent that they are overall) of anti-Israel types showed up on this forum this week. All they've done is revealed their animus toward Jews and/or Israel, and by default, their support of Hamas.

BTW - Hamas is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mad Mullah of Iran, who in no uncertain terms wants the destruction of Israel. That's why the Egyptians and Jordanians have pretty much supported Israel in this. Egypt in particular, because Hamas is a breakaway of the Muslim Brotherhood. A cell of Muslim Brotherhood was responsible for the murder of Anwar Sadat. Know who else is Muslim Brotherhood? Ayman al-Zawahiri, who, along with Bin Laden, is resonsible for 9-11, and to this day is on the run with him.

S.L. Toddard| 1.9.09 @ 10:42AM

" Americans overall will always support Israel and will understand why we do. In fact just yesterday the Senate passed a resolution supporting Israel's right to defend itself in the current conflagration.

So you see, YOU are the outliers in this debate. "

Wrong. Half of all Americans oppose this action, and the vast overwhelming majority believe American should be *even-handed* when it comes to the Iraeli/Palestinian conflict, rather than supporting one side blindly (as our "representatives" in congress and the raving, bloodthirsty neocons do).

And AGAIN:
Can anyone name any way in which American security, in which the tranquility that is our birthright, is *enhanced* by our one-sided support of, and subservience to, this relatively insignificant nation on the other side of the world? What justification is there to subsidize their war against the arabs, or their occupation of Palestine? What American interest is served that is so profoundly significant, so important that it is worth making Israel's enemies - i.e. the whole of the muslim world, on whom we depend for the very lifeblood of our society - *our* enemies?

congoboy| 1.9.09 @ 11:33AM

Choose to lob rockets into civilian settlements of the most powerful country in the Middle East, lob those rockets from civilian sites, house your fighters and store your weapons in civilian sites. As icing on the cake, declare your undying intention to drive the inhabitants of that powerful nation into the sea. Then you reap the whirlwind you deserve.

TJ| 1.9.09 @ 12:03PM

Israel is the leech in America's azzcrack.

S.L. Toddard| 1.9.09 @ 12:19PM

"Choose to lob rockets into civilian settlements of the most powerful country in the Middle East, lob those rockets from civilian sites, house your fighters and store your weapons in civilian sites. As icing on the cake, declare your undying intention to drive the inhabitants of that powerful nation into the sea. Then you reap the whirlwind you deserve."

This is, of course, the argument of the slavishy loyal, blind partisan. One could easily say "Choose to disposess people of their land, bulldoze their homes, confine them to an open-air prison *for four decades*, blockade them to prevent their children from receiving food and medical care *then you reap the whirlwind you deserve*.

It's a silly, un-serious, hypocritical and childish assessment.

And AGAIN:
Can anyone name any way in which American security, in which the tranquility that is our birthright, is *enhanced* by our one-sided support of, and subservience to, this relatively insignificant nation on the other side of the world? What justification is there to subsidize their war against the arabs, or their occupation of Palestine? What American interest is served that is so profoundly significant, so important that it is worth making Israel's enemies - i.e. the whole of the muslim world, on whom we depend for the very lifeblood of our society - *our* enemies?

WendyG| 1.9.09 @ 12:40PM

Wrong. Half of all Americans oppose this action, and the vast overwhelming majority believe American should be *even-handed* when it comes to the Iraeli/Palestinian conflict, rather than supporting one side blindly (as our "representatives" in congress and the raving, bloodthirsty neocons do).

********

I dispute that half of think we should be "even-handed" vis a vis Israel vs. Hamas.

There is NO occupation. I'll post again that from day one Israel has been attacked by it's Arab neighbors. It has taken legitimate action to defend it's borders. Had these attacks not occurred Israel could have perhaps lived within the original boundaries. But the attacks did happen. And if you attack and lose the war and consequently land - too bad for you. And I will also point out that the Arabs start wars with each other as well. Iran Iraq, Iraq Kuwait, etc.

We have allies. Israel is one. The Holocaust wiped out most of European Jewry and a Jewish homeland was created., DEAL WITH IT. As the leader of the free world, and arguably the nation whose participation enabled the Allies to prevail in WWII, the US undertook a special responsibility to make sure Jews has a place live without fear of another Third Reich.

We need a dependable ally in the Middle East. One not based on oil. A democratic ally.

Islamic Jihad has many tentacles and fights in many arenas. Israel is only one. Israel is not the cause of Islamic Jihad - it's a victim of Islamic Jihad.

If Israel vanished tomorrow Islamic Jihad would continue. Under Hamas Gaza in an Islamic Jihad state. Palestinians had a chance to choose another way. AS USUAL they chose wrong.

S.L. Toddard| 1.9.09 @ 12:55PM

" I dispute that half of think we should be "even-handed" vis a vis Israel vs. Hamas."

A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 18 countries finds that in 14 of them people mostly say their government should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Just three countries favor taking the Palestinian side (Egypt, Iran, and Turkey) and one is divided (India). No country favors taking Israel's side, including the United States, where 71 percent favor taking neither side.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/503.php

"There is NO occupation. "

Israel "settlements" are by definition an "occupation" - one that violates international law. And their blockade of Palestine is, also by definition, an "act of war" under international law.

"We have allies. Israel is one."

How is American security *enhanced* by that arrangement? What vital American interest would be imperiled if we ended that arrangement?

"We need a dependable ally in the Middle East. One not based on oil. A democratic ally."

Why? How is American security *enhanced* by that arrangement? What vital American interest would be imperiled if we ended that arrangement?

jeebus| 1.9.09 @ 1:02PM

Still waiting.

ruth| 1.9.09 @ 1:38PM

And you will continue to do so.

WendyG| 1.9.09 @ 2:25PM

A World Opinion Poll does not impress me. A poll by and American polling outlet carries more weight with me, as it was American support that was in question.

Americans Closely Divided Over Israel’s Gaza Attacks

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
public_content/politics/general_politics/
americans_closely_divided_over_israel_s_gaza_attacks

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Americans, *while far more sympathetic to Israel than the Palestinians* are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip.

Forty-four percent (44%) say Israel should have taken military action against the Palestinians, but 41% say it should have tried to find a diplomatic solution to the problems there, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.

*Fifty-five percent (55%) of adults, however, believe the Palestinians are to blame for the current situation in Gaza*, while 13% point the finger at the Israelis. Nearly one-third (32%) aren’t sure.

---snip---

*Sixty-two percent (62%) of Republicans back Israel’s decision to take military action against the Palestinians*, but only half as many Democrats (31%) agree. A majority of Democrats (55%) say Israel should have tried to find a diplomatic solution first, a view shared by just 27% of Republicans.

While* 75% of Republicans say Israel is an ally of the United States,* just 55% of Democrats agree. Seven percent (7%) of Democrats say Israel is an enemy of America, but only one percent (1%) of Republicans say the same. For 21% of Republicans, Israel is somewhere in between, and 28% of Democrats agree.

So we can glean from this that Republicans overwhelming support the action.

>>>Israel "settlements" are by definition an "occupation" - one that violates international law.

That's what you think. Others disagree.

RUMSFELD: ISRAEL WON LAND THROUGH FORCED WARS
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/rumsfeld.html

"If you have a country that's a sliver and you can see three sides of it from a high hotel building, you've got to be careful what you give away and to whom you give it. If you're giving it to an entity that has some track record, that has a degree of accountability, that has the ability to enforce
security that's promised in whatever arrangements are made, it seems to me that's one thing. If you're making a deal and yielding territory to an entity that cannot or will not do that -- and there is no question but that the Palestinian Authority have been involved with terrorist activities, so that makes it a difficult interlocutor.

*My feeling about the so-called occupied territories are that there was a war, Israel urged neighboring countries not to get involved in it once it started, they all jumped in, and they lost a lot of real estate to Israel because Israel prevailed in that conflict. In the intervening period, they've made some settlements in various parts of the so-called occupied area, which was the result of a war, which they won."*

>>>Why? How is American security *enhanced* by that arrangement? What vital American interest would be imperiled if we ended that arrangement?

No Israel and the US has no democratic ally in the ME. The Islamic jihadis would have a very good chance of taking over the region, denying us oil, and developing nuclear bombs. Then we'd be totally screwed - or dead.

Hey, if Israel had not taken out the Iraqi nukes (while the world screamed about it) the world would be very different now.

And as far as American support for Israel, politicians being what they are would never pass a resolution in the Senate supporting Israel's Gaza incursion, had they not believed their constituents supported it.

jeebus| 1.9.09 @ 2:50PM

And you will continue to do so.

Apparently. I'll take that as an admission that you have no answer.

Red Phillips| 1.9.09 @ 3:20PM

The fact that opinions among the people are so sharply divided and so intensely held is a good reason why the government should stay neutral.

"The interventionists are going to have to join forces with the liberal internationalist globalists which is closer to where they belong ideologically anyway."

"They already have."

S. L. Toddard, the establishment on both the left and the "right" is clearly internationalist. What I meant was that non-interventionism is on the rise among self-identified conservatives. In the future "conservatives" whose chief concern is maintaining an interventionist foreign policy will have to throw their hats in with the liberal internationalists. The rank-and-file of self-identified conservatives will be non-interventionists. It was already heading that way before 9/11. Witness conservative opposition to Clinton's involvement in the Balkans. Seeing that Obama's foreign policy will be little different from Bush's will help drive this transition. As will the poor economy and our massive debt. Empire is expensive.

JoeMama| 1.9.09 @ 3:23PM

I love how Israel's PR supporters try to write every criticism off as 'anti-semitism' or 'anti-israel screed'. That game won't work anymore folks! Zionist control of US media may still be unrivaled but the Internet is something they don't control and people are now to speak their mind and FINALLY find News Without Jews. No matter what arguments you use a few things are true: Israel does not have a right to exist as an exclusive Jewish country club; it will have to assimilate the natives just like S.Africa did, Israel is a parasite on the US taxpayer and DC is Israeli occupied area, and finally Israel is the real aggressor and terrorist in the Middle East and the world needs get rid of Israeli nukes if there is going to be world peace. Israel has thuged its way into existence and extorted the US taxpayer for 50 years now. Israel is not a US friend. It is a parasite that sucks America's blood and will only stop when it has killed or bankrupted its host. Americans have a great deal in common w/ the Palestinians: both people's have the Israeli foot on their throats

WendyG| 1.9.09 @ 3:35PM

>>>>JoeMama | 1.9.09 @ 3:23PM

I love how Israel's PR supporters try to write every criticism off as 'anti-semitism' or 'anti-israel screed'. That game won't work anymore folks! Zionist control of US media may still be unrivaled but the Internet is something they don't control and people are now to speak their mind and FINALLY find News Without Jews.

******

So rich in irony! The whole post. :)

ruth| 1.9.09 @ 4:41PM

Jeebus, just take it as an admission that I think you are irrelevant.

Smithy| 1.9.09 @ 5:24PM

I'm American but I think Israel has more right to our money than we do. I don't really know what I will do if I ever must make a decision b/w America or Israel. Israel is worthy of American blood, in my opinion. I know this isn't in America's best interest but Israel is worth it. I hope I have the opportunity to send my little girls to fight some middle east dicatator who has a conflict with Israel. My daughters are American just as I am but, again, Israel is worth it. If America and Israel were to ever go to war with each other I think I would fight for the sake of Israel first. Why would I not when I already put Israel's interests above America's? It's the same thing, just on a different scale.

S.L. Toddard| 1.9.09 @ 6:54PM

Can anyone name any way in which American security, in which the tranquility that is our birthright, is *enhanced* by our one-sided support of, and subservience to, this relatively insignificant nation on the other side of the world? What justification is there to subsidize their war against the arabs, or their occupation of Palestine? What American interest is served that is so profoundly significant, so important that it is worth making Israel's enemies - i.e. the whole of the muslim world, on whom we depend for the very lifeblood of our society - *our* enemies?

^^ anyone? I think it's reasonable to assume that if no one can provide any rational answers to these questions then they are, by default, admitting that the reasons for subsidizing Israel's wars are entirely *sentimental*. Which would, I think it goes without saying, be par for the course for the Bush/Cheney/Kristol type anticons.

WendyG| 1.9.09 @ 7:31PM

Can anyone name any way in which American security, in which the tranquility that is our birthright, is *enhanced* by our one-sided support of, and subservience to, this relatively insignificant nation on the other side of the world?

*********
It's been answered. Read the thread.

WendyG| 1.9.09 @ 7:36PM

Why haven't any of you read this?

http://www.vdare.com/mercer/090108_paleos.htm

It's posted here but none of you chose to comment on the thread.

Red Phillips| 1.9.09 @ 8:07PM

I commented there Wendy. If Ms. Mercer wants paleos to "support" Israel rhetorically, then fine. Some do. Some don't. Some will. Some won't. If she wants the US government to support Israel in some way (foreign aid, security guarantees, etc.) then it seems to me she forfeits the right to call herself a paleo or a libertarian, at least on this issue.

S.L. Toddard| 1.9.09 @ 8:12PM

"It's been answered. Read the thread. "

I'm sorry but what you provided was not an "answer". This:

"The Islamic jihadis would have a very good chance of taking over the region, denying us oil, and developing nuclear bombs. Then we'd be totally screwed - or dead."

...is absurd. For starters, Israel has a massive nuclear arsenal and the best man-for-man military in the world. The idea that they would be conquered if they were kicked off the American welfare roll is patently ridiculous. After that you make a very weird, bizarre leap - without Israel "jihadists would take over the region"? What the hell does that mean? How would that happen? How is Israel preventing that from happening now? Answer: they're not. And if Israel were not there these jihadists would lose their #1 recruiting tool. And the #1 reason they hate us. Both of your points are illegitimate and based on wild conjecture and fantastical hypotheticals that do not bear scrutiny.

That being said, Israel is there. Israel has a right to exist. What they do not have a right to is American money. Is it not an *obvious* fact that our unwavering one-sided support of Israel is causing more trouble for us than is helping us?

THEREFORE I WILL ASK AGAIN:

Can anyone name any way in which American security, in which the tranquility that is our birthright, is *enhanced* by our one-sided support of, and subservience to, this relatively insignificant nation on the other side of the world? What justification is there to subsidize their war against the arabs, or their occupation of Palestine? What American interest is served that is so profoundly significant, so important that it is worth making Israel's enemies - i.e. the whole of the muslim world, on whom we depend for the very lifeblood of our society - *our* enemies?

S.L. Toddard| 1.9.09 @ 8:19PM

Indeed, Red. I'd read that piece already as well. She uses grandiose terms like "defending the West" - this is an imperialist mindset, more Octavian than Washington. The responsibility of the American government is not to "defend the West", as "the West" needs saving only from itself. Since the fall of the Soviet empire, there is simply no real existential threat facing "the West". And if "the West" DOES need defending - now - "the West" can defend itself. Europe is no longer reeling from the aftershocks of WWII. There are no longer thousands of ICBMs pointed at our cities. The responsibility of the American goverment - as I said - is manifestly NOT to "defend the West" - it is *to protect and defend the liberty and property of the American people*. It is to safeguard our tranquility. Our slavish devotion to Israel obviously works counter to those goals. And for anyone who disagrees, by all means answer the questions I posted above.

Kermit| 1.9.09 @ 8:37PM

Israeli leaders, in their own words, over the years:

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech

"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"
-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."
-- Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online

Martini Lahoud 7 days ago

WendyG| 1.9.09 @ 8:48PM

Let's just take one of those quotes.

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

In short Ben Gurion never said it. In fact the opposite.

"We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places. "
Letter to his son Amos (5 October 1937), as quoted in Fabricating Israeli History: The 'New Historians (2000) by Efraim Karsh
This was extensively quoted as "[We] must expel Arabs and take their places" after appearing in this form in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 (1987) by Benny Morris, p. 25.

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Ik1aFYxxgvgJ:en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion+We+must+expel+Arabs+and+take+their+places.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

It was a mistranslation.

http://books.google.com/books?id=nvgat25ddU4C&pg=PR17&ots=5I6MnIhxg2&dq=must+expel+Arabs+and+take+their+places&sig=qhbFe-nltg7LxD7ycIlZKDjmEZo#PPR17,M1

There is so much false crap on the net. And I notice you did not link to any source.

WendyG| 1.9.09 @ 8:56PM

"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"
-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

Can't find any legit source for this one either. It only appears at anti-Israell sites or in kook posts.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=We+walked+outside,+Ben-Gurion+accompanying+us.+
Allon+repeated+his+question,+What+is+to+be+done+with+t
he+Palestinian+population?+Ben-Gurion+waved+his+hand+in+a+gesture+
which+said+Drive+them+out&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq;=

Red Phillips| 1.9.09 @ 8:58PM

S. L. Toddard, do you agree with me that the conservative "street" is becoming more and more non-interventionist? I think we are gradually winning the debate, and I believe the interventionists sense it. Hence the shrill "Ron Paul nitwit" and the "first use" of the anti-Semitism charge. It is a sign of desperation?

Kermit| 1.9.09 @ 10:10PM

Wendy, you are in serious denial. You either really know nothing at all about the history of Israel, or your personal identity is so wrapped up in the idea of Israel being pure and righteous, that you block out any evidence that threatens that idea. Israel has adopted the ideology and cruel methods of its historic oppressors. The Palestinians had nothing at all to do with the Holocaust, and they do not deserve to have you endlessly act out your revenge on them. "Never again" should not be applied to only your little tribe, but to all humanity. You are not chosen people, and you have no special rights over others. You are not purer, you are not better, and you are morally responsible for your actions.

S.L. Toddard| 1.9.09 @ 11:24PM

"S. L. Toddard, do you agree with me that the conservative "street" is becoming more and more non-interventionist? I think we are gradually winning the debate, and I believe the interventionists sense it. Hence the shrill "Ron Paul nitwit" and the "first use" of the anti-Semitism charge. It is a sign of desperation? "

You and I are definitely on the same page, and I'm not DISagreeing, that's for sure. I think the traditional American policy of non-intervention seems to be making a comeback, and I think its becoming more and more respectable the more and more America declines. I think the utterly dismal and abject failure of the neoconservatives on all fronts - the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, their failure on 9/11, their rejection of conservatism, their wild spending - has certainly helped as it has demonstrated that America cannot do everything, Americans cannot afford everything, Americans cannot shape the world to their liking. The big-government world utopianist liberal/hawk synthesis that is neo"conservatism" is itself an argument for doing the opposite, because the opposite of gross failure is success. I think Ron Paul had a a lot to do with getting some of the message out, and even some people who rejected his candidacy thought "Wait - maybe I'm not willing to sacrifice my son's life for Iraqi democracy". Or "America is borrowing money for its survival - maybe we can't afford to police the world."

On the other hand, I'm afraid to be hopeful, and I think there's more reason not to be than otherwise. Our republic is still run entirely by a small cabal in Washington, where nearly all the power is now (unconstitutionally) centered, and those politicians are owned - almost literally - by companies like GE and so forth, who fund their campaigns and write the very legislation that regulates them. These massive corporations have a vested interest in keeping American interventionism going - conflicts and security dangers and wars are GOOD for business. And these companies - these war profiteers - have immense power, and profound influence over American foreign policy. So it's hard for me to be optimistic unless there is a nationwide epiphany and the country rises and with one voice demands we return to an American foreign policy, one which has as its primary goal the liberty, prosperity and tranquility of the American people. Big business and their wholly owned subsidiaries i.e. both houses of congress will fight tooth and nail to stop that from ever happening. And look at the discourse on this site - these people actually think they are conservatives!

S.L. Toddard| 1.9.09 @ 11:34PM

Here you go, Wendy:

"You cannot like the word, but what is happening is an occupation -- to hold 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation. I believe that is a terrible thing for Israel and for the Palestinians." --May 26, 2003
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon

Oh and here's an even better one:

"I don't understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out.

* As quoted in The Jewish Paradox : A personal memoir (1978) by Nahum Goldmann (translated by Steve Cox), p. 99.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Ben_Gurion

So Wendy, explain to us why Ariel Sharon and David Ben Gurion don't know what they're talking about. Ariel Sharon said there is an occupation. You disagree with him. Ben Gurion said they'd taken Palestinian land. You disagree with him as well. Why do you believe these men to be so misguided? Do you believe they were simply unfamiliar with the history of Israel?

charlie| 1.10.09 @ 12:28AM

Kermit:
Thanks for the apology on the "parasite" thing , but your pal Joe Mama used it along with the typical BS about Jews controlling the media. "News Without Jews" I think was the sweet term used by Joe. Sound like Henry Ford. Lets be honest, some (NOT ALL) Israel bashers do not like Jews. Some just don't like Israel. Forgive those of us who have trouble discerning between these groups. When folks start calling Jew parasites (Not you Kermit) I do start to feel a bit of hate. I also feel it when someone shouts "Back to the Ovens". Fair?

Look Kermit, Israel aint perfect . No country is. But my questions to you Kermit is simple. I ask you if you think Israel has a right to exist? Seriously. If its a "no", I understand that. If its a "yes" but they need to give back the 67 disputed land, I get it. Tell us.

Kermit| 9.25.09 @ 12:41PM

Charlie, long wait for a response, but here's my answer: yes I believe Israel has a right to exist, but they need to return to internationally recognized borders. I do not think peace - or safety for Israel - is possible otherwise. I also think Israel should apologize for attacking the USS Liberty and killing US seamen. I also think we should stop all aid to Israel because 1) they should pay for their own stupid adventures, 2) we need the money

James| 1.10.09 @ 4:49AM

Neoconservatives and Israeli hardliners said that blockading Gaza and rejecting Hamas' offer of a long-term truce would force Hamas to relent to their political demand of explicit acceptance of Israel. They were wrong (Hamas not only rejects Israel but is now rejecting a truce as well).
Neoconservatives and Israeli hardliners said that attacking Lebanon in 2006 would allow Israel to permanently cripple Hezbollah, specifically the group's ability to launch rockets into Israel. They were wrong (Hezbollah now is stronger politically in Lebanon than before).
Neoconservatives and Israeli hardliners are now saying that invading Gaza would allow Israel to halt rocket fire. They were wrong (the number of rockets falling into Israel is *increasing* and they are falling deeper into Israeli territory, one within 20 miles of Tel Aviv!).
I'm not saying diplomacy with Hamas is a sure-fire thing. I'd put the odds of success at under 50%. But it just amazes me how Neoconservatives and Israeli hardliners are still calling the shots despite being repeatedly wrong. I'm a doctor, and if I repeatedly treated a patient incorrectly, I'd be fired and sued immediately. These "experts" however are called on for advice year after year after year, saying "Israel Must Defend Itself!" to justify acts that don't make Israel safer but sound tough.

jeebus| 1.10.09 @ 12:05PM

Jeebus, just take it as an admission that I think you are irrelevant.

I think it's telling that you regard someone who simply asks you to explain one of your basic premises is "irrelevant."

Even if I am "irrelevant," surely my question is not. So be a dear - despite my irrelevance, be magnanimous and provide me an answer anyway. As a favor to me.

ruth| 1.10.09 @ 8:00PM

More boring anti-Israel screeds. You people aren't making friends among conservatives, your nastiness is simply repelling us.

S.L. Toddard| 1.10.09 @ 8:17PM

"You people aren't making friends among conservatives, your nastiness is simply repelling us."

Conservatives believe in *small*, unintrusive government, in fiscal *responsibility*, in self-reliance and individualism, in free markets (i.e. *without* government intervention), in States' Rights (as per the 10th Amendment), in the American Constitution, in the Rule of Law and in a prudent foreign policy that first and foremost safeguards the liberty and property of the American people.

How on earth are YOU a conservative?

And if I might trouble you for a moment, could you name any way in which American security, in which the tranquility that is our birthright, is *enhanced* by our one-sided support of, and subservience to, this relatively insignificant nation on the other side of the world? What justification is there to subsidize their war against the arabs, or their occupation of Palestine? What American interest is served that is so profoundly significant, so important that it is worth making Israel's enemies - i.e. the whole of the muslim world, on whom we depend for the very lifeblood of our society - *our* enemies?

Or do you also - that is, in addition to the pro-Israel partisan readers here - believe American foreign policy should be based on sentimentality?

Also, as you read those questions above and realized (as you did but more than likely won't admit) that American security is imperiled rather than strengthened by our "special relationship" with Israel, how does it make you feel to support the endangerment of American security for the sole purpose of satisfying a sentimental attachment to a foreign nation-state? Do you feel guilty for putting the security of another nation ahead of your own? Really - I'm curious.

ruth| 1.10.09 @ 9:04PM

Toddard, you just don't get it. Some of you Paul people have dumped so much garbage on this site that we have zoned you out. Too much anger, hatred and obscenities. I'm just saying that the merits of you argument have been drowned out by the nastiness of some of your posters. Bullying people doesn't work. Eventually, you people will get it, or maybe not. Rant away--no one cares.

Red Phillips| 1.10.09 @ 9:57PM

"You Paul people?"

More evidence that they are running scared. They know non-interventionism is catching on and is a rising tide on the right, so they treat it dismissively. This is an example of the well described phenomenon of whistling past the graveyard. It is just those meddlesome "Paul people" you see.

Of course non-interventionism existed well before Paul was a major celebrity. It was the policy of the Old Right and made a comeback after the Cold War. Why not you Buchanan people? Why not you Chronicles people? Why not you AmConMag people? TakiMag people? CATO people? Lew Rockwell people?

If I'm not mistaken, at least two of the people who write a lot on this website are non-interventionists. The non-interventionists are losing their grip, and they know it.

Now I do agree with ruth about one thing. Shrill anti-Israel rhetoric does not help the cause of non-intervention. The issue for us Americans is not which side is right or wrong, but why are we involved? Non-interventionism needs to be pulpit pounded at every opportunity.

charlie| 1.10.09 @ 10:26PM

It is a tad nasty here. I see some true non interventionsts, and then some pretty rotten name calling Israel bashers. Words like "parasite" and terms like "News Without Jews" (nice term don't you think?) enter the fray and discredit folks as possible bigots.
I am pro Israel for many reasons (a Zionist is among you beware) but understand that some people want the USA to stay out of the matter. Cool. What I do not understand is anti-Israel hatred, particularly when one compares Israel (free press, lots of dissent etc) with its liberty challenged neighbors. If you don't like Israel, you can't be in love with Syria and Iran unless...?

Lets keep the debate clean.

ruth| 1.10.09 @ 10:56PM

Good luck, Charlie, your words fall on deaf ears.

Charlie| 1.10.09 @ 11:01PM

Ruth:

No worries. Its OK if people don't listen. Thats their choice. I will keep rolling and speak from my heart and mind as best as I can. Thanks.

S.L. Toddard| 1.10.09 @ 11:13PM

"Toddard, you just don't get it. Some of you Paul people have dumped so much garbage on this site that we have zoned you out. Too much anger, hatred and obscenities. I'm just saying that the merits of you argument have been drowned out by the nastiness of some of your posters."

I think it's rather the case, Ruth, that you cannot answer the question, because you do not have answers - you are an un-serious person, with un-serious positions based on sentimentality and a simplistic rah-rah go-team partisanism that has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism. If it were otherwise, you might be able to:

Name any way in which American security, in which the tranquility that is our birthright, is *enhanced* by our one-sided support of, and subservience to, this relatively insignificant nation on the other side of the world? What justification is there to subsidize their war against the arabs, or their occupation of Palestine? What American interest is served that is so profoundly significant, so important that it is worth making Israel's enemies - i.e. the whole of the muslim world, on whom we depend for the very lifeblood of our society - *our* enemies?

S.L Toddard| 1.10.09 @ 11:17PM

"The issue for us Americans is not which side is right or wrong, but why are we involved?"

Sentimentality, effective lobbying, war-profiteering and the gullibility of the herd as exemplified by the majority of posters on this site - plain and simple.

Been waiting for days for a rational response to my questions. Some "bullying" by whomever is obviously not the real reason for the failure of the people here to defend their ideas. The reason is that they are simply indefensible.

ruth| 1.10.09 @ 11:20PM

Red, I said Paul People because many of the meanest posters I've read referenced Dr. Paul. The shrill anti-Israel rhetoric (to use your words) I've encountered is what I've objected to, not the issue of non-intervention. I know the USA is over-extended, why are we in Europe, So. Korea, etc.? Why is it only our intervention regarding Israel that is villified? I'm just concerned that it is anti-semitism--not non-intervention that is the issue.

charlie| 1.10.09 @ 11:24PM

SL Toddard

No sure what you think we should do. Do you think the USA should simply not provide aid to either side in the conflict and stay out of it? If that meant the end of Israel are you OK with that?

ruth| 1.10.09 @ 11:31PM

"You are an un-serious person." There it is again, Toddard, that smug, self-satisfied arrogance that is so off-putting to many of us who may be sympathetic to your argumentof non-interventionism. How do you know? You don't know me, and by judging me so harshly, you have truncated debate. Why should I respond to you courteously if you've behaved like a boor? You've made an adversary out of someone who could have been a friend. That's my gripe about 'you people'.

charlie| 1.10.09 @ 11:32PM

Actually Ruth our intervention in the Mid East is not only Israel. We pretty much prop up Egypt with big dough and the oil states with massive weaponry and often more, such as spending precious US lives to save Kuwait.

As you note, we have troops in Europe and Asia that will die in the event of a conflict. In Israel we have our money to be sure but not much in terms of our boys and girls.

ruth| 1.10.09 @ 11:43PM

Right, Pakistan gets big bucks, too. Why is this never addressed? The spotlight always seems to be on Israel, and that's what makes me a little suspicious. Do you think Mr. Toddard will respond to my 'un-serious' concerns?

ruth| 1.10.09 @ 11:56PM

Come on, Red, I asked a simple question. Running scared?

S.L. Toddard| 1.11.09 @ 12:48AM

"Right, Pakistan gets big bucks, too. Why is this never addressed? The spotlight always seems to be on Israel, and that's what makes me a little suspicious. Do you think Mr. Toddard will respond to my 'un-serious' concerns? "

Of course, though I shouldn't have to because the answer is so obvious as to not require a response - that is what is meant by "un-serious". Rather than debate the subject at hand we are treated with mis-direction, stalling and subterfuge. The reason Pakistan and South Korea et al are not being addressed is because this article is about *Israel*. As it happens, the vast, overwhelming majority of non-interventionists feel the same way about South Korea and Pakistan and the rest - we abhor, as a rule, the carrot-and-stick approach as it manifests itself in foreign aid or military aggression. Like all subscribers to any philosophy, though, there are hardcore subscribers and some that are less so. In truth, most non-interventionists are pragmatists, and put realism before ideology, and so a decent number supported interventionism when the very real existential threat of the Soviet Empire loomed, with their many thousands of ICBMs pointed at our cities - that was a threat that could literally have ended our existence. That threat no longer exists. There is no existential threat to the United States in the world today - not from "Islamofascists" or the Russian Bear or Men From Mars.

I ask again - can anyone deny that the first and foremost objective of American foreign policy is to protect the liberty and property of the American people? Can anyone - looking at you here, Ruth - describe any way in which American security, in which the tranquility that is our birthright, is *enhanced* by our one-sided support of this nation on the other side of the world? What justification is there to subsidize their wars against the Arabs? What American interest is served that is so profoundly significant, so important that it is worth making Israel's enemies - i.e. the whole of the Muslim world, on whom we depend for the very lifeblood of our society - *our* enemies?

S.L. Toddard| 1.11.09 @ 12:56AM

"No sure what you think we should do. Do you think the USA should simply not provide aid to either side in the conflict and stay out of it?"

Precisely, yes.

"If that meant the end of Israel are you OK with that? "

No, I wouldn't. I would be greatly saddened, to be honest. Possession is half the law, as they say, and generations of Israelis have been born and died on that land now, and they have a right to it. Luckily for Israel they have a massive nuclear arsenal and the best military, man-f0r-man, in the world. The idea that America ending her slavish, blind, one-sided support for Israel would mean "the end of" it is quite unrealistic. However, were we to pull out of that mess entirely and end foreign aid to Israel, and by some fantastical series of stupefyingly unlikely events it began to seem as though there were a possibility that, without U.S. aid, we would see "the end of Israel" then of course we could (and I'm sure would) re-assess.

ruth| 1.11.09 @ 1:02AM

Well, Mr. Toddard, I asked you the question because, as we all know, you are the expert, right? We know this because you have told us so with your snotty, snide attitude. And because you are the expert I thought you could elucidate us rubes with your superior logic and information. But my question remains: When it comes to America's interventionism, why is it only Israel that is so closely scrutinized? If you are so smart you should be able to answer my simple (rube-like, un-serious) question.

Red Phillips| 1.11.09 @ 1:04AM

"I know the USA is over-extended, why are we in Europe, So. Korea, etc.?"

We shouldn't be. That is the position of Ron Paul. That is the position of principled non-interventionists.

"Why is it only our intervention regarding Israel that is vilified?"

It isn't. At least not among most principled, rightist, non-interventionists. It is just the most pressing intervention now, and has been for many years.

Principled non-interventionism would clearly support ending all foreign aid, getting out of the UN and NATO, closing down our foreign bases and bringing our boys home, etc. If Canada invades Maine, we should go to war. If Iraq blockades the Persian Gulf and demands a tribute on every barrel of oil we should do what is necessary to rectify that situation. Otherwise we should mind our own business. Be friendly and trade with all.

I agree that side taking by paleos isn't necessarily helpful, but I do understand it. It is a reaction. Like the dialectic, it is the anti-thesis of the Israel can do no wrong thesis.

What is particularly irksome to me is the implied security guarantee. How many times in both the Democrat and Republican debates were the candidates asked about Iran? There was always a clear implication that one reason America might potentially attack Iran is because Iran represents a threat to Israel as if it were the 51st state. Well heck, if America is somehow responsible for the defense of Israel (Where is that in the Constitution?) then why not just draft American boys straight into the Israeli Army as Taki, who is the subject of this thread, once jokingly suggested? The defense of Israel is entirely and solely the responsibility of Israel. Any American who would plunge us into war with Iran for the sake of Israel is no friend of his country.

And while some here may grudgingly respect non-interventionism now, it has not always been so. There was a time after 9/11, during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, in the early period of the War, and even now when a large segment of "conservatism" called us traitors and accused us of sedition and treason (a capital offense) for not supporting the War. Note Frum's "Unpatriotic Conservatives," little Benny Shapiro's treason and sedition screed, and half the content of FPM. Note more recently the reaction to Ron Paul for pointing out the well-documented and self-evident concept of blowback. And the folks who weren’t shrieking to have us hauled off to the gallows for the t word, were constantly invoking Neville Chamberlain, appeasement, Nazis, Hitler, etc. as if any of that had anything at all to do with Iraq.

Ugh! You will have to pardon me if I am a little bit bitter.

ruth| 1.11.09 @ 1:07AM

Charlie, that should make you feel all warm and fuzzy, " ...it began to seem as though there were a possibility that, without U.S. aid, we would see "the end of Israel" then of course we could (and I'm sure would) re-assess." Generous of you, Mr. Toddard, real generous of you.

S.L. Toddard| 1.11.09 @ 1:16AM

"But my question remains: When it comes to America's interventionism, why is it only Israel that is so closely scrutinized? If you are so smart you should be able to answer my simple (rube-like, un-serious) question."

I already answered it - it is not "only Israel that is so closely scrutinized". Non-interventionists want our troops out of Europe, South Korea et al, and wish to cease foreign aid money as well. Not just to Israel. The reason those countries aren't mentioned here (except in my previous post, where I already explained this) is because *this is an article about Israel*. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the Israel debate, because of the neverending hostilities, is in the news quite often, and so is the subject for debate quite often. And American military and financial aid to Israel is *part of that debate*. I'm not sure if it's possible to explain it any clearer than that, so if you don't mind, could you describe any way in which American security, in which the tranquility that is our birthright, is *enhanced* by our one-sided support of this nation on the other side of the world? What justification is there to subsidize their wars against the Arabs? What American interest is served that is so profoundly significant, so important that it is worth making Israel's enemies - i.e. the whole of the Muslim world, on whom we depend for the very lifeblood of our society - *our* enemies?

S.L. Toddard| 1.11.09 @ 1:19AM

"Generous of you, Mr. Toddard, real generous of you."

How sentimental. She's speaking of "generosity", as though we're discussing donating change to a co-worker's daughter's girl scout troop. Is that, in your opinion, a serious comment on my post? I've responded to all of your questions multiple times. Doesn't it bother you that you can't concoct a response to mine? I would be irked to death if it became plain to me that I had no logical justification for my position on an issue of such import.

ruth| 1.11.09 @ 1:22AM

Mr. Phillips, you have my sincere thank you, and I mean that. That's all I wanted to hear. I understand the source of your bitterness and I'm sorry about it, it wasn't fair. But I'm not your enemy, I didn't want to go to war anymore than you did. My heart is broken over all the kids who were maimed and killed, our kids . I hope we can figure out a way to work together to re-build our country without destroying Israel in the process.

S.L. Toddard| 1.11.09 @ 1:30AM

"I didn't want to go to war anymore than you did"

Wow. I can truly say I didn't see that coming. Are you saying you were *against* invading Iraq?

"My heart is broken over all the kids who were maimed and killed, our kids"

Document A

See how revealing this is? "All the kids that were maimed and killed," as though some unforeseen natural disaster struck without warning. What about all the kids *we killed*? *Their* kids?

ruth| 1.11.09 @ 1:32AM

Mr. Phillips, I appreciate the respect you showed me when you answered my question. I don't know as much about this matter as you do, and I am interested in learning more. It's the elitist, 'do I deign to speak with an ignorant' posters who cause so much trouble. If you're not willing to answer questions or if you automatically assume that other posters are your enemies, how can we figure out a solution?

S.L. Toddard| 1.11.09 @ 1:36AM

"Another Ron Paul nitwit."
"He must be a Ron Paul fan."
"More anti-Israel screeds."
"Just noise from the swamps."

Boy it sure would be horrible if there were any "elitist" hypocrites around here, huh?

ruth| 1.11.09 @ 1:40AM

Yes, Mr. Toddard, wise, omniscient one, you have outted me. I am actually a bloodthirsty warmonger who wants all children to die. I love to see children and their mothers blown to bits. SloMo is even better. I'm just your average, conservative Christian mother who lives to see gore and death. You, sir, are a hater, and a good example of the aforementioned garbarge that has been dumped on The AmSpec website.

ruth| 1.11.09 @ 1:42AM

Nitwit, screeds, swamps--works for me. You don't want a solution, you just like to fight.

S.L. Toddard| 1.11.09 @ 1:55AM

I wonder if you have any idea how ridiculous you sound. You're the first person in this thread to hurl insults, some of which I've listed, but you whine when you feel insulted. You accuse others of just "wanting to fight", but you haven't offered one piece of substantive discourse to this thread - go back and check. Nothing. You ask "how can we figure out a solution" if others are "not willing to answer questions" and yet you *haven't answered one question*. You say the problem is that others "automatically assume that other posters are (their) enemies" and yet you treated *the very first poster* in this thread as an enemy (by condescendingly dismissing him as "a Ron Paul fan").

Are you familiar with Matthew 7:3, or is your Christianity as free of substance as your conservatism?

ruth| 1.11.09 @ 2:33AM

I was referring to Taki--not the poster--you got that wrong (that incorrect omniscient affliction of yours again.) The first insult was hurled by your side calling me a democrat; can you read? Other posters such as TJ and JoeMama said vicious things about the Jewish people--why did they not offend you? (Since you claim to care about ALL people , right?) You never did answer my question: Red did. His post assuaged my fears that you weren't just anti-semites, I really didn't know. Only nuts cite Bible verses.

S.L. Toddard| 1.11.09 @ 12:46PM

There are bigots in the world. One can't spend all of every day being mortified at the fact - at some point you realize they're there and you ignore them.

And you're lying when you say I didn't answer your question. It's really quite bizarre that you would try to assert that when the answers we gave are more or less the same.

jeebus| 1.11.09 @ 2:04PM

In all the words that have been spent in this thread, there is STILL no explanation of why the remarks excerpted in this post are anti-Semitic! Not a word!

I'm not too proud to beg. Please, please explain it to me.

Charlie| 1.11.09 @ 2:34PM

Ruth
Calm down. I love you but I do not want you to stroke my friend.

SL Toddard: I hear you. Are you a Ayn Rand-type. Just wondering where you are coming from?

I do think Israel would be gone without past USA support, like during the 1973 when Israel was attacked on Yom Kippur and lost 3000 soldiers and was almost done many say.

S.L. Toddard| 1.11.09 @ 3:03PM

No, Charlie, I'm not an Objectivist. I consider myself a conservative of the Old Right variety, a la Goldwater sans the anticommunist interventionism. I am not a Libertarian, as I believe they go too far in their opposition to the state - the foundation of Liberty is Law, and the executor of Law is the state.

Ruth I would like to put our disagreement aside if we could, and direct you (and all other self professed "conservatives") to the following piece by Russel Kirk, which describes ten fundamental principles of Conservatism. I found it extremely enlightening when I first read it. The fact is that many conservatives (and I'm not implying that this describes anyone here) are unaware of what the word actually means, that is to say why "Conservatism", i.e. what is being conserved? And the answer is - to grossly simpify it - "the moral and social order", against the designs of ideologues and utopianist radicals. With the specter of the French Revolution wiping away the traditional order of the Ancien Regime in France it was feared the same would happen in England. "Conservatism" sought to *conserve* the social and moral order established in England (over a thousand years, and from which the Liberty of the English people was derived) against the destructive utopianist radicals of the sort that led the French Revolution, who destroyed that order and sought to replace it from the top down with a New Order which (unlike the previous one and the one in Great Britain, which had grown organically and naturally and had the authority of ten centuries behind them) was a product of *ideology* and based on the ridiculous notion of the perfectibility of man.

Anway, I urge all Conservatives to read the following piece by Kirk and ask yourself whether *your* principles are consistent with those he describes. And, to be clear, this is not part of any previous argument or an attempt to start a new one - I merely found Kirk's work particularly enlightening and I suspect others, particularly those who have become disillusioned with the abysmal failure of the neo'conservatives'.

http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

In my opinion it is not difficult, once one knows where to look, for one to see where the Bush administration went wrong and why - because they are not "Conservatives" in any sense of the word. Again, I mean that literally and not as an insult - there is simply no definition of Conservative that contains within it massive federal expansion, irresponsible spending, a unitary executive, or the idea that the President is not bound by the Constitution. These are radical notions that *defy* tradition and Law and are thus patently *un*conservative.

S.L. Toddard| 1.11.09 @ 3:05PM

"I do think Israel would be gone without past USA support, like during the 1973 when Israel was attacked on Yom Kippur and lost 3000 soldiers and was almost done many say."

I disagree that they were "almost done" but still, that was three decades and countless billions of dollars ago. The situations are not analogous. Israel now has a massive nuclear arsenal and the best man-for-man military on earth.

Red Phillips| 1.11.09 @ 5:57PM

Actually Objectivists (Randians) have generally been pro-war. This is one reason why they are mutually alienated from most other libertarians (small and large l) who are very much non-interventionists.

Since we are exchanging links, here is a good one by Claes Ryn. He explains why neoconservatives and many movement conservative types are actually closer to Jacobins, the radical left in the French Revolution. The notion of remaking the world in the image of the West by force of arms is hopelessly utopian. Please read.

http://members.cox.net/wcampbell14/2006natryn.htm

charlie| 1.11.09 @ 6:29PM

SL Thanks for your point of view/philospophy.

I am a bit surprised on the Goldwater thing. The gent had some admirable ideas, but voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act ... I think. To me thats a total No No. You said you like him except for his Anti Commie interventionist positions. I think you should consider adding another carveout to your Goldwater affection. But thats up to you. I just wanted to point that out.

I do think Israel owes its existence to the USA. Countries can go away my friend and those of us who support Israel simply wish to see it survive. Nothing fancy. No Zionist conspiracy to dominate the world, the media etc. (Heck I can't even control my two boys ages 8 and 6.)

Maybe I am a worrier and too paranoid about Israel's (and yes the Jews) ability to survive. But you gotta give me the point that we Jews have had a tough run in the last century and before.

Iranian Atomic bombs are soon to be a reality I read, and the stated goals of some people within the Iranian government (not to mention Holocaust denial by such people) frighten me. They deny the first Holocaust so as to carry out the second one and they support Hamas by the way, which is chock full of true Jew hate, and also probably seeks to bring down Egypt by the way.

I think it would be a bad thing for the world for another 6 million Jews to perish. Sorry to get dramatic, but thats how I feel. I think the Jewish contribution to the world have been quite disproportionate to our numbers and think we need a refuge when others no longer desire the pleasure of our company, as has taken place from time to time.

I make no charges of anti semitism against you SL for the record, but wish to share my views. Please be open minded. Thanks.

ruth| 1.11.09 @ 7:28PM

I am an American first (seems weird to even have to say that), and am aware that we are standing on a precipice right now; our very survival is threatened . Many of us are upset and worried about our future which perhaps has caused mis-understandings among us. I understand that Israel is the flashpoint now, but really as a traditional conservative, I don't believe we should be the world's policeman. It's impossible anyway, we obviously can't afford it--look at our aging infrastructure. Empires are expensive--and we are way too over-extended. But even after stating all this, I still worry about Israel, and I don't believe we should abandon them.

Charlie| 1.11.09 @ 7:35PM

Thanks Ruth
We will not abandon Israel. The American people decided that in the past and will do so in the future I pray. I worry about them too. I wish we had more Ruth types who worried in the past. Might have been a force for good.

S.L. Toddard| 1.11.09 @ 8:51PM

Hey Red - that Claes Ryn piece was excellent.

S.L. Toddard| 1.11.09 @ 9:05PM

"I make no charges of anti semitism against you SL for the record, but wish to share my views. Please be open minded. Thanks. "

By all means. But your fears are, for the most part, entirely unfounded. If you read that "Iranian Atomic bombs are soon to be a reality" then a good course of action to take would be to read legitimate sources instead of propaganda. Were Iran to work ceaselessly and without obstruction towards building a nuclear weapon - and the international and scholarly consensus is that they are *not* - then it would take them something like a decade and a half. But even that's not happening. Let's say 15 years go by and the worse comes to pass, then your worry is that Iran would let itself be annihilated entirely - literally wiped off the face of the earth - so they could destroy Israel? You think that the Iranian people would rather be *dead* than live with an extant Israel, that the entire nation is one big Suicide Bomber? I'm sorry but that's irrational. Self preservation is the most primal and inexorable motivation, period. Which is why mutually assured destruction is a most effective - *the* most effective - deterrent, as the second half of the 20th century demonstrates inarguably.

Yes, it would be a bad thing for the world for another 6 million Jews to perish. But there is nothing to indicate that this is a remotely realistic possibility. I understand that it is customary to trot out the specter of "another holocaust" to justify an American foreign policy that benefits another country before America, but just because it is *effective* does not make it rational or honorable or patriotic.

S.L. Toddard| 1.11.09 @ 9:07PM

"I am an American first (seems weird to even have to say that), and am aware that we are standing on a precipice right now; our very survival is threatened"

By what? Whose survival is threatened?

S.L. Toddard| 1.11.09 @ 9:16PM

"I am an American first (seems weird to even have to say that), and am aware that we are standing on a precipice right now; our very survival is threatened . Many of us are upset and worried about our future which perhaps has caused mis-understandings among us. I understand that Israel is the flashpoint now, but really as a traditional conservative, I don't believe we should be the world's policeman. It's impossible anyway, we obviously can't afford it--look at our aging infrastructure. Empires are expensive--and we are way too over-extended. But even after stating all this, I still worry about Israel, and I don't believe we should abandon them."

So you believe that Empire is too expensive, and that our military is over-extended. That our infrastructure is crumbling, and that we cannot afford to police the world. Because of all this over-extention and world-policing, you believe we as a nation are teetering on very brink of extinction. And yet you say we must continue anyway, because you are "worried about Israel".

Which country are you putting first there?

Red Phillips| 1.11.09 @ 10:59PM

"our very survival is threatened"

S.L., I think she might have meant by the economic crisis, expanding debt, etc. I don't think she was invoking the specter of "Islamofascism" as an existential threat to our survival as many of the more hysterical interventionists are prone to do.

Charlie, it is perfectly understandable that you are concerned about the survival of Israel. Of course you are. Why wouldn’t you be? I would find it odd if you weren’t. But that does not mean America has a role in protecting Israel. America has to do what is best for America. At this point our “special relationship” with Israel hurts us. This is clear.

BTW, and I don’t want to side track the discussion but you brought it up, Barry Goldwater was entirely correct to oppose the Civil Rights Act. It is grossly unconstitutional. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes it.

ruth| 1.12.09 @ 2:53AM

Charlie, please don't thank me for simple human decency. You are a sweetheart. Yes, Red, I meant our economic crisis is a threat to our survival--only a hysteric would infer I meant "Islamofacism", especially since I didn't mention it at all. Hubris has led to our over-interventionism -all over the world- that cannot be sustained. I think economics, to some degree, will determine the solution we seek, and that solution will probably fall somewhere in the middle. I agree some reappraisal is in order.

S.L. Toddard| 1.12.09 @ 7:18AM

"S.L., I think she might have meant by the economic crisis, expanding debt, etc. I don't think she was invoking the specter of "Islamofascism"

Of course. The causes I cited from her post (which was all I had to go on, since she didn't answer my question to specify) were "overextention" and "world-policing" (both of which, of course, exacerbate greatly the economic crisis), not "Islamofascism", which was mentioned by neither of us.

But just for the record, Ruth does NOT believe Islamic terrorism poses an existential threat to the United States. That is good to know, at least.

"Charlie, it is perfectly understandable that you are concerned about the survival of Israel. Of course you are. Why wouldn’t you be? I would find it odd if you weren’t."

I would find it odd as well, since so many people have been scared into a hysterical, paranoid frenzy by the MSM about it. But, Red, do you believe Israel is on the brink of annihilation? That with her massive nuclear arsenal and supremely well-equipped and well trained military, her comparatively robust economy, and with the U.N. and U.S. being what they are that Israel is realistically facing *extinction*? Apart from the demographic threat that all Western nations face, what existential threat does Israel face? What nation can not only stand up to her might, but would sacrifice itself to a nuclear armageddon?

I think the "second holocaust" is a canard, an impossible, fantastical nightmare scenario - like "mushroom clouds over detroit" - used to scare the public into accepting whatever garbage the government wants to cram down its throat.

S.L. Toddard| 1.12.09 @ 10:00AM

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (pdf), the consensus opinion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies:

We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, *Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.*

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf
----------------------------------------------------

That's for Charlie's worry that "Iranian Atomic bombs are soon to be a reality". Rest easy. The consensus of all 16 U.S. Intelligence Agencies is that Iranian atomic bombs are *NOT* soon to be a reality, and that their program has been suspended for five years and remains so.

Kat| 1.12.09 @ 11:57PM

S.L., obsession is a sign of mental illness.

Daisy| 1.13.09 @ 12:07PM

Hey WendyG

Anyone remember that an English, German, French, Irishman killed John F Kennedy????
Anyone remember that a Jewish Israeli killed Yitzhak Rabin????
Anyone remember that a “born again Christian” from Decatur, GA killed John Lennon????
Anyone remember that Irish men killed Lord Mountbatten????
Anyone remember that a Hindu from India killed Gandhi????
Anyone remember that a Bosnian killed the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand????
Anyone remember that a Polish man killed William McKinley????
Anyone remember that an English man killed Abraham Lincoln????
Anyone remember that a Roman killed Julius Caesar????

kat| 1.15.09 @ 7:01PM

More of that mental illness.

Emmy-Lou| 4.26.09 @ 1:53AM

More of that mental illness