GLATZ: Pushing Palestinians out of the lifeboat
By Kathy Glatz
Published January 13, 2009 at 12:01 a.m.
Recently, I was speaking with an investment counselor regarding why I want socially responsible investments and specifically, do not want to invest in U.S. Treasury Bonds as my money may end up in a war zone or going to Israel. The counselor promptly asked what my problem with Israel is. I spoke of Israel’s blatant disregard for human rights of Palestinians, and U.N. resolutions condemning the same, and Geneva Conventions. He mentioned he is Jewish and firmly believes in Israel’s right to defend itself since, after all, Jews have been victims for centuries. I acknowledged that, indeed, Jews have been persecuted at the hands of Christians as well as Muslims, but that doesn’t make it moral for them to commit similar atrocities against Palestinians.
He then asked me, “How many Noble Prize winners have been Palestinians?” To which he answered himself, “None. Many Jewish people have won prizes and that’s why we should support Israel: they contribute to the world.” I was taken aback, and continue to ponder this. Does a Nobel Prize winner have more right to exist over a Palestinian farmer? Who decides who lives and who dies? (For the record, I found at least three Egyptian Nobel Laureates, one Iranian, and one Palestinian, Yasar Arafat, for peace.)
This reminds me of the lifeboat exercise that is often done for team-building. This is a (paper) group exercise whereby a ship is sinking and only x number of people can fit in the lifeboat. Participants decide who gets in the lifeboat. Typically, scientists, doctors, and children are chosen, while elderly and disabled folks and those whose skills aren’t as valued are left behind. (The exercise so upset me that, when doing team-building with groups, I substitute the 10 Essentials problem, where participants decide which items are chosen to go into to a survival backpack.) When the Titanic went down, passengers in the poor section, steerage, were left behind. "Women and children first" is often the rule.
We who are living in affluent countries already choose who gets in the lifeboat. We choose among our own countryfolk who will get financial aid and who won’t, based on criteria utilizing values of the time. We choose who in the international community gets aid and how much and who doesn’t because we are boycotting them. (So Cubans aren’t valued because of "human rights violations," although the U.S., China and Saudi Arabia are guilty of violating human rights.) Darfur and other genocidal African nations aren’t getting as much aid as those allies who are of strategic importance. Israel, Egypt, and Pakistan top the aid list — Israel uses its aid to purchase weapons from U.S. manufacturers, whereas the others have a mixed menu. These nations are touted as democracies surrounded by terrorists, justifying huge aid packages.
Well, Palestine has a constitution, unlike Israel who never produced one, and held democratic (according to sources who watched) fair elections. The U.S. didn’t like the outcome when Hamas won Gaza. Given a chance to be a fully functioning nation, without walls and checkpoints preventing livelihood and visits from families and to hospitals, without having its elected officials sitting in Israeli jails, without house demolitions and settlements occupied by foreigners, with Palestinian homes to go to instead of packed refugee camps in many countries, perhaps Palestine could be democratic and therefore worthy of being an ally. Perhaps Palestinians could sit in the lifeboat.
Some may say, “the government is doing all this choosing.” Well, in a democracy, we the people are the government. Our silence allows the powerful, rich lobbies, like American Israel PAC and weapons manufacturers, to influence our elected officials.
Our apathy pushes underserved people out of the lifeboat. Our voices must be heard. Our elected officials work for us, they are our employees. Our votes count. We must tell our employees that people count, not corporation profits; that we want our tax dollars spent for diplomacy, peace, negotiations, fairness, justice, not wars. It is time to speak up now, before falling from the lifeboat.
Kathy Glatz is a resident of Denver.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
January 13, 2009
6:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Liberalsrising writes:
Very good column, Kathy. One of the quotes I often use is from Thomas Sowell, who is discussing the scarcity of resources problem within a society and Sowell says that the main problem is "who is to choose?" As Kathy points out who is doing the choosing makes a difference. A more democratic America, which various groups have been fighting for for two hundred plus years, will make a big difference in our decisions about who gets what both in America and from America. Perhaps it will be the wall street barons who will be left behind someday when the lifeboat pulls away.
January 13, 2009
6:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
gs writes:
yes, very good coumn Kathy. My personal opinion is that the people of Gaza appear to need birth control counsling. But the gist of the article, which I'll define as "Does a Nobel Prize winner have more right to exist than a Palestinian farmer" to be dead on. Signed,
a farmer
January 13, 2009
6:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
eyewitness writes:
Thank you for a very thoughtful essay, Kathy. Your points are well made.
January 13, 2009
7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Kathy - your advisor's reference to Nobel prizes was maladroit and off point, even if the Islamic world's contributions in any and every area are almost nil. Their is no shortage of reasons to pity the Gazans. Like many in the world, they have valid gripes. What they prove time and again is that they are particularly bad at responding to injustices real or imagined. If the Gazans simply stopped firing rockets into Israeli cities, no matter how justified they might feel that rocketing to be, and if for good measure they returned Gilad Shalit, they would go a long way towards forcing Israel to lighten up. As long as the Gazans insist on playing hardball, they are going to get hardball back in spades. Hamas is the worst thing that ever happened to the Gazans and until they disavow Hamas and it tactics, they will suffer greatly.
BTW - the tone of your letter makes me suspect that you harbor issues that go way beyong this present situation and has to do with personal feelings about Jews in general. Color me skeptical...
January 13, 2009
7:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
No one is pushing them out of the lifeboat, there are jumping out of it on their own. They don't want peace. They want the total destruction of Israel.
January 13, 2009
8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
SJones writes:
Duck, Ms. Glatz. Here they come.
(An excellent article. Thank you.)
January 13, 2009
8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
SJones writes:
"BTW - the tone of your letter makes me suspect that you harbor issues that go way beyong this present situation and has to do with personal feelings about Jews in general."
But of course, Sheik. (roll eyes)
January 13, 2009
8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
AngelontheSidelines writes:
SYB, MIH,
The position you hold is entirely reasonable, as long as you remain willfully ignorant that is. Americans only see what Israel wants us to see.
By entirely controlling what we see, anyone will naturally follow the line you toe. Israel has seven angles that keep American support coming;
Frame the Debate
Use stereotypes
Take advantage of opponents blunders
Be everywhere and consistent
Hold your ground
Deny wrongdoing
Call everyone contrary to your stand, antisemetic
Thanks to James Zogby, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-z...
Hamas cannot be destroyed, just as with the disastrous Hezbollah war of 2006, Israel is weakening their position while strengthening their opponent.
These methods of isolating areas of Palestine from each other via walls, checkpoints, and restricted roads effectively makes life a prison. Israel cares not about lives, Jews in Israel oppose their own government, but we never see these protests. We cannot see Gaza because IDF keeps any press out.
The peace Israel seeks is the peace of victory, that is death to all the pesky brown people. The design of the fracturing and blockades in Palestine guarantees that. When faced with such a bleak existence, humans will naturally fight any way they can.
The Hamas, and Hezbollah vilification in American press is just part of the propaganda that has us so solidly behind Israel.
January 13, 2009
8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"Recently, I was speaking with an investment counselor regarding why I want socially responsible investments and specifically, do not want to invest in U.S. Treasury Bonds as my money may end up in a war zone or going to Israel." - Kathy Glatz
How obnoxious.
January 13, 2009
8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
angel - not denying wrongdoing - I said Gazans have real gripes.
Israel doesn't seek the "peace of victory" but the "peace of mere existence." Of course, for those who see her mere existence as a "defeat," then you could construe her existence as "victory." It's getting semantic, but I am sure Israel would like nothing more than to never have anything to do with Gaza ever again.
"pesky brown people"???? don't make a lame attempt to make this racial - both groups have common semitic roots. There are plenty of "brown" (even black) Israelis and Jews...
JPII - my thought exactly and why I suspect she harbors deeper issues that PC causes her not to vent in this forum.
January 13, 2009
8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
GunnyBob writes:
Yes, Hamas is a fine, peaceful organization very keen on democracy. Those 4,000 rockets they fired into Israel were actually carrying messages of peace and love via hand-written notes from Hamas members.
Oh, and my bad on Arafat. I had read somewhere he was the leader of one of the most deadly terrorist groups in history: the PLO. You know, Munich and all that fuss.
Is it time to turn the ovens back on, Kathy?
January 13, 2009
9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
Generally a nice letter with a few valid points, as well as some very vague and naive opinions. But I have to agree with SYB that there does seem to be more under the surface here with regard to the opinions held by Ms. Glatz. Using Yasser Arafat as a Nobel Peace Prize example is never a wise choice, in my book, when trying to generate credibility and/or sympathy for the Pali cause. And the USA has every right to support those that further our strategic interests. Every other nation does it. We play cop, use our power and aid $$ and "good offices" to do a lot of good on this planet - more than all other nations combined. So I feel no guilt when we make hard, real world choices on some issues. Ms. Glatz says our support of Israel reflects apathy by the American people. I disagree, I think it reflects the majority opinion of US citizens that though both sides are imperfect and flawed, we choose to stand with Israel. 11 US Presidents since 1948 have all agreed as well as every Congress since then too.
January 13, 2009
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
David_R writes:
Seems like both sides of the conflict (other than the combatants) are using the same "debating" tactics as outlined by Angel with just an exchange of key words:
"By entirely controlling what we see, anyone will naturally follow the line you toe. Hamas has seven angles that keep American support coming;
Frame the Debate
Use stereotypes
Take advantage of opponents blunders
Be everywhere and consistent
Hold your ground
Deny wrongdoing
Call everyone contrary to your stand, racist and oppressors"
January 13, 2009
10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
SJones writes:
"Is it time to turn the ovens back on, Kathy?"
Is that the best you can do, Gunny?
Don't quit your night job.
BTW, sanity keeps rearing its all-too-rare head. LeVine on "Who will save Israel from itself?": http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/wa...
(Watch, folks. Here comes the genetic fallacy.)
January 13, 2009
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
jbowen43 writes:
Excellent column. Thanks. We need more thoughtful columns like this one. This paper, generally, prints too much pro war garbage.
January 13, 2009
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
eyewitness writes:
SheikYurBooty says: "What they prove time and again is that they are particularly bad at responding to injustices real or imagined. If the Gazans simply stopped firing rockets into Israeli cities, no matter how justified they might feel that rocketing to be, and if for good measure they returned Gilad Shalit, they would go a long way towards forcing Israel to lighten up."
So how do you explain assassinations and brutality in the West Bank? The absolute hooliganism of armed Israeli settlers, who especially in Hebron launch daily pogroms, where they beat up Palestinians and torch their homes whenever they please? What are these fanatics learning in their synagogues which (to give them the benefit of the doubt) doesn't seem to discourage criminal behavior toward Palestininas?
Michael has a problem with Arafat getting a Peace Prize. Why not mention that disgraceful recipient Yitzhak Rabin, whose instructions to the Israeli army during the first (nonviolent at all on the Palestinian side) was to "break their bones"?
An Israeli official said very clearly in 2002 that Israel needed to make clear to Palestinians that "they are a defeated people." I think this guides Israeli policy much more than Hamas, or Hamas missiles, or Israel's feelings that it's existence is threatened (laughable if it weren't so malicious), or anything else.
As for Michael's point that US policy reflects American public opinion -- nonsense. A public opinion poll I saw says that 70% of Americans think that the US should help neither side. It's ludicrous to argue that the US Congress serves US interests. The recent vote to support Israel's aggression and war crimes in the Gaza Strip sickens the rest of the world and does not help restore the US moral standing in the world, which surely should be a US priority.
January 13, 2009
10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
What, no mention of the FACT that the Palestinians use Mickey Mouse to teach their children to hate Israelis and how wonderful it is to become a mass-murderer and reach "martyrdom".
No mention of the FACT that Palestinians and Terrorist Hamas put rocket launchers and manufacturing right in the middle of schools and family housing intentionally using civilians as human shields - and the civilians go along with it to reach "martyrdom".
No mention of the FACT that Fatah (Arafat's group) and Terrorist Hamas steal millions of dollars of international aid directed at helping needy Palestinians for their own personal gain and to buy explosives to kill Israelis.
No mention of the FACT that Israel left Gaza with functioning infrastructure of schools, fire stations, hospitals, homes, parks, agriculture, etc. that Gazans (and Terrorist Hamas) promptly destroyed simply because it was built by Israelis - preferring hardship and grievances to resources left behind by Jews.
No mention of the FACT that Terrorist Hamas will NEVER recognize Israel's right to exist, does not recognize or honor the treaties Arafat got his Nobel prize for. Yet they take the "land for peace" concessions the Israeli's gave up in the treaties with the Palestinian Authority as the new starting point to force Israel to negotiate its own destruction.
No mention of the FACT that Palestinians have been kept in permanent refugee status by both their own leaders and the leaders of neighboring states for sixty years, longer than any other displaced people, ever. Displaced people are not new to the world's current and past history. Every continent besides North America has had displaced people since 1948, yet they become integrated and functioning members of the new land they are in rather than force their children and grandchildren to live as permanent refugees. Palestinians choose to make themselves permanent refugees in Gaza while the West Bank, and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, all of their neighbors refuse to help the Palestinians one bit, other than sending them tools of destruction.
The main reason the Palestinians continue to make war on Israel is because they are encouraged to cling to their hopes that Israel will destroyed and they'll inherit the land. If the international community really cared about them they'd stop feeding them false hopes predicated on Israel's destruction and help them make real gains in their current lives by basing their future plans in reality.
January 13, 2009
10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hengist writes:
Thanks for writing, Kathy. I'm with you on this one. The most troubling aspect, for me, is knowing and watching as my tax-dollars go to support a country that uses American-made weapons like F-16s and Apache Gunships on people who have been penned in the worlds' largest concentration camp. Of course those people are going to resist. Any American with a spine would resist the occupation of their land...("oh, but Israel evacuated Gaza in 2005" ... only to surround them into a giant concentration camp and starved into submission.)
If you really want to parcipitate in a personal effort to minimize the amount of your money ending up supporting Israel, you could start by NEVER paying to see a Hollywood movie, NEVER paying for a mainstream newspaper, and start getting your news from alternative on-line sources like www.antiwar.com, www.whatreallyhappened.com or www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com
Now... I have to go put on my flak jacket. The sh*t is going to hit this poster board. At least the RMN will be gone in a couple of days, but I'll wager that the pro-Israeli operatives that work this board will find other poster boards to infiltrate.
P.S. you can also read www.wrmea.com to find out which political candidates take foreign PAC money for their campaigns.
Then vote accordingly.
January 13, 2009
11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
NoPCme2 writes:
Kathy Glatz epitomizes the mind set of hand-wringing, bleeding-heart liberalism. She begins her piece by posing a strawman argument (her advisor's observation of Jewish Nobel laureates) then proposes a touchy-feely exercise that, she can't handle emotionally, is analagous to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She continues to use various half-truths, irrelevancies (Israel's "lack" of a constitution) and factual omissions (Hamas' stated intent to destroy Israel) in an attempt to persuade the reader of the logic of her logical fallacies. In the surreal world of Kathy Glatz, Hamas and their supporters have every right to be outraged that Israel would attempt to defend itself against the thousands of missles Hamas has launched at it. Glatz's level of emotional maturity is infantile at best.
January 13, 2009
11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
David_R writes:
"A public opinion poll I saw says that 70% of Americans think that the US should help neither side.It's ludicrous to argue that the US Congress serves US interests. The recent vote to support Israel's aggression and war crimes in the Gaza Strip sickens the rest of the world and does not help restore the US moral standing in the world, which surely should be a US priority."
Politicians from both sides of the aisle will lean heavily toward supporting Israel.
First, Israel is viewed by many as a true democracy, an island of democracy in the midst of totalitarian states and needs to be preserved.
Secondly, they're wary of being placed in the position of taking blame for letting Israel fall -- essentially, a damned if you do preserve Israel and damned if you don't preserve Israel position.
Thirdly, a large Jewish and pro-Jewish voting block that can knock politicians off their pedestals.
January 13, 2009
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
"If you really want to parcipitate in a personal effort to minimize the amount of your money ending up supporting Israel, you could start by NEVER paying to see a Hollywood movie, NEVER paying for a mainstream newspaper, and start getting your news from alternative on-line sources like..." - Hengist
Most absurd thing I have read today...and I read a lot of absurd things. The aid packages that the US gives to Israel and Egypt date back to the Camp David Accords and Pres Carter's massive bribe to Begin and Sadat to not make war on each other. These two countries alone receive 1/3 of all US annual foreign aid. Israel, about $3B and Egypt about $2.2B. It does not matter what movie you see or do not see or what your news source is, this money is paid out of the $3 TRILLION US annual budget and was recently renewed (2007) for another 10 years. This money buys the US influence in the region and believe it or not lessens the bloodshed and scope of the violence. Pull the $$, watch the war grow.
January 13, 2009
11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
SJones writes:
"This money buys the US influence in the region and believe it or not lessens the bloodshed and scope of the violence. Pull the $$, watch the war grow."
Even if true, and that's debatable, it's irrelevant. Fact is, as Michael Scheuer and others have ably argued, we don't - or at least we shouldn't - have a dog in this fight:
http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?artic...
To mikeyg: facts noted. Most of us here aren't defending the demonstrably dark side of radicalized Islam. In fact, as Scheuer insinuates in the article linked above, the US would be better off largely disengaging from the Middle East.
Your facts being noted, however, there is no justification for the level or barbarism currently being exhibited by the State of Israel in Gaza.
January 13, 2009
11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
my3pugs writes:
If Native Americans (who have roughly the same level of autonomy as Palestinians) launch missiles from the reservation they live on, you can sure that force would be applied to remove the threat.
January 13, 2009
12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
Here are some opinion poll numbers I have researched. Gallup is among them. It appears there is strong support for Israel in the US.
"Overall, support for Israel has been on the upswing since 1967. In the 1970s, the average level of support for Israel was 42%, in the 1980s, it was 46%, and, in the 1990s, 50%, including a record high of 64% at the time of the Gulf War in January 1991. So far in the new millennium, support for Israel is averaging 50%.
Meanwhile, support for the Arabs/Palestinians has actually declined in the last two decades from an anemic average just below 15% in the 1980s to less than 14% since 2000. On average, Israel is favored by nearly 4 to 1.
Gallup also takes regular polls on world affairs. Overall favorable ratings of Israel in February 2008 were 71%, the highest since the record 79% favorable rating in February 1991 during the first Gulf War. By contrast, just 14% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Palestinian Authority, while 75% have an unfavorable view, only marginally better than the 2006 figure of 78%, the most negative Gallup recorded since it began asking about the Palestinian Authority in 2000. The PA is rated just above North Korea (12%) and Iran (8%) as the least popular countries."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/j...
January 13, 2009
12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
BunnyGob - Welcome to the last days of the bankrupt Roman/American Empire, brought to us by hoopleheads such as you satisfied with bloated military budgets, addiction to Middle Eastern oil, and blatant disregard for the rights of non-white foreign nations to run their own countries (see Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, and all of South America).
The notion of American Exceptionalism will be the undoing of this nation (see George Bush, Corporate Socialism, and the Project for the New American Century). The literalist belief that followers of the Abrahamic Monotheistic religions are "God's chosen people" will lead to mankind's destruction. At the end of the day the living biosphere will have the final say.
Try reading Andrew Bacevich's "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism" or watch his interview at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/081.... You might learn something.
January 13, 2009
12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
NoPCme2 writes:
If I were on it, Kathy Glatz would be tossed off her "kumbaya lifeboat" immediately. Before she would allow on the islamic jihadist who would slit everyone's throats before sinking the boat and going to 72 virgin land. Glatz would deny tax money to pay for the defense of our country, our interests, and ostensibly the warriors who provide this defense. But she doesn't mind feeding at the public trough with her salary and PERA at the local community college, protected by people she loathes. Glatz's insipid utopianism and logical fallacies are beyond surreal. They're symptomatic of a thought disorder.
January 13, 2009
12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
SJones writes:
"Glatz's insipid utopianism and logical fallacies are beyond surreal. They're symptomatic of a thought disorder."
Well, I didn't see any "utopianism" in her article. And whatever logical fallacies might be there in her article, I'd say the article was far less symptomatic of a thought disorder than are your mostly noisy harangues.
January 13, 2009
12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
eyewitness writes:
What nonsense you write, NoPCme2. I'm almost in awe of the number of bigoted, anti-Muslim stereotypes you worked into your second sentence.
January 13, 2009
12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
NoPCme2 writes:
Daoist blockhead, I still have in my bookcase a 22 year-old book by Paul Kennedy titled, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers." It predicts the loss of U.S. power, as do you. Why don't YOU try reading it? Maybe YOU"LL realize the naysayers and America haters have been wrong before and quite possibly are wrong now. Or go to Europe blockead, where I'm sure your cosmopolitan globalist intellectual masurbation will be more appreciated.
January 13, 2009
12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
NoPCme2 writes:
SJ Jones, You don't "see" these things because you have no education in philosopy, or logic. You are incapable of abstract reasoning and lack reading comprehension skills. Too sad.
January 13, 2009
1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
SJones writes:
"SJ Jones, You don't "see" these things because you have no education in philosopy, or logic. You are incapable of abstract reasoning and lack reading comprehension skills. Too sad."
I think this is about your fourth attempt, now, at a "Jedi Mind Trick." Maybe you should try something else.
BTW, to accuse the writer of "utopianism" based on what she wrote is a classic instance of the "non-sequitur" fallacy.
January 13, 2009
1:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
SJones writes:
By the way, speaking of "reading comprehension skills", it's "SJones", not "SJ Jones." So maybe it wasn't a non sequitur on your part after all.
;-)
January 13, 2009
1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
gadawg writes:
So, Kathy. What do you and all other defenders of Palestine suggest the Israeli's do? Easy to sit and pontificate about how evil Israel is. It's much more difficult to come up with an actual solution. Use your brain power for that instead of your verbal prose.
All of the rest of you that read this and think she is right, what do you recommend? I think it is funny how many people love to get on here and opine against Israel but nobody has any real suggestions or really even cares that they have rockets landing in their backyards given to them by Iranians.
January 13, 2009
1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
SJones writes:
gadawg (Pt.1):
Over at The American Conservative (a paleocon mag), Scott McConnell answers the question of what he'd do if he were Israel's PM:
________________________
I’d make a speech in the Knesset. I’d invite Arab diplomats and significant Palestinian notables, representing a wide spectrum of Palestinian opinion. And cameras. I’d say I didn’t become Israel’s leader to oversee the destruction of the Jewish state. I’d say that while Israel, like virtually every modern nation, was founded on an injustice, its founders were no strangers to injustice themselves. That It wasn’t my job or those of the present generation of Israelis to right all the wrongs of the past, which couldn’t be done anyway. But it could present and work to bring about a vision for the future that was much closer to fair for both the present generation of Israelis and for their Palestinian victims. That prospect was much better than the present course–which seems headed towards some sort national annihilation, either of Israel, the Palestinians, or most likely both.
I’d acknowledge the importance of the Saudi peace intiative, and the explicit recognition of Israel within its 1967 borders–now formally acknowledged by all (or almost) the Arab states. I’d point out how huge a step this is– how we all know that the Arabs long refused to accept Israel in any form, and now they do.
I’d also acknowledge that many Israelis, including the state’s founders, wanted all of Palestine, and no recognition of Palestinian national rights at all., though they ultimately realized it was “practical” and diplomatic to accept partition–at least on a provisional basis. So I’d acknowledge the mutual intolerance that existed in the 1940’s was a two-way street. I’d say that there are still people on both sides who want to deny national rights to the other side– Israel has its settlers, and its Likud; the Arabs have its Hamas. But even within those extremist camps are practical men, who could be brought into a two state solution coalition, if there was no alternative.
January 13, 2009
1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
SJones writes:
gadawg (Pt.2):
I’d say that the Americans who have given us a blank check for forty years to colonize the West Bank are almost certainly not going to that for another forty years–that American perspectives are changing, there are Arab students in American universities, and a new President who has actually been a close friend of Palestinian intellectuals. So our ability to count on America to always use its UN veto to shield us from world opinion and its wallet to support us unconditionally will, this decade or the next, pass away. I’d say, neither friend nor foe should mistake our quest for a practical and fair solution as a sign of weakness: we have the most powerful armed forces in the region, and many dozens of nuclear weapons, and could destroy anyone we want. But we have more to offer as a peaceful, intelligent and scientific people than a war-like oppressor and colonizer. And our sense is that the Arab world does now, finally, understand this. I’d say we’re ready for a two state solution the way we weren’t in 1948, or 1967, or 1992. . As a start, we’re pulling out of the settlements of the West Bank: apartheid in Hebron will end, the checkpoints and settler only roads which strangle Bethlehem will end.
Anyway, Bill, that’s the general idea–if you know anyone in Jerusalem who wants me spend a longer time working on this, I’d be glad to. What would the Arabs do? Most of them would jump at the chance–as they did after Oslo before they realized that the “peace process” just meant more settlements. Iran? I think even the present regime has said that any solution acceptable to the Palestinians is alright with them. For much of recent history, Iran has been reasonably friendly to Israel, and I suspect that tendency would re-emerge. This speech, you have to admit, would be really big.
January 13, 2009
1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
eyewitness writes:
You make it too easy!
gadawg writes: What do you and all other defenders of Palestine suggest the Israeli's do?
1. End the illegal occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, and teh Syrian Golan Heights. It goes without saying that this would involve ending the illegal seige, blockade, adn bombardment of the Gaza Strip.
2. Take the armed, dangerous, and illegal Israeli settlers out of the occupied West Bank.
3. Immediately cease bulldozing Palestinian homes.
4. Immediately release Palestinian political prisoners, including 300 children; they have never been charged with a crime.
5. Make Israel a state for all its citizens instead of world Jewry.
This would involve an end to privileging Jews over non-Jews.
6. As a sign of good faith, prosecute Israeli Jews who have committed crimes against Palestinians.
7. Acknowledge the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians that Israel committed in 1948 and apologize.
8. Accept international peacekeepers in the territories to protect Palestinians and give them a sense of security, which they have lacked for 40+ years, being at the mercy of the Israelis.
This is for starters
January 13, 2009
1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
NoPCme2 writes:
Our votes count. We must tell our employees that people count, not corporation profits; that we want our tax dollars spent for diplomacy, peace, negotiations, fairness, justice, not wars. It is time to speak up now, before falling from the lifeboat. ----Kathy Glatz
SJones, Are you old enough to have seen the Billy Jack movies of the 70s? Well, Kathy Glatz takes her utopian world view straight out of a Billy Jack movie. I guess she slept through 9/11 and didn't see the decapitation videos her MUSLIM buddies made as they cut off the heads of their screaming and crying captives. People like you and Glatz help evil thrive while, at the same time, you pat yourselves on your backs, smile smugly, and believe yourselves to have made the world a better place.
January 13, 2009
2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hengist writes:
SJones and eyewitness: Thanks for balancing the debate with your contributions.
January 13, 2009
2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
SJones writes:
"SJones, Are you old enough to have seen the Billy Jack movies of the 70s? Well, Kathy Glatz takes her utopian world view straight out of a Billy Jack movie. I guess she slept through 9/11 and didn't see the decapitation videos her MUSLIM buddies made as they cut off the heads of their screaming and crying captives. People like you and Glatz help evil thrive while, at the same time, you pat yourselves on your backs, smile smugly, and believe yourselves to have made the world a better place."
I'm sorry: this is the assessment of someone highly trained in "philosophy and logic?" Looks more like your garden variety rant to me.
Yes, I have seen the Billy Jack movies. All of them, I think. (Weren't there three or four?) *Great* stuff. Here's one review I think you'll enjoy:
http://www.badmovies.org/movies/billy...
But no, while Ms. Glatz may be a liberal/lefty, she's certainly no Delores Taylor, however strenuously you insist she is. Your assessment of Glatz' article is a caricature, nothing more.
As far as your judgment of me is concerned, save it for someone who is actually impressed by your analytical abilities. BTW, you might be interested to know that I am a conservative. A real one. Unlike you. A conservative who, also unlike you, is intimately acquainted with the facts of the Israeli-Palestian dispute and who accordingly will not toe the mindless neocon line. Jettison your uninformed jingoism, stop listening to the likes of Hugh Hewitt, and read up on history a bit. Maybe then you can start posting intelligently to this discussion.
Off now to help evil thrive.
Snaggle-Tooth Jones
January 13, 2009
3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
If you think peace will be gained by pulling away from Israel, you too will be able to skate on glass in Iran and or Syria. Or start a glass wholesale store.
Yes give back the lands that Isreal's enemies used as tactical advantages in 68
8 points for Peace that Israel must comply with. Some I agree with.... BUT not 1 point in protecting Israel. Not 1! Not 1 guarantee that if Israel were to comply that they would be any safer tomorrow than they are today. Not 1 point to stop the $$$$$$$ and weapons from Syria and Iran.
There are plenty of points of blame to go around. But overloading to 1 side will not bring peace. It will bring war. Currently there are $$$$$ and weapons flowing both ways. None of us like it. I would rather have that $$$$ spent on many other things, but for now it keeps the risks of destruction too high for the middle east.
Once Israel feels that its security depends solely on themselves, No advise, calls for restraint from the Western world will be heard by Israel. None.
All out nuclear war will follow closely behind. "No Peace" until the complete obliteration of Israel has been the cry. Not sure about you, but the citizens there take that kind of thing pretty seriously. Some even have the inked scars to prove it.
January 13, 2009
3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
NoPCme2 writes:
sJones, I don't think you know what a conservative is any more than you know what a utopian is. Out of Glatz's "kumbaya lifeboat" with you too. You and the jihadist who's already thrown out can
fight over who kills the Jew in the boat. Your
knowledge of history appears both selective and revisionist. P.S. The only people I know who use the liberal construct, "neocon" are Liberals. So go blow your smoke somewhere else. Maybe you and Glatz can volunteer yourselves as human shields for Hamas so they won't feel the need to use their own children.
January 13, 2009
3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
David_R writes:
NoPCme2:
Not only liberals use the construct "neocons" as various factions of conservatism in general have found it necessary to define subsets within conservative thought.
A loose, general delineation in example:
"Neocons" believe in an aggressive foreign policy, empiric intervention in other nations to spread democracy, and global economic-trade policies. Weak on domestic policies, they lack emphasis on national issues. Their vision includes motivating our nation towards what I believe Pres. Bush's father referred to as the "New World Order." Include growth of government and overspending too.
"Paleocons" believe in the principles of limited government, limited spending and borrowing, limited intervention into citizens' lives, and states' rights. They also believe in restraint of foreign entanglement, a strong national defense and traditional family values.
The Grand Old Party appears to have accepted this "Neocon" mutation, to move towards a world economy policy, open borders and the "New World Order."
January 13, 2009
3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
SJones writes:
"sJones, I don't think you know what a conservative is any more than you know what a utopian is."
You should see my political library some time. Then I'll come over to your house and see your comic book collection.
"Out of Glatz's 'kumbaya lifeboat' with you too. You and the jihadist who's already thrown out can fight over who kills the Jew in the boat."
Rant, rant, rant. Rave, rave, rave. (Yawn.)
"Your knowledge of history appears both selective and revisionist."
As evidenced by. . .?
"P.S. The only people I know who use the liberal construct, "neocon" are Liberals."
It doesn't surprise me that this is all you know. But maybe one day you'll start looking around and discover all those neocon writers who use it in reference to themselves. (In their more honest moments, that is.)
"So go blow your smoke somewhere else. Maybe you and Glatz can volunteer yourselves as human shields for Hamas so they won't feel the need to use their own children."
A lucid, well-argued response, NoPCme2, if there ever was one. I wither like the Wicked Witch of the West before your awesome philosophical and logical prowess. "What a world, what a world. . . ."
January 13, 2009
3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
SJones writes:
P.S, NoPCme2: I'm not going anywhere, unless the RMN turns me out.
January 13, 2009
3:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
SJones writes:
David_R:
Yep. Thanks.
January 13, 2009
4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankReardon writes:
Thanks Kathy...
Snaggle-Tooth Jones,
I couldn't have stated it better. Well done, eyewitness, as well. I'm hoping that these 'neocon-artists' will start reading a wider variety of news and information and maybe turning off their talk show radios. The MidEast aside, the only way our country is ever to survive is if we face the problems AND the solutions honestly.
Peace
January 13, 2009
4:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
JSeifert writes:
That is death to all the pesky brown people. What a Racist view I guess Little miss know it all never been to Israel or even knows a Jewish person.
Let me set you straight jews come in all races and nationalities from white slov's to black ethopians from Chinese to jews from Brazil, But I guess I should exspect this from a little miss Racist.
Israel does not fight the PAL because they are brown I've meet PAL that were whiter then me, They fight because they are tired of bus's with their kids on it blowing up they are tired of having to wonder if the pizza place on the corner is going to be bombed, They are tired of having to have bomb shelters in their homes.
Hamas does not care if PAL's die they are nutjobs with a bomb all they have to do is STOP thats all STOP and there would be no walls not gates no raids but NO THEY WANT EVERY ISRAELI DEAD.
Like YOU!
January 13, 2009
5:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
She's probably one of those creepy people who believe in that man-made global warming theory too.
January 13, 2009
5:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” –Joseph Goebbels
The real meaning and purpose of the eight year reign of lies and (t)error of George “Arrested Development” Bush…
9/11 – The PNAC’s New Pearl Harbor
9/11 – Warnings
9/11 – The Phony Commission Report
The Hunt for Osama Bin Laden
Iraq responsible for 9/11
Iraq as Imminent Threat
Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction
Foiled Terrorist Plots
Manipulation of Terrorist Warning Levels
Illegal Wiretapping
Torture
Guantanamo Detainees and Abuse
The Attempt to Privatize Social Security
The Response to Hurricane Katrina
The $750 Billion Non-Transparent TARP
January 13, 2009
5:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
NoPCme2 writes:
S Jones, I find your responses to be not much more sophisticated than the school yard taunt, "Nya, nya, nya, nya, nya!" So my admittedly succinct challenge to you and your muse, Glatz, is once again, "Why don't you volunteer to be human shields for Hamas so they won't feel the need to use their own children?" You know, Jones, the same Hamas that uses hospitals and mosques as fighting bases. The Hamas that has launched thousands of missles at Israel over the past few years. You see, Jones, you and Glatz have no moral standing among serious people, in spite of the size of your library and your understanding of revisionist history. BTW, I don't believe the "neocon" label has been commonly accepted. But that's a discussion for another day.
January 13, 2009
5:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankReardon writes:
JSeifert - Don't forget Sammy Davis Jr., babe.
January 13, 2009
5:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
jfkdem47 writes:
Listening to apologists for Palestinian terrorists is idiotic. The same leftwing kooks also have been whining about terrorists being held at Gitmo.
Of course, they refuse to admit reality. Like the evidence of their pro-terrorism stupidity.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNew...
January 13, 2009
6:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
jfkdem47 writes:
""Recently, I was speaking with an investment counselor regarding why I want socially responsible investments and specifically, do not want to invest in U.S. Treasury Bonds as my money may end up in a war zone or going to Israel.""
So the ditz invested in Palestinian Terrorism War Bonds, repayable in innocent civilian blood daily.
January 13, 2009
6:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankReardon writes:
NoPCme2,
You speak of the Hamas' tactics as if you are unfamiliar with them. It's something that occurred during the Revolutionary War of the United States. Something called 'guerrilla warfare'. War is hell. That's why we shouldn't have them.
January 13, 2009
6:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
NoPCme2 writes:
Dear Hank Reardon: Huh? You're comparing Hamas, and what they're doing, to the American Patriots of our Revolution? Sorry, but I don't see a lot of similarities there. Especially since the Israelis GAVE Gaza to the Palestinians with a good lot of infrastructure in place. Hamas destroyed it because they didn't want anything the "Zionists" had created. Hamas deserves their fate. Let the hounds of hell be unleashed upon them. As a former U.S. Marine, I say "let there be war!"
January 13, 2009
6:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
Michael actually typed:
"...and I read a lot of absurd things."
Amazing. That's twice in one week we agree.
January 13, 2009
6:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
jfkdem47 writes:
Hank,
"You speak of the Hamas' tactics as if you are unfamiliar with them. It's something that occurred during the Revolutionary War of the United States. "
You have two options:
1. Provide any evidence you can find that shows George Wasington sending suicide bombers into civilian crowds of London. Provide any evidence you find where the Continental Congress called for the death of all civilians in England.
2. Apologize to all victims of Hamas terrorism and admit you're suffering from a bad case of PWOK.
January 13, 2009
7:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
David_R writes:
NoPCme2:
A little reference material for your review of "Neoconservatism." From the reputed "father" of the movement. Depending on your perspective it can be good or bad...
The Neoconservative Persuasion
From the August 25, 2003 issue: What it was, and what it is.
by Irving Kristol
08/25/2003, Volume 008, Issue 47
"WHAT EXACTLY IS NEOCONSERVATISM? Journalists, and now even presidential candidates, speak with an enviable confidence on who or what is "neoconservative," and seem to assume the meaning is fully revealed in the name. Those of us who are designated as "neocons" are amused, flattered, or dismissive, depending on the context. It is reasonable to wonder: Is there any "there" there?"
Full article at:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content...
January 13, 2009
7:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
once again it all comes down to perspective.
the united states invaded and occupied a foreign country with no ability to harm her shores while killing over one hundred thousand civilians....and we still have folks spouting "feelings" about who are "terrorists" in the middle east.
January 13, 2009
8:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
NoPCme2 writes:
David_R, I don't care about the Kristols or the "Weekly Standard." I don't care about David Brooks or any other squishy conservatives. I don't care about "neocons" or people who say they have sighted such a critter. I care about the continued existence of the United States as a constitutional republic and its allies. I care about destroying the enemies of our country and our allies. I care about "good" prevailing over "evil" and I believe those who support terrorists are evil or emotionally unstable, such as is Kathy Glatz.
January 13, 2009
8:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
tsogi writes:
WARSAW 1939 , GAZA 2009 .
January 13, 2009
8:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
David_R writes:
NoPCme2:
"I don't care about "neocons" or people who say they have sighted such a critter."
That's interesting. From some of your position statements I was under the (apparent) mistaken impression you were an adherent of neoconservatism.
January 13, 2009
8:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
NoPCme2 writes:
David-R, now how damn stupid can you be? Didn't I make it clear that I don't believe any such animal exists? I suppose you think Elvis is still working at that Tennessee gas station too, don't you?
January 13, 2009
9:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
nopcme2 may not admit being a conservative or neoconservative or whatever, but he/she can't run from the fact that he/she is ignorant if he/she believes that we were hit on 9/11 because of islam.
January 13, 2009
9:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
David_R writes:
Nice rapier wit in an ad hominem attack. And you wonder why someone might think you're an ideological person.
Wow, I learned my lesson in carrying on an conversation with such a "superior" intellect.
January 13, 2009
9:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
fnvgis writes:
The popularity of war shows that a great many people are actually quite insane.
January 13, 2009
10:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
Great American Corporate Pirates/Patriots/Terrorists...
George Bush and Harken Energy
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020722...
Richard Cheney and Halliburton
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/0...
Don Rumsfeld and the Bird Flu Hoax
http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/31/news/...
January 14, 2009
9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Grim_Reefer writes:
NoPCme...you just got owned by three people on this board..time to step away from the keyboard..you've already removed all doubt.
January 14, 2009
11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
NoPCme2 writes:
Well surprise, surprise. All of you anti-Semite, Hamas supporters please give a warm welcome to the not-so-new member of your booster club. Osama bin Laden "urges jihad against Israel" reports Drudge. What's that old saying, "You can know the character of a man (or country) by who his enemies are?" I say kill them all and let alllah sort 'em out. GO Israel!!!! No Glatz, kumbaya lifeboat for muslim murderers.
January 14, 2009
11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
SJones writes:
"NoPCme...you just got owned by three people on this board..time to step away from the keyboard..you've already removed all doubt."
(Leave him be, Grim Reefer. He's on a roll.)
January 14, 2009
11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
wait a minute, nopcme, did you just call me anti-semetic because i believe both sides of this conflict have valid grievances and neither is guilt free in the violence we've seen for decades?
you are either a troll or an idiot.
January 14, 2009
12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankReardon writes:
Okay jfkdem47,
You say - "Provide any evidence you can find that shows George Wasington sending suicide bombers into civilian crowds of London. Provide any evidence you find where the Continental Congress called for the death of all civilians in England."
Nice. The Revolutionary War took place here, stateside in the 1700s. Today the world and way we wage wars have all changed. The Boston Tea Party was considered terrorism by the British. Men were hung for it. We weren't quite up to the level of suicide bombers and calling for civilian raids, but we were raping and pillaging. That's a start. And look at the type of warfare tactics used during the Civil War. Civil? Innocent?
And before you pull the anti-Semite card...
I have Jewish relatives and friends. In short, I have been in intimate relationships with Jewish people. It's not about race or creed.
January 14, 2009
1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
MGD writes:
Hamas is in a lifeboat shooting arrows at the aircraft carrier next door. Just stop the missiles and see what happens. Right or wrong, until the missiles stop nothing is going to change.
You notice how many of the other muslim countries are not providing support. Even Iran said no to the people who asked if the could go become bombers for Hamas.
Both sides need to share the blame but if the rockets would stop then Palestine would actually get international support against Israel and it's policies.
January 14, 2009
1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
NoPCme2 writes:
No, Hank, it's not about race or creed. It's about your stupidity and anti-Americanism. It's about this country becoming so morally corrupt that it breeds people who can no longer recognize good and evil for what they are. It's about secular people who believe in moral relativism. Radical islam has no similar impediments to their progress and you--and people like you--will be the first they kill.
January 14, 2009
1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
nopcme2, we've debunked the ignorant talking points about the evil islamic boogeymen many times.
9/11 may have been inevitable considering our nasty habit of not reading security briefings, but you can't paint this as a fundamentally religious conflict.
Of course religion fundamentalists have used god to rally people to their causes for years. The republican party does the same thing here in the States. That doesn't mean, however, that you can label our fight against global terrorism as a foundationally religious one.
Of course religious fundamentalists make up a large part of some of the groups we've targeted as terrorist in nature. Our foundational problems with these people aren’t religious in nature.
The religious fundamentalist nature of the anti-us forces is no more significant or less so that the religious fundamentalist nature of the republican party. Both organizations recruit members using god...on a departmental level so to speak.
Do those fundamentalists at times adversely affect group decisions? Does the pope where prada slippers? Does the leadership cater and maneuver to galvanize this base around particular issues? Of course they do. Why wouldn't they. The Dems manipulate certain demographics with their policy stances as well.
The "evildoers" have been painted by some extremists as some kind of muslim monster and likewise the religious extremists in the middle east are accusing the US of being on a "crusade". My point is that you can't label our foundational disagreements with the "terrarists" as religious in nature.
If you're calling them islamic extremists, you're no better informed than the fruitloops on the other side of the line who are pointing at America and saying that we're "christian fundamentalists" hell bent on bringing back the greatest hits of 1219.
if it is too politically painful for you to acknowledge that the "evildoers" don't hate us (or israel) because of our religion, shopping malls or "freedom", please stay out of the way while the rest of the country addresses the root causes for our problems in the middle east...those being (as confirmed by those who would do us harm) our blind support for israel and our oil-induced footprint.
January 14, 2009
1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
NoPCme2 writes:
Jay, you are truly a laughable person. Your ideology wouldn't be well received by a vast majority of Americans. I wouldn't espouse your garbage among the general public if I were you. You're safe on the internet.
January 14, 2009
2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
David_R writes:
jay:
"...that the religious fundamentalist nature of the republican party. Both organizations recruit members using god..."
That's an awfully broad generalization regarding Republicans in general. It's equivalent to asserting that the Democratic party only recruits based on secularism and anyone with religious beliefs are unwelcome.
There is a very large population of secularists in the Republican party. While it's true that many of the more outspoken individuals in the party are from the religious right, that doesn't make the entire party religious based anymore than the strong advocates of abortion within the Democratic defines the entire Democratic party as pro-abortion.
Just like the Democratic party has membership mixed with both pro-choice and pro-life, and church goers and secularists, so has the Republican party have a broad mix of people. As an example, look at the new Representative elected in Louisiana -- a Vietnamese born immigrant who follows Buddhism.
Personally, I view both parties as just two wings of the same bird.
January 14, 2009
3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
SJones writes:
"Your ideology wouldn't be well received by a vast majority of Americans."
Argumentum ad populum.
January 14, 2009
3:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
SJones writes:
"Personally, I view both parties as just two wings of the same bird."
Or, as I like to say, two sides of the same worthless coin.
January 14, 2009
3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Your ideology wouldn't be well received by a vast majority of Americans"
another inaccurate statement from you, nopcme2.
my stances on the major issues before the country are shared by the majority of americans.
sorry...you're the extremist in this country...not me.
"It's equivalent to asserting that the Democratic party only recruits based on secularism and anyone with religious beliefs are unwelcome."
no, davidr, it is not equivalent to that at all.
thus, you have resorted to a strawman argument.
"Personally, I view both parties as just two wings of the same bird."
then you don't know enough about either party.
January 14, 2009
6:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
David_R writes:
No, jay, no straw man argument. Your original assertion was wrong. You essentially are claiming that your neighbor has a brown dog, therefore all dogs are brown, or all brown animals are dogs.
January 14, 2009
6:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
NoPCme2 writes:
Jones: You must have spent a lot of time coming up with that little gem. No wonder you were gone for a while. But you struck out liberal toady. A statement of opinion is not necessarily an argument.
January 14, 2009
8:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
SJones writes:
"Jones: You must have spent a lot of time coming up with that little gem. No wonder you were gone for a while. But you struck out liberal toady. A statement of opinion is not necessarily an argument."
All of 1/2 second. And I was "gone" because this thread is clearly winding down, I have one discussion board and two blogs to run, and several other cyberfora which I frequent.
But you're just too stupid for words, aren't you? It doesn't matter if a statement is an "opinion" or not. A fallacy is a fallacy.
And one more time, for the reading-impaired: I'm not a liberal. I'm a conservative. A real one. Unlike you.
January 15, 2009
2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Your original assertion was wrong."
well then make that case, david r, if you can without using a strawman arugment.
January 15, 2009
3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
David_R writes:
My only argument with your statement is that you included ALL Republicans in a blanket definition of using God to recruit. There are many atheists, agnostics and otherwise non-religious people involved in the Republican party. In fact there is a battle going on in that party over the amount of control the religious rights should be able to exert. There are also gays and pro-choice segments in the Republican party albeit in minor roles.
My example of using the secular and/or abortion segments of the Democratic party as not defining the Democratic party as a whole as there are religious and pro-life people in that party was just a comparison of diversities found within in both parties.
Over the last 40 odd years I have worked on the paid staffs of both parties on both the national and state levels. I've not only seen the vast diversity within both parties, my primary function with -- which ever one I was working for at the time, not both simultaneously -- both parties was to help pull together the diverse sectors of each in order to come up with a consensus position representing as much diversity as possible in definition.
You've picked out the religiosity of the Republicans as definitive of the entire party. While I do agree that it's the loudest section of that party right now, it by no means defines the party as a whole.
Just as the extremist terrorists involved in the Islamic Jihad movement come from Islam, Islam in general is not necessarily embracing that extremist position. The terrorist moved is IN the Islamic sphere but does not define Islam itself.
January 16, 2009
4:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"My only argument with your statement is that you included ALL Republicans in a blanket definition of using God to recruit."
nope.
still a strawman.
here are the original quotes:
"Of course religion fundamentalists have used god to rally people to their causes for years. The republican party does the same thing here in the States. That doesn't mean, however, that you can label our fight against global terrorism as a foundationally religious one."
"The religious fundamentalist nature of the anti-us forces is no more significant or less so that the religious fundamentalist nature of the republican party. Both organizations recruit members using god...on a departmental level so to speak."
now, david, if you can refute those statements, by all means do so, but please don't misstate my arguments during your attempts as you have before.
January 17, 2009
2:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Archibald writes:
Update on Casualties
It's good to keep the whole conflict in perspective:
Number of Israeli civilians killed by rocket fire from Gaza 2001-2009: 18
Number of Israelis killed in road accidents 2008: <300
Number of Gazan's killed by Israeli Security Forces 2001-2009: 3911 (includes those killed engaging Israeli forces)
Sources:
B'Tselem http://www.btselem.org/english/statis...
Rocket Fire:
The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/site...
"Summary of Rocket Fire and Shelling 2008"
Road Accidents:
Norman Finkelstein
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/arti...
January 20, 2009
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
rjnova writes:
The last article from Kathy was far less exemplified but equally of bleeding heart journalism---if not anti-Semitic. Why Kathy does no one, even Arabs, want anything to do with the Palestinians? It is because they are uncontrollable terrorist rabble. They became disassociated nomads after the Romans, Persians and Arabs and have never had an identity or direction since. If there were indeed farmers there would much room for help.
King Hussein of Jordan drove 200,000 Palestinians out of the West Bank into Lebanon after the Israelis took over Palestine. No adjoining Arab country or Egypt would provide one acre of land for them because they knew where it would lead.
Are you old enough or educated enough to know Lebanon was at that time the Middle East banking community and a very advanced society. Today you see that same state after its collapse and disorder that will not in any of our lifetimes return to that earlier statehood. Your bleeding heart would be better placed supporting Israel because given a chance by the Palestinians they have the ability and desire to turn that plight into the biblical land of milk and honey. Although, only to desert dwellers would Canaan be called a land of milk and honey.