« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama at UN: Arabs Build Bombs; Israelis Build Homes -It’s all the Same

Not surprisingly, Obama doubled down on his message of moral equivalence between Israel and the so-called Palestinians in his UN General Assembly speech.  Yes, he tossed out some politically motivated bromides about our deep friendship with Israel, but overall, he continued to view the two sides equally.

Obama’s overarching theme was that peace in the Middle East is “so hard” to achieve.  He asserted that there will be no peace unless “each side learns to stand in each other’s shoes,” and they “sit down together, to listen to each other, and to understand each other’s hopes and fears.”  As he uttered these puerile platitudes, I was attempting to conjure up an image of such a conversation.  It would go something like this:

Hamas/Fatah guy: “I fear those Jews and their settlements with every fiber of my being.  There will be no Jews living in our state, nor will they live in the remaining parts of Israel, once we inevitably destroy them.  Oh, how I hope all those homes will be within missile range.  Oh, how I regret that I have but one body to blow up for my religion.”

Israeli:  “Oh, how I fear for my children, while missiles fly over their schools.  Oh, how I hope there comes a day when Palestinians will love their children more than they hate us; when they will allow Jews to live peacefully and prosperously in “their” land, as they do in ours.”

As you can see, it’s quite arduous to have a productive dialogue here.  In that sense, Obama is right about how difficult it is to achieve peace.  As Human Events’s John Hayward wrote on Twitter, “Peace is hard. But dancing and handing out candy after 9/11 is easy.  Why would Palestinians want to take Obama’s advice and walk in Israeli shoes?  They might get blown up by a suicide bomb or rocket attack.”  Yet, in Obama’s perverted sense of morality, he believes, ” that [the] truth [is] – that each side has legitimate aspirations.”  Yup, one side wants to build homes; one side wants to build bombs.

The reason why Obama is so blinded by the truth in the Middle East is because he fundamentally rejects the notion that there is an Islamic terror threat.  Throughout the entire speech, he failed to mention the word terrorism, or even milder liberal innuendo, such as “extremism.”  Instead, he pinned all of the world’s problems on “nuclear weapons (including our own; hence, START treaty) and poverty; ignorance and disease,” along with global warming, unbridled capitalism, and a lack of LGTB rights.

Obama’s only problem with Syria and Iran, the world’s foremost exporters of terror, is their autocratic form of government (even though he had no problem with Ahmadinejad’s bloody suppression in 2009).  As such, he praised all of the “democratic” uprisings in the Middle East, without mentioning the extremists in Libya, the anti-Israel violence in Egypt, and the Al-Qaeda takeover of Yemen.  It’s as if our consummate mission in the Middle East is to end autocracy, while blithely ignoring the Islamic threat to us and our allies.

This perverse worldview also sheds light on Obama’s tepid prosecution of the war in Afghanistan.  We are fighting aimlessly and taking record causalities against an enemy that he is simultaneously negotiating with.  Well, now we understand why things aren’t going well.  We are “fighting” for faux-democracy for undemocratic people, while ignoring the larger Islamic threat.  Concurrently, we are making more progress in Iraq, but our soldiers are still being attacked by Iranian-made bombs.  Obama has nothing to say about Iran on that front either.  Nevertheless, he triumphantly declared, “we are poised to end these wars from a position of strength.”  Nope – not as long as he is president.

This is why Republicans need to focus more on foreign policy in some of the debates, even though the economy is the major issue of the campaign.  They need to draw a bold-colored distinction between Obama’s foreign policy driven by dastardly moral equivalence and one that is purveyed by peace through strength, moral clarity, American exceptionalism, and most importantly, defining the enemy.

During his UN speech, Obama proclaimed, “And it is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can achieve one.”

Our Republican nominee must enunciate clearly that it is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of Americans and our allies to live free of Islamic terror that America will stop investing so much time and effort in a Palestinian terror state – and start investing in defeat of Islamic terror.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • gekster

    If the Arabs laid down thier weapons, there would be no war.
    If the Isrealis laid down thier weapons, there would be no Isreal.

    • funwithknives

      or similar. Jews know better than anyone currently living what occurs when you lose control of a populace, and it looks for a straw-man.
      Think it can’t happen here? Look to Mexico and narco-trafficantes. Little to no control over there, and the N-T’s got a few bucks to spread around. Not very nice to think about, but historically realistic? Oh-Yeah.

    • toothpick

      I have seen this brilliant quote attributed to the brilliant PM of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu.

  • littlemas2

    I am a supporter of the nation of Israel, and I personally believe they should have just annexed all the West Bank and Golan Heights and called it all Israel after the multiple attacks.

    On the other hand, the lives of most Palestinians Arabs who live in the West Bank and Gaza suck worse than the lives of most Israeli’s. Now I believe the main culprit are the Arab leaders who treat their own people poorly. But to say that it is only the Israeli’s who fear for their lives is not right. The Palestinians are ruled by fear, and many times Israel has not done a great job of human rights.

    Just because I support the nation does not mean I cannot be honest. Likewise, I support our police and our military, but that does not mean I cannot be honest when I see abuse happening.

    • aesthete

      Israeli leadership’s hopes:

      Strong, prosperous, pacifistic neighbors willing to trade with them and able to control their violent non-state actors; incorporation of Golan Heights into Israel; maintaining Jerusalem as capital of Israel; peaceful resolution to Palestinian conflict.

      Israeli leadership’s fears:

      Destabilized neighbors allowing for non-state actors to act with impunity; Iran getting the bomb; neighbors becoming Islamist governments; large regional wars; a large-scale terrorist attack.

      Palestinian leadership’s hopes:

      Destruction of Israel; Muslim occupation of Jerusalem; one-party autocratic control (Fatah in West Bank and Hamas in Gaza, respectively); imposition of fiqh in Levant; increased hostility towards Western powers.

      Palestinian leadership’s fears:

      Israel making peace with its neighbors; Palestinian refugees finding a place to live; Israel peacefully assimilating Palestine into Israel proper; increased Palestinian support for democratic/Western values; a weakened Iran (in Hamas’ case); Israeli military occupation.

    • JSobieski

      Lets also be honest that the Palestinians talk about an Islamic state where Jews will not be permitted to live, while Muslim Arabs serve at the highest level of government in Israel.

      Lets also be honest that Israel doesn’t broadcast TV shows or movies about Muslim Arabs drinking the blood of Jewish children.

      Lets also be honest that Palestinians uses ambulances to transfer weapons, purposely place civilians in harms way, etc/

      • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

        Funny how your “mortal enemies” really treat you.

  • gdstark

    Peace isn’t really that difficult…you just need to apply democracy…

    http://www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org

    gary

  • perry4prez

    One of the most important issues for our next President is the security of the State of Israel. Israel has always been important to the United States until Obama decided that we needed to begin outreach to Moslems who have never accepted Israel’s right to live undisturbed in the Holy Land. If you have any doubt that this has emboldened Israel’s enemies, look at what is happening in Egypt and now Turkey. We need to stand side-by-side with Israel and must not hesitate to swiftly confront any threat to Israel, including Iran.

    Only Rick Perry can be trusted to stand by Israel. As usual we cannot trust Romney to put Israel first, he will just be another in the long line of fairweather friends like Nixon (who liked the Arabs), Carter and now O’Bozo who even bows to the Moslem King but won’t even work with Israel.

    • rightwingmom52

      “Only” Rick Perry can be trusted to stand by Israel? I think Cain, Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, etc. would all disagree with you, as do I.

      That being said, I do agree that Perry will stand with Israel, and I appreciated the comments he made in that regard yesterday. I just don’t agree he’s the only one.

      • acat

        this cat would vote for Palin in the general.

        Unlike Luap Nor, she “gets it”.

        Mew

      • perry4prez

        I agree that Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and Bachmann (assuimng some soccer mom doesn’t cause her to fly off the deep end again) would also stand with Israel. But none of them can win the election.

        The next president is either Mittens (please no), O’Bozo (please no) or Governor Perry. We know O’Bozo’s record and Romney will be Nixon II, cozying up to Communist China and the Arabs. So of the candidates who can win, only Perry will stand with Israel.

    • aesthete

      “One of the most important issues for our next President is the security of the State of Israel.”

      This is a commonly-held view that I’ve never been able to wrap my head around. Isn’t the elected official responsible for the “security of the State of Israel” the one residing in Tel Aviv? Hasn’t said elected official been doing a much better job of same than American interlopers who mostly attempt to force a resolution to conflicts which they don’t understand particularly well? Herman Cain was lambasted for stating his ignorance of the Israel-Palestine situation, but I’d be willing to bet that the majority of the candidates on the stage don’t know much about the conflict beyond what is presented on the CNN, the Fox News, or the MSNBC.

      Furthermore, why is this “one of the most important issues for our next President”? Was it a less important issue for prior Presidents? Have Israel’s internal affairs and regional relations ever been of supreme relevance to the US? Is the converse also true: is the security of the US one of the most important issues for Israel’s next PM? If not, why not? If so, why haven’t they helped us with our operations in Afghanistan in Iraq?

      There are logical answers to all of those questions, but they entail us recognizing that Israel is not a vital part of America or its security. We should certainly maintain a friendly relationship with Israel, as well as military ties — it’s in our best interest, and they are a stable, democratic state. None of that requires that we confront Israel’s threats for them, or that we have such a submissive and uber-protective attitude towards Israel.

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        so it does not respond to logic. Jews, and born again Christians both have an affinity for the state of Israel, and will punish any politician who seeks to leave them to face the Arab world alone.

        And you know what? I agree. But not because I have such a strong feeling for Israel, rather, I have a real loathing and fear of her enemies.

        • aesthete

          and pretty much the same sort of sentiment seems to prevail (to a lesser degree) in our dealings with Cuba. I just don’t think it’s a an attitude that’s particularly healthy for either us or them: in Israel’s case, it’s somewhat self-defeating to have an independent Jewish nation if it has to be dependent on the US (a great nation, but certainly not a Jewish one). In our case, it makes it difficult for us to respond to world events logically, and has given the ME an outsized prominence relative to the rest of the world.

          The presence of a large enemy and competitor during the Cold War in the form of the USSR made us much more rational about Israel’s place in a global strategy, IMO.

          • perry4prez

            When you say that support for Israel makes it difficult for us to respond to world events logically, you are implying that if we reacted logically we would not stand with Israel but instead would have some kind of “evenhandedness” between Israel and Palestinians. This is what Nixon, Carter and Obama did and it is what the amoral Romney would probably do.

            On Israel like on everything we need to go back to first principles. Israel is not important because it is strategically important or because it is a captive nation like Cuba but because it is the Holy Land. We support Israel because it is fundamental to our culture and establishment of the Jewish State is a step closer to Christ’s return to earth.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            Not that I don’t believe, I am a christian, but I would not make my interpretation of scripture, something that is notoriously open to differing meanings, ever be the basis for advocacy of a national policy.

          • perry4prez

            …we agree on the same policy for different reasons. Nothing wrong with that.

          • acat

            I support the right of Israel to exist. They were legally founded on owned land, they have defended their land and their right to exist, they are a democracy.

            I have not one qualm about supporting Israel. I do, however, have qualms about you as a potential ally or fellow traveler on the conservative path.

            Mew

          • perry4prez

            You say “your religion is coloring your politics” like it is a bad thing. My religion is absolutely coloring my politics, no bones about it.

            I know that religious candidates like Reagan and Perry now that they are accountable to God, and that they won’t sell Israel out for short-term tactical considerations (Truman, Nixon, GWB, Carter) or forge temporary alliances with Communists (the same). Note that I list some “country club Republicans” there. Being a Republican is not enough, the candidate has to share our values.

            You know what, I have qualms about you too. You are a self-proclaimed atheist. I admit that you have conservative positions on matters other than social issues. But a recent Gallup poll said that 52% of Americans would not vote for an atheist for president – that’s Americans, not Republicans or GOP primary voters. That means even some liberals would have qualms about you.

          • perry4prez

            I meant George HW Bush, not George W. Bush. GWB wasn’t perfect on Israel but at least he did not actively undermine Israel the way his father did.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            but I guess I am a hypocrite because I don’t think I could vote for a moslem no matter his views. I guess it is a matter of trust. They just have not earned it yet.

          • perry4prez

            “Colouring” – wait a minute, you’re English not American!

            This explains a lot about your politics (and why you like cats, they all seem to love cats over there). In England you have the Queen and the Church of England, and also religious instruction in schools, so there is less reason for politicians to talk about faith the way there is in America – it is just kind of in the background. (Like I say, part of the reason that our President needs to be a man of faith is that he is head of state as well as the Chief Executive.)

            Plus England is a different culture and people are just less religious there. And it was a socialist country for a long time after the war, so conservatives there had to focus on restoring free market economics first and foremost. That is why we all admire Margaret Thatcher, even though she focused on free market economics and was not really involved with social conservatism.

            So now I see where you are coming from when you say you are a conservative but don’t want religion involved with politics. But please understand that Britain is not America!!! We are more religious and less socialist than people in Europe. English people may accept atheist leaders, we do not!

          • acat

            I think the word colored looks better with an extra ‘u’. I also think potato looks better with an extra ‘e’.

            Oh, and your first assumption is equally wrong. I don’t mind if you link your religion to your politics. The problem is that you don’t seem to be able to decouple them.

            This weakens your arguments, as I tried to tell you, because all I have to do to kick the legs out from under them is point out that there is no god.

            Mew

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            look, I think perry4prez is a class without the ‘cl’…. but my opinion of him doesn’t matter…

            however, I don’t believe that it is necessary to “decouple” your religious values and dogmas from your politics to win over non-religious people, or people of differing dichotomies to your politics…

            If in religion the goal is truth, and in politics the truth is relative, you really become a rudderless boat decoupling your religious values from your secular popular approved values.

            If however your principles and convictions drive your actions and speech, you’ll either find yourself surrounded by like-minded principled individuals willing to fight the same battles with you… or become the lone wolf that perceives, erroneously, that society has rejected you and you remain the last warrior of truth, separated from a world that is beyond your righteous reproach.

            I do understand how agnostics and atheists feel when they’re approached by these “lone wolf prophet” personalities…There is a right way, and a wrong way to be zealous.

            However, suggesting there is no God, doesn’t invalidate the principle no matter how erroneous, invalid, irrelevant, or simply weak the argument being made becomes.

            I think it takes a good deal of character to suffer a fool long enough to educate them if it can be done… but if it can’t? well its like my grandad said… “you can’t win a pissing contest with a skunk”.

            as a matter of consequence, perry4prez shows his vast degree of ignorance in the most haphazard of ways in regards to the strict moral life Mitt Romney has lived as a Mormon, and our doctrines and prophecies concerning Israel, but I digress.

            his diluting of the conservative message is generally annoying to me too, but I don’t believe having religious sympathies towards Israel takes anything away from our obligation to maintain our steadfast commitment to peace in the territory among Arabs and Israeli settlements, or our relationship with Israel… the subject is not so one-sided as the MSM would have us all think…

            The fact of the matter is, intervention whether divine or political brought about the current vivisection of holy sites to all Abrahamic based religions, and as we all know, all politics is local.

          • acat

            Clearly, Justin, you can see the point where your religious beliefs affect your politics. I am quite aware of how my worldview affects mine.

            Based on his writings, I do not believe perry4prez can see the difference. To him, if you’re not a member of his religion, you’re not conservative. To him, Israel deserves support purely for religious reasons.

            One result, as you put it, is the disregard to the doctrines that align Mitt’s (and Huntsman’s, to a lesser extent) moral compass.

            Another – and the one I was writing about above – is that he does not appear to value any non-religion-based pro-Israel arguments.

            The final one is the repeated attempts to fit this cat into a neat, and conveniently ignorable box. This has been the fourth or fifth attempt to do so, and has met with equally little success.

            Mew

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            It is clear that in either case perception is shaping perspective.

            I rather enjoy being challenged on the construction of my worldview…

            I take humiliation as an opportunity to learn a new perspective.

            The more “knowledge” of myself and the relational observational sum of noumena and phenomenon of the existential world, to me, convinces me of the very weakness of mankind’s ability to process conscious.

            If people were less interested in professing what they themselves believe to be true, then we’d have pretty boring world.

            I personally enjoy the common fool like perry4prez… it certainly provides me some degree of entertainment… akin to watching a dog chase his tail… and I know the cat is slightly amused.

          • acat

            Then, once you know where the one you wish to sway stands, it’s easy to use targetted questions and facts, instead of the closed-eared, sawed-off shotgun approach our friend perry4prez takes.

            And yes, cat is slightly amused. Alarmed at the thought that perry4prez really thinks he’s helping Perry, but .. mostly amused.

            Mew

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            roughly “Beware the man of one book”

            and yeah, as a Mormon I definitively see the need to more than one book ;)

            I have to agree with you seek to understand before being understood is a great philosophy in polite discourse, discussion, or digression.

            Take it from a former emissary of a non-popular religious message…I think the synthesis of message sharing for the intent to persuade and captivate the consciousness of another person is really a matter of correctness, not necessarily effectiveness.

            I think intent has more to do with how we analyze the virtue of one’s persuasive methodology.

            Are you trying to win hearts and souls, or one heart and soul at a time?

            The scatter gun approach to information dissemination can be viewed as an effective “spread the seeds – harvest later”… its broadcast noise… unfortunately the content of the broadcast can be fruitless when signal noise is rampant due to poor content and too many speaking at once…

            However, as you point out, the direct one to one persuasion does require a degree of effective targeted communication… it also requires both receive and send without crosstalk but at that point its more of a negotiation of perspectives based upon perceptions isn’t it? Anything less would be uncivilized provocations of prideful exhortation with ulterior motives that may or may not be perceived by one or both parties.

            I think I’d like to see a diary on Redstate titled… “Are you a x-bot?”… It’s my opinion that xxxx4prez isn’t enough… we really need address the level of incompetence that is going on between individuals that use logical fallacies such as, ad hominem attacks, generalizations, amphiboly, equivocal statements, straw-man arguments, accentuation, innuendo, connotative, verbosity, and the age old baseless claim, and my personal favorite anecdotal evidence. The lack of civility in making a salient point regarding our GOP candidate has proven to be more divisive and in my opinion tantamount to tantrum…we could do with some reduction in the signal noise as a community.

          • perry4prez

            “The final one is the repeated attempts to fit this cat into a neat, and conveniently ignorable box. ”

            You know what, acat? Believe it or not you’re not the first person to claim “complex” political views. I think there is even an option for that on Facebook LOL. You’re not the first one to be oh-so-sophisticated because you consider things issue by issue. You’re not the first person who claims to be a fiscal/national security conservative but a social liberal. (There is a name for such beasts – independents.)

            A recent poll said 52% of Americans (not just Republicans) will not vote for an avowed atheist. Face it, although you may have some goodwill from being a longtime poster and I am just a newbie, that doesn’t change the fact that your position is a nonstarter for any politician aspiring to elective office above the cat-catcher level.

            Oh, and if you don’t want people to think you’re English, DON’T USE ENGLISH spellings. Duh.

          • perry4prez

            You say that I show a vast degree of ignorance in regards to the strict moral life that Mitt Romney leads. Please show me where I have said that Mitt Romney leads an immoral life.

            Please also tell me what I have wrong concerning the venue for the Second Coming.

          • perry4prez

            “look, I think perry4prez is a class without the ?cl??.” – LOL that would actually be “clarse” in this thread.

          • aesthete

            I support Israel, and think that there are plenty of great reasons to support it. More importantly, I think that there are good pragmatic and moral reasons for our government to pursue close ties with the country, and to rhetorically support it (see JSob below). I don’t really care too much about what happens to Palestine — that’s Israel’s business, and as far as I’m concerned the spoils of war. There are, however, degrees of support, and I don’t find it logical to comingle the interests of two countries whose interests are fundamentally different (and understandably so).

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            (caveat cattus)

            You speak of a link between “establishment of the Jewish state” and “Christ’s return to earth”. Many of us know, and take great comfort in knowing, that

            God hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ”,

            and also that

            “the end of God’s appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy in the eternal salvation of the elect, and of his justice in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient”,

            and also that

            “as Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a judgment, both to deter all men from sin, and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity; so will he have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come, and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.”

            What is far less clear to me is your understanding of:

            1) precisely how your candidate, if enabled to act upon his intended policies, will have any impact on “that day”,

            2) precisely how his opponents, if similarly enabled, will have any impact on “that day”,

            and

            3) the authoritative grounds upon which you hope to persuade a majority of likely voters of the benefits of preferring outcome (1) to outcome (2)?

          • perry4prez

            Boiled down, Cinco Solas del Bronx wants to know whether I think Governor Perry will bring about Armageddon. I have no idea and no one other than God does, ultimately.

            But I do know that Governor PErry will defend Israel not because of some short-term tactical calculation but because as a God-fearing man he believes it’s the right thing to do.

            acat and his secular clowder profess a commitment to Israel now but if there’s some short-term interest that would be served by backing off that commitment (like Bush the First with his loan guarantees or Eisenhower’s teaming up with the USSR to finish off the British Empire) they would do so in a heartbeat because they have no underlying emotional attachment to Israel or the special place it holds for the faith community.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            including the progression from “establishment of the Jewish State is a step closer to Christ?s return to earth” to “I have no idea and no one other than God does”. Remembering the latter could prevent you from damaging your candidate’s appeal among those support he will need.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            “among those whose support he will need.”

          • perry4prez

            Nice try.

            The establishment of the State of Israel is a prerequisite to Christ’s return. Whether that happens tomorrow or in 1000 years is for God to decide not us. But allowing the destruction of Israel does nit further it.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            eliminating its “imhideboundtodissuadepotentialfriendsfromconsidering” prefix.

            I will not discuss the Scriptural validity of your eschatology in a theologically-unwelcoming–and -ungoverned–forum. But I will issue a parting plea to reconsider that your apparent inability to acknowledge common political ground with doctrinally-opposed fellow conservatives makes your approach particularly unfit for building support 4* your candidate.

            * Overtly, nay blatantly, self-gratifying attempt on the author’s part to at least incrementally distance himself, in an outward show of compliance, from, as is evidently favored in these nether regions, the least redolence of prolixity.

          • rightwingmom52

            My support for Israel is simple. It’s because Israel is a democracy with the strongest military presence in the middle East and an ally in the U.S. fight against terrorism, and there are things we can learn from Israel regarding that fight. It has nothing to do with my Christianity.

            I’m happy to discuss our religious differences re Israel and Christ’s return if you care to via email. Just let me know and I’ll give you my address.

        • JSobieski

          Kyle8, I think more people agree with you than you realize.

          I wouldn’t characterize the emotional as being a majority and the logical being the minority.

          If Israel was stoning adulterers, do you think Israel would have the same level of support that it does now? There is a clear logical component to this.

          • aesthete

            I support Israel myself, and have no problem with tech exchanges, military partnerships, trade deals, joint statements on the ME, etc. There is, OTOH, an emotional component to the view that we should confront *all* of Israel’s threats (as perry4prez stated), that Israel’s security is of vital interest to the US (to the point of being one of the most important issues confronting America), or that Israel is particularly vulnerable (that’s just wrong — the IDF is extremely formidable, well-trained and well-equipped). Israel’s a nice country, but c’mon: if someone said the same thing about Costa Rica or South Africa’s importance to our national policy that perry4prez said about Israel, we’d laugh or politely point out the same things that I did.

          • JSobieski

            The rest is intelligence sharing, and the stuff you mention.

            Politicians say crazy stuff because the pander. I distinguish the emotional pandering of politicians from the common sense of the American people.

            I agree with you that this statement is neither true nor productive (unless one is in the conspiracy or anti-semitism business):

            ?One of the most important issues for our next President is the security of the State of Israel.?

            Frankly, countries like S Korea and Israel shouldn’t bet getting what they get from us. S. Korea should get an invoice for their defense, or a pullout date. Both nations should however have our full moral and political support as nations that value freedom and human rights.

          • perry4prez

            An attack on Israel should be perceived as an attack on the US and yes threats to Israel are threats to the US in a way that threats to other allies (like Taiwan or Korea or even England) are not. An attack on Israel is an attack on our own Judeo-Christian culture and values. That is absolutely not true of other small countries like Costa Rica and South Africa and the comparison is absurd.

          • acat

            Please be aware that your arguments would be more effective, that is, they would reach and potentially persuade larger audiences if they were not based on religion.

            Mew

          • perry4prez

            The politicians that left office popular were ones like Reagan and Clinton (born-again, even if he didn’t live up to it, but that is something we can all appreciate). I don’t agree with Clinton’s policies but obviously a lot of people saw something in him because he knew how to use religious imagery. That is because they stood for something. It’s Nixon (a “country club Republican” like Romney) who left office in disgrace.

            It’s the majority of Americans (NOT just Republicans) who reject the idea of an atheist president. And even Obama used some religious language in 2004 before we found out about Reverend Wright. Candidates wouldn’t do this if Americans were inspired by secular values.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            I think it simply has to do with having a vision or guiding philosophy and sticking with it.

            Religion is not a great way to judge people because God knows men’s hearts but we do not. Some of the biggest charlatans in our nation’s history were big churchgoers who could quote scripture at the drop of a hat.

            Likewise, some politicians seemed to only give lip service to their religion but nevertheless did the right thing when the going got tough.

          • aesthete

            It’s clear that you won’t be convinced, though, so I’ll leave it at that.

          • JSobieski

            France, Italy, or Poland?

            Do you really think that Israel most closely resembles the values of the US?

            I am quite pro-Israel, but I don’t agree with that conclusion. They most resemble our values in the hell hole that is the ME, but that is a different statement.

      • perry4prez

        Yes it was less important to prior presidents including Truman (who did not want to recognize Israel), Carter (who forced it to give up Sinai), and now Obama. Presidents without a religious and emotional commitment to Israel sell it out, and there is every reason to think Romney would too. I will at least admit that Clinton had a religious commitment to Israel that Carter did not, that is why he walked away from Arafat even though he had invested so much time in the “peace process”.

        As rightwingmom52 pointed out, most of the second tier candidates are also supporters of Israel but unfortunately they are not going to win the GOP nomination.

      • perry4prez

        @aesthete, you ask why Israel hasn’t helped us in Afghanistan and Iraq.

        I must say, this is one of the most offensive questions (even rhetorically) I have ever heard. Israel WANTED to retaliate against Iraq in 1991, and it was George Bush I who sent James Baker to plead with them not to. (He’s another Nixonian president who had no emotional commitment to Israel.) Israel WANTED to bomb Syria in 2007, and George Bush stopped them. Israel WANTED to take the Suez Canal in 1956 and the US stopped them (and teamed up with Communists against our own allies to do so).

        And do you understand that Israel is a tiny beleagured country about the size of New Jersey with 5 million people (and a lot of the more recent immigrants to Israel don’t even speak Hebrew). Do you understand that there are rocket attacks DAILY on Sderot near Gaza? We had what, about a million troops deployed at the height of the war in Iraq. That is something like 20% of the population of Israel. Now do you see why Israel can’t take the lead in Afghanistan?!?!

        If you want to see what Mitt Romney’s foreign policy would be like, look to Nixon and George Bush I.

        • aesthete

          meant to illustrate the fact that Israel is a separate country with interests apart from our own. I understand all of those constraints just fine. Just as it would be ludicrous to expect them to act as an appendage of our own country (and thus contribute troops to OIF or OEF), it is equally absurd to expect all of their interests to align with ours (and therefore to require American pols to support everything that Israel is doing internally and on the world stage). In many instances during the Cold War, our interests conflicted — for example, Israel’s attempts to have the USSR allow Jews from Warsaw Pact nations to immigrate to Israel caused some problems for us. There’s nothing wrong with that; I wouldn’t criticize an Israeli PM for putting the needs of his people and his nation above the US’ needs — but the converse is also true.

          As far as GHWB and Nixon go, Romney would only be so lucky. As far as I’m concerned, some of the most rational foreign policy undertaken by the Republican party was done under those two administrations.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            Nixon? ok he opened up china, he sold out Vietnam, he propped up the soviet union with wheat sales, credit lines and tech transfers.

            Ok, I give him a c- on foreign policy and an F on everything else.

            GHW Bush? Well, he invaded panama and installed a puppet government, small potatoes i guess. He invaded Iraq, then quit before the job was done.

            I don’t know, maybe a d-

          • perry4prez

            Nixon also said he wanted Israel to “bleed” during the Yom Kippur war.

            GWHB vomited on the Japanese prime minister, withheld loan guarantees from Israel and told the Ukraine not to declare independence from the USSR. Genius, that.

          • aesthete

            was one of the most significant coups of the Cold War — among other things, it prevented the domino theory from becoming reality, absolutely destroyed Vietnam’s logistical ties to the USSR, and pretty much put a halt to Soviet expansion in the Far East. If Thailand or the Philippines had gone Soviet while China remained a compliant ally, it would have been very difficult for Reagan to pursue his Cold War strategy successfully. Vietnam really couldn’t be blamed on Nixon, either; Vietnamization worked as it was meant to, and it was really the Democratic Congress that defunded and betrayed the Vietnamese, using Watergate as cover.

            As far as Panama goes, Manuel Noriega’s junta was a lot more autocratic than the government which replaced him, and the replacement was quick and effective. More importantly, we didn’t invade Panama — we were already there. The Panama Canal Zone has been continuously occupied by US forces since the beginning of the last century, and is a major economic hub in the region. I would say that, per the Monroe Doctrine and our building of the Canal, one could at least make a pretty good case that an American interest was being pursued. Vis a vis Iraq, the Gulf War was an absolute success — seeing as how the job was not to depose Saddam Hussein, but rather to protect an ally and do some damage control wrt a rapidly-changing balance of power in the region. I would argue that the mistake was to go in with dreams of democracy in 2003, not the punitive expedition of 1991.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            that’s why he gets a c-. as for the rest of it. well we certainly see things differently. I don’t think anything GHW Bush ever did foreign or domestic was either necessary, or done well, or done to completion.

            There was a reason he was beaten by a low class charlatan from a tiny state.

          • perry4prez

            “Israel?s attempts to have the USSR allow Jews from Warsaw Pact nations to immigrate to Israel caused some problems for us” – please tell me you’re kidding, even Carter supported the right of Soviet Jews to emigrate to Israel!

            I realize this is one example and I suppose if you come up with enough scenarios somewhere you might find an example of where Israel and the US do not have the same interests but on 99.99% of things Israel is our closest ally.

          • aesthete

            as well as requiring Israel to navigate Cold War politics with a little more finesse than what we would have liked. You’re right, though: I could bring up literally hundreds of other examples where our interests diverged, and continue to diverge, starting with the difficulty of restraining Israel when we were trying to flip pro-USSR governments in the ME over to our side, and ending with the fact that our containment strategy wrt Iran-Iraq was one opposed by many hardliners in the Israeli government. Again, there is nothing wrong with this, and it’s to be expected, but the difference is a little more than .01%.

          • JSobieski

            I suspect that England has been our closest ally (or maybe Canada) in the post WWII era.

    • bk

      I’d choose Perry among the choices we have, but as far as I’m concerned only a troll or a moron would say something like: “Only Rick Perry can be trusted to stand by Israel.”

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        nt

  • harshlightoftruth

    If I build my house on your stolen land and destroy your way of life in the process, that is no longer a morally neutral act.

    What? Am I doing it too? Ok, cutting down olive trees =/= suicide bombs on public buses. There, better?

    For my money, and it is my money, better to cut off the both of them and use the $3 billion or so of annual aid to Israel and the $300 million or so of the annual aid to Palestine to pay down our national debt. It’s not like those investments are paying dividends.

    • acat

      In this case, the idea of stolen land is a falsehood. The rest of the argument becomes just a clanging cymbal with no meaning.

      Mew

    • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

      Since, that’s a real life alternative we can quit being coy about, no?

    • aesthete

      for what was a complex and difficult situation in the wake of ’49 and ’67. Consider the following:

      a) There was no Palestinian state from the outset to arrange the Palestinians’ legal affairs, including property ownership.

      b) The Jordanians and Egyptians had no interest in protecting or confirming the property rights of West Bank and Gaza locals, respectively.

      c) There were already existing bought-and-paid-for Jewish settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, most of which did not have their property rights (or other rights) respected or protected by either locals or the Egyptian and Jordanian governments.

      I am not assuming that the Israeli government had any more interest in the property rights of Palestinians than the Egyptians, Jordanians, or locals themselves did. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that they did: what would you have had them do differently in the aftermath of ’49 or ’67, when there was basically no paperwork showing legal ownership, when a good chunk of wealthy and middle-class Palestinian landowners were dead or had fled, when very few Palestinians were of a mind to cooperate with Israelis on matters of legal ownership, and when there were plenty of Israeli settlers with legitimate claims and grievances when it came to outright theft or destruction of their settlements? The whole situation was not easily resolvable, and at any rate it made little sense to simply return to a status quo ante with the Palestinians who had sought their demise scant months prior.

      In the context of ’49 and ’67, it made sense to support the Jewish settlements over Palestinian claims where there was a conflict, at least while Israel was establishing a legal system by which all parties could establish ownership. In any case, this policy has been dormant since at least the 90s, and the vast majority of Palestinians had no violation of their property rights during the occupation (surprising, considering the situation in the West Bank and Gaza). Ownership rights under military occupation were arguably stronger than what had come before and (at least in the case of Gaza) what would come after.

      • harshlightoftruth

        There are a lot of people closer to the issue that would use the exact same word. The video there gives a simple overview.

        Of course that’s not to say every “settlement” building in what may soon become Palestine deserves that characterization. People of different faith traditions have been making perfectly legitimate deals for land for a long time in that part of the world, but we can’t pretend it doesn’t happen any other way. Nor can we pretend grievances associated with illegal land seizures aren’t real. Or rather, we can. Some people do this a lot because doing so makes it much easier to demonize Palestinians as savages devoid of reason.

        On another note, I totally agree with you that Israel is not a vital part of America or its security. Israel looks perfectly capable of handling its own affairs and we have our own problems right here more deserving of the attention.

        • aesthete

          The Israeli government hardly has its hands clean, but when none of the prior governments or locals were interested in book-keeping, ownership laws or the legal system in the Territories, when the Jewish settlements were themselves organized entities with legal grievances who had been discriminated against, and when the preceding context was a military conflict, creating an impartial legal system out of the ether becomes difficult. Again, what would you have done differently, specifically? It seems to me that a lot of what the Israeli government did was a mixed bag, and that many well-meaning laws ended up being used for underhanded purposes.

          The fact is, most of this has cleared up in response to complaints. The Israeli government is trying to dismantle and minimize the influence of the settlements (and thus kicking Jews out of their homes in the West Bank/Gaza, but no one talks about that), expansion has halted, and the ownership system is in the hands of the Palestinian Authority. It is almost certainly true that today, a Palestinian is more likely to have his property stolen by a fellow Palestinian than by a Jew — or have it blown up because one of his compatriots decided that shooting mostly ineffective rockets at Jewish civilians was good sport, and thus invited the IDF to rain down their own munitions.

    • perry4prez

      Jews have lived in Israel continuously since antiquity.

  • runner12

    and Israel’s are vastly different. Israel’s definition is a sane, side-by-side co-existence without the threat of invasion or violence a d the ability to protect their land and right to exist. Palestine’s viewpoint of peace is no Israel.

    The Palesinians are now run by terrorists who are both anti-Israel and anti-American. I was glad that Orrin Hatch said that if Palestine pushes the vote thie week, we cut off all funding to them (which we should do anyways).

    Obama gave yet another infantile speech that nobody wanted to hear.

  • publious

    Whether a diplomatic protocol breach, rude, or simply clueless; waving solo in a group photo is something to avoid. If it were Rick Perry, The NYT would have it above the fold.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3c7eafC0bE