John Brown:
Thats a good point. What I mean by “them” is the Islamo-Fascists aka Hamas, Hezbo, Iran & Syria for that matter, and any new adaptation thereof.
And while Egypt is considered a moderate country, they are still extremely anti-semitic and anti-Israel. (Lets be honest, recognizing Israel’s right to exist is great, but remains a far cry from good relations).
Regardless, my point remains: There is no negotiation with groups whose explicit goal is the destruction of Israel. This is not an extreme idea, it is quite logical:
If the Hezbos’ raison d’etre is to destroy Israel, then recognizing Israel’s right to exist – our right to breathe – would completely counter their very purpose! So any negotiation that they would agree to would be a stunt.

Do these goddamn reactionary slugs have even a single atom of integrity and self-respect when they sit down and compose their personal smears, or are they simply lacking a filter to censor the shit they spew out of their blowholes? Why can’t it penetrate through their thick skulls that “I may attack a certain point of view which I consider false, but I will never attack a person who preaches it” doesn’t refer to some prissy restriction against calling someone a doody, but attacking someone’s motives and character rather than the merits of their argument. Gee, MAYBE SOMETHING EXACTLY LIKE: I’m assuming Mob needed the “vilify Israel” narrative, and choose John Brown to represent that camp.
Indeed, Streimel’s smear is even more gutless and sleazy than usual, since it not only attacks John Brown for making the argument, but gratuitously attacks Mobius as well, who had nothing whatever to do with Brown’s comment. And, of course, no rightwing smear would be complete without impugning the patriotism of its political opponents; accordingly, Brown’s argument is not merely said to be wrong, but part of a conspiratorial effort by Mobius to “vilify” Israel. Disgusting. Just being involved in a conversation with these people is like taking a dip in a sewer of paranoia and ignorance. Likewise, Merliner’s comment: How did we get here? [The Palestinians] stellar PR campaign of last decade, and humanization by the Clinton Administration proves effective in conning Israel into giving them the time of day. . . .” I realize that reactionaries have a fear of withdrawal symptoms, but haven’t enough years finally passed for them to stop sniffing the fumes from Bill Clinton’s crotch?
Disgusting though they are, these reactionary obsessions are deeply instructive about an insight the Left should keep in mind at all times. Notwithstanding the Right’s ostensible concern with terrorism, the only condition associated with the Global War on Terror that sends them into genuine paroxysms of fear is the possibility that it might come to an end. That, of course, is why the Right never utters the name of Osama bin Laden, despite his personal responsibility for the deaths of several thousand Americans. Indeed, Islamofascism is the Republicans’ very best friend in prosecuting their real war, the war against the Left, and against social and economic justice at home.
This is largely the same for Israel’s rabid nationalists squatting in the West Bank, and the religious fanatics providing them with theological cover for their petty Biblical empire. Beyond their crocodile tears for hundreds of dead Lebanese civilians, the Right becomes virtually teary-eyed at the “national unity” produced by the war with Hezbollah, and the ammunition it provides them against those Israelis who recognize that achieving a state of peace still depends on ending the Occupation and establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank.

“and the ammunition it provides them against those Israelis who recognize that achieving a state of peace still depends on ending the Occupation and establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank.”
Israel withdrew from Gaza and the attacks kept coming. Withdrawing from the West Bank would be a major mistake at this time. “Land for Peace” is dead at this point and will only be viewed as weakness by the Islamist totalitarians of Hamas and Hezbollah. The only language totalitarians understand is force.

Shtriemey,
your chronology of the Syrian Israeli relationship leaves out a few key points….
Israel was responsible for a great number of provocations along the border with Israel, lobbing shells over and conducting cross border raids. The border was monitored by the UN at the time, and these facts are quite well established….
Moshe Dayan admitted as much in an interview with Rami Tal published after Dayan’s death. In it, he says that the war with Syrian and the occupation of the Golan Heights was a response to the ‘land greed’ of northern settlements who sought more land.
Much of the conflict before than had been a result of Israeli farmers using armored tractors to farm the supposedly off limits border areas by Syria. They would respond by shooting at the armored vehicle, and then Israel with respond with even more massive force – and this happened again and again, starting in the 1950’s.

Wow. If David Smith and John Brown keep posting, I’m going to end up being a voyereuse.

Streimel:
David Smith…to date, you haven’t refuted my points.
Did you even scan over what I wrote? Apparently you failed to notice that my interest in your comment was limited to exactly one of your “points:” I’m assuming Mob needed the “vilify Israel” narrative, and choose John Brown to represent that camp. Which point did I fail to refute? That Mobius is behind this post, and is part of some “vilify Israel” camp? Or that John Brown is its representative? No, I didn’t attempt to “refute” these points; but that’s precisely the matter at hand, isn’t it? Personal smears lack any factual basis, and are therefore inherently incapable of refutation.
And to think that I’m “Right” because I see John Brown as a revisionist…that’s rich.
In an attempt to mitigate and justify your smear, you pretend you said something completely different. You hadn’t said a damn thing in your original comment about Brown being a revisionist, which – it goes without saying – had nothing to do with my calling you a member of the Right. What did lead me to that conclusion was your typical rightwing strategy of using Brown’s criticism to impugn his patriotism and loyalty. It is self-serving, it is dishonest, and it is egregiously rude, and THAT is what leaves so many discussions on Jewschool debased and consisting of nothing but ad hominem attacks.
As to the rest of your response to Brown’s post, your historical analysis boils down to a single claim typically beloved by those on the Right: “They started it.” Mazel tov. Not only don’t I refute the point, I concur fully. That doesn’t have a damn thing to do with what we do about the situation now, or what I’ve characterized as the necessity of ending the Occupation.

David,
Brown spends an inordinate amount of time vilifying Israel. I’m not sure how this is an ad hominem attack. His posts are mostly one-sided and lack context. This is disconcerting given he has posting privillages on a well read blog.
Now, you my friend throw around meaningless generalities…
“typically beloved by those on the Right”
“typical rightwing strategy ”
“I’m sure the Right everywhere is thinking”
…like a true bigot. So according to your analysis, we’re not so different after all.

Streimel:
Brown spends an inordinate amount of time vilifying Israel. I’m not sure how this is an ad hominem attack. His posts are mostly one-sided and lack context.
That’s NOT an ad hominem attack; and if that’s what you had said, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. For the third time, what you DID say was, I’m assuming Mob needed the “vilify Israel” narrative, and chose John Brown to represent that camp. No mention of revisionism, no mention of being one-sided, no mention of context. I’ve explained in intricate detail how that’s a smear, not an argument, and you obviously know exactly what I’m talking about or you wouldn’t keep backing away from your own words with every response. All you need now is the balls to say so.
I can’t believe it actually needs to be said, but pointing out the existence of the political Right, or that it has a strategy, isn’t bigotry.
WEVS1:
So, referring to “typical rightwing thinking” is not only Manichean, but evidence of a conspiratorial view of complex political phenomena. Completely unlike the nuance and subtlety of, say, a belief in “the crackpot left,” “the loony left,” and perhaps the 20 or so similar references I’d discover if I looked through your comments within the past couple of weeks. I wonder if you could explain the difference for me? And while you’re at it, perhaps instead of casually tossing around such labels as “conspiratorial,” “ideologue,” “extremist,” and the like as though their applicability is self-evident, you might explain how they are relevant to anything I’ve actually said.
As I noted in response to another post, I’d like to know how you define “centrism” when it comes to such matters as the Patriot Act, secret rendition, exploiting terrorism for political purposes, and manufacturing contrived rationales for prosecuting a war of aggression. Whatever it is, it strikes me as none too commendable.

“Completely unlike the nuance and subtlety of, say, a belief in “the crackpot left,” “the loony left,”…”
Mea culpa, David, mea culpa. You are correct. I do notice the ramblings of the crackpots on the left at this site more than those of the right. If I were posting comments at LGF or another site with a conservative bent, I would be commenting on the nonsense spewed from the crackpots on the right. But, if you took a bit more time, you’d see that I have critiqued the crackpot right at this site as well. See my above comments, the thread on Ron Paul, and my reply to whoever that was who was dissing Reform Jews. Those are three instances I can remember off the top of my head. There are others as well.
I think you’re doing some ideological filtering which is refelctive of your political bias. You’re a partisan of the left so you notice criticism of the left more than you do of the right. That’s not unique to you, its part of the human condition.
I also used to be an activist and have a couple of decades of experience with loony lefties. Some of them remain friends even though I’ve drifted to the center. Having never been an activist in conservative politics my experience with the loony right is much more limited.
“And while you’re at it, perhaps instead of casually tossing around such labels as “conspiratorial,” “ideologue,” “extremist,” and the like as though their applicability is self-evident, you might explain how they are relevant to anything I’ve actually said.”
It boils down to your demeanor and is self-evident to anyone who reads your posts. Examine the language you use. Is someone who differs from you politically part of a political opposition or do you simply view them as an enemy? Or, like Miriam, do you just dismiss them as “crazy”?
If we allowed that those who disagree with us just see the facts differently, we would have to conclude that either they, or we, must be mistaken about the facts. That would undermine the obviousness of the reality that we find solidly anchored in “self-evident truths.” We sidestep the disconcerting possibility that we may be mistaken about these truths by attributing not a mistaken understanding of the facts, but bad motives (or Miriam’s case, insanity), to our political opponents.
It is far easier to reasure oneself about the purity of one’s motives than about the infallibility of one’s own perceptions, so people persistently tend to see a world that is in fact so complicated that its interpretation generates honest disagreement as, instead, so simple that only evil (or insane) people could disagree with them–malevolent people who deliberately ignore the obvious truth. Thus, ignorance of the real possibility of one’s own ignorance both enables and is reinforced by ignorance of the possibility of one’s political antagonists’ ignorance–such that malevolent intentions, not different perceptions, must be responsible for their antagonism.
As far as my position on:
“Patriot Act”
Anything that violates the U.S. Constitution should be thrown out. No ifs, ands or buts. But I am in support of protective measures that infringe on some civil liberties if they save *one* human life. The number one obligation of the state to its citizens is protection.
“Exploiting terrorism for political purposes”
The left and the right both do it. The right by saying the conservatives are the only ones who care about national security and defense. The left by “explaining” terrorism as resulting from U.S. foreign policy, poverty, colonialism, or some combination of the three. It’s hard to say which is more loathsome.
“Manufacturing contrived rationales for prosecuting a war of aggression”
Contrived?
The first blow of the present conflict–whether the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 or the recent Hezbollah provocation–was initiated by Islamist totalitarians.
As far as the secret renditions, I do not support them. I do support military tribunals for terrorists though.
I think some centrists would agree with me on these issues, some would not. We are a fairly diverse group lot.