Global, Israel, Politics

War and Peace round-up

24 thoughts on “War and Peace round-up

  1. Brian, don’t take this post too seriously. Brown represents very few voices on this site. And that’s saying a lot given the Jewschool’s lefty rep.
    By the way, the hatred ain’t too comical…my grandfather lost of family due to it. It’s called Jew hating. And it has little to do with anything your currently reading or viewing.

  2. “It’s almost comical that Israeli’s can’t see why thier hated by thier neighbors.”
    Brian, they are well aware why their neighbor’s hate them, it’s ideological. They know it is an irrational, all-consuming hate. That’s why they are defending themselves in such a vigorous manner.

  3. vigorous as in random killing and maiming. This carnage is unessesary isn’t helping Israel or Anerica. The only upside is that Israel will be quagmired and maybe develope a real left, instead of the socalled centrist that pass for a left.

  4. Ah, a link to Juan Cole. And thanks for seeing an upside in Israel being quagmired. How many dead and mutilated Israeli soldiers would be sufficient for your purposes, Dameocrat?

  5. Your kind sent em J. I can’t stop any fool thing Israel or the US does, I can only look at the bright side which will be the politcal downfall of the neoliberal left here in America and Israel, not to mention Britain.

  6. Which is my “kind”? Right-wingers? Jews?
    And without the neoliberals (which I suspect in your definition include everyone left of center but the hardcore left), you can expect to be whining about “stolen elections” every election year for the rest of your life.

  7. Your kind would be the arrogant establishment that does nothing but echo wrong opinions and makes the same mistakes over and over and over again. Anyone that would allow a stolen election is a chump that deserves unlubricated assfucking.

  8. Dameocrat! Please do not speak to J like that!
    The horrible situation in Florida was not helped by the fact that the Democratic party kept insisting that part of the problem was that their voters were too stupid to figure out the ballot system. It really made it harder to rally around the cause.
    And as I am sure you realize, many of us who traditionally vote Democratic on a national level are not comfortable with many of the policies or the rhetoric of the far-Left, and blame them for losing both of the past two presidential elections. I realize the far-Left has a very different take on this, but that is our perspective. And we aren’t going to be driven further Left on a broad scale so easily. You know that.
    And the situation in Israel is hardly a core issue in terms of the domestic differences and concerns of what you label “centrists” vs. Republicans in terms of the increasing divide between rich and poor, CEO and worker, the environment, privatization vs. Federal regulation, etc.
    Which isn’t to say that the Democrats have generally outlined alternative policies properly. They have not. But that is different than taking a radical stand.

  9. David far left is your word not mine. Those demodiots that called our own voters stupid are part of established opinion that is running this country into the ground with stupid decisions, particularly related to the Iraq war.
    I don’t see how anyone could blame the left for Kerry or Gore? They aren’t lefties.

  10. Dameocrat,
    The problem was just that — the far-Left chose to sabotage, not aid, both of these “centrist” candidates.
    Nader’s campaign and his supporters helped Gore lose with their nonsense that there was no difference between him and Bush anyway. What nonsense that was! Don’t you agree?
    With Kerry, the far-Left ended up pusing the Democrats into a Republican ambush by forcing the issue of gay marriage, which absolutely energized the social conservative base, when maybe they would have stayed home, or in African-American religious Christian communities, not stayed home.
    Additionally, protesting was not always as intelligent as Billionaires for Bush. Rather, there was much too much of the “My Dick would make a better Vice-President” and “The only Bush I trust is my own” variety.
    Did this help us win votes? Or was this really more about young people showing others (mostly each other) how pissed off they were? How was this helpful to winning the election? Is it unreasonable to assume that this may have hurt the effort to do so?

  11. Look it is highly hypocritical to nag nader voters for not voting because their issues weren’t addressed(and they weren’t witness Gore’s wimpy position on national health insurance) then excuse conservative voters for not voting because the dems hae a responsibility to pander on gay rights. I would rather get the naderites than the righties any day. My country would be a better place. The extent to which black voters defected was way exageratted. Kerry would have kicked butt if he had attacked Bush on the war in a strong and unambiguious way. The gay marriage issue was pushed by the republicans and not anyone else. You are just blaming the victim, if you think gays have to not live lives to please reactionary.
    While I’ll grant you we would be in a better place with Gore, I voted for him, Kerry on the other hand was far too whimpy to have a accomplished anything as President and we would still be in the stupid fucking quagmire we are in. I was for Dean, and still regret that Kerry was chosen, he is part the washington echo chamber and i s not actually capable of interesting or original thought.

  12. With Kerry, the far-Left ended up pusing the Democrats into a Republican ambush by forcing the issue of gay marriage
    David, as massachusetts resident, I really have to question your history here. The “far left” did not “force” the issue of gay marriage. In late 2003, the state Supreme Court, whose justices were almost all appointed by the Republican governors who have run the state since 1990, ruled in favor of same sex marriage (and bless them for it!). It became state policy in may 2004, offering security and respect to thousands of couples.
    Kerry actually opposed the ruling and backed a proposed state constitutional amendment to do away with same-sex marriage and replace it with civil unions. That amendment passed the state legislature in March 2004, but didn’t go into effect because amendments here need to be approved by two consecutive legislatures and then go to a popular vote. Though this is well after the election and hence less relevant, the amendment then died in 2005 when conservatives removed their backing for it, deciding instead to pursue an initiative that would not allow civil unions either.)
    Yes, the right wing rode the backlash against same-sex marriage and may have increased turnout in the 04 Presidential election. But I see no way that the far left forced the issue. The court made an historic ruling, and it was up to candidates to decide where they stood. Bush made his position clear, while Kerry was typically conflicted and clumsy. He hurt himself on it–not the “far left.”

  13. “vigorous as in random killing and maiming.”
    No. Vigorous as in an overwhelming use of force. The killing of Lebanese civilians, while unfortunate, are neither random nor intentional. What is intentional is that Hizbollah chose to locate their facilities in civilian areas where they knew collatoral damage would result if those targets were hit. Unlike the terrorists, the IDF does not delight in killing civilians.
    “With Kerry, the far-Left ended up pusing the Democrats into a Republican ambush by forcing the issue of gay marriage…”
    I don’t think the far left pushed the Democrats on this issue. Gay marriage is not that high on the list of demands of radical queers. Many radical queers have been decrying the institution of marriage for deacdes. Most of the monetary and political support for gay marriage, I think, has come from mainstream gay/lesbian and civil liberties groups. Besides, the fact is the far left has forced nothing politically in this country besides their own self-marginalization.

  14. Isn’t it amazing that the Muslim enemies of the Jews tell us straight out what they want to do – murder the Jews, destroy Israel – and some Jews object to Israel doing what she has to do to defend herself?

  15. Clearly, dirrigible, that’s all there is to it. How simple! Why didn’t I realize that sending Lebanon back 20 years was what Israel had to do? Clearly, destruction of civilian infrastructure is just what Israel has to do, and asking any questions about that is “amazing!”

  16. Isn’t it amazing that Rightwing Jewish enemies of the Muslims tell us exactly what they want to do — conquer Lebanon, Syria and Iran, and carpet bomb millions of their civillian populations out of existence –and yet insist upon the transparent fiction that they’re motivated by self-defense, or are any more interested in peace than the extremist Muslims whom they resemble so closely?

  17. “Isn’t it amazing that Rightwing Jewish enemies of the Muslims tell us exactly what they want to do — conquer Lebanon, Syria and Iran, and carpet bomb millions of their civillian populations out of existence ”
    Who are these people, exactly? Their organizations, publications? How many are there? Do they have any political power or significance? Or is this just some pathetic stab at a nonexistent equivalence?
    And Smith, since you recently complained that responsible righties weren’t policing the irresponsible ones, can you find anything irresponsible by a leftist on this thread? Any comments?

  18. J,
    A perfectly valid question, which, frankly, I’m delighted to see.
    The form of my question, which I assume you recognize, was intended as a mirror reflection of comment #18 by dirrigible. Indeed, the main thrust of my sarcasm was less about Israeli policy per se (though I’ll defend the content of my comment momentarily) than about the obnoxious tendency of those like dirrigible to rely on sneering insinuations, not arguments. Here’s what dirrigible said in response to the most recent Jewschool post about a “security alert” for Jewish institutions in New York.
    Clearly unecessary precautions, after all our Muslim friends only want to destroy Israel, not Jews, isn’t that what our leftist friends tell us? Comment by dirrigible — July 25, 2006 @ 8:52 am
    That is a vile, disgusting smear, not an argument, and I’ll keep denouncing those who drag these discussions into the toilet, no matter how repetitive it becomes. I don’t recall anyone making this argument, except the terrorists themselves. On the other hand, there are many leftists like myself who argue that criticism of Israeli policy – or even of Israel itself – is a different phenomenon than anti-Semitism (though the two often overlap), and that deliberately conflating the two is as sickeningly dishonest as it is inaccurate.
    I can’t recall a single issue or story in which I didn’t violently and completely disagree with your position. Nonetheless, to the best of my recollection you support your opinion with arguments, not smears such as the preceding. At least that makes it possible to have a discussion in the first place.
    Beyond this, your comment raised two substantive issues. The first is that my comment constitutes some “pathetic attempt at a nonexistent equivalence.” In fact, I am not suggesting any such equivalence between Israel and its enemies, though the implication has some validity, and I should clarify my meaning.
    Specifically, I fully agree with the claim that the leadership of Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, Syria, et al. consist of fanatical Jew-hating Islamists who have no interest in peace, and whose true objective is the destruction of Israel and murder of the Jewish people. As to those Rightwing Jews I referenced who call for carpet-bombing the civilian populations of Lebanon, Syria and Iran, Thank God they are not among the political and military leadership that is responsible for formulating Israeli policy. It is for that reason that there is no equivalence between Israel and the Islamists, who are, in fact, in positions of power.
    On the other hand, there is a definite moral equivalence between the Islamists and those Rightwing Jews who insistently advocate such policies of mass murder. And while I have no knowledge of the institutional affiliations or absolute numbers of these Jews, I know that such fanatics are represented all over the place among the readership of blogs such as this one. (I haven’t included a list of their views so as not make this comment unreadably long, but will happily do so in a separate comment if you tell me you are skeptical about their existence.) In any case, they are a truly repellent phenomenon and a disgrace to everything decent about the Jewish religion and the State of Israel.
    Finally, J, you asked whether I found any comments by Leftists on this thread to be as offensive or irresponsible as those I criticized from the Right. After reviewing the thread, the only comments it seems you might be referring to are a couple of those by Dameocrat. While I would never cite Juan Cole as a source for an argument of my own, it doesn’t seem to me that such a citation could be deemed “irresponsible.” I was bothered, on the other hand, by Dameocrat’s use of “demodiots” in the discussion of Democratic Party policy; I think the use of such name-calling is childish at best and contributes nothing to a productive conversation. But it didn’t occur to me to say anything about it, since I’m not even sure what the hell “demodiots” means. Finally, I suppose your talking about the claim that “[a]nyone that would allow a stolen election is a chump that deserves unlubricated assfucking.” If so, this comment was, in fact, criticized as being out of line by Matt Borus, which seems to me to constitute an example of those on the Left policing their own. As for myself, the comment struck me more as a matter of clownish vulgarity than an irresponsible smear. Frankly, it kind of made me giggle more than anything else, and so I didn’t feel compelled to denounce it. But if you are claiming that you are genuinely offended by such foolishness, I’ll certainly concede that I should have criticized it, and will be more careful about doing so in the future.

  19. David Smith-
    Your comments are courteous and appear to be made in good faith, so I’ll respond in kind.
    First, I don’t agree that dirrigible’s comment was vile or disgusting (although I’m heartened that at least for you, the idea of denying that Israel’s enemies are Jew-haters is repulsive). I also don’t agree that it was a smear. I’ve come across numerous Leftists and even liberals who in fact go to great lengths to try to show that Arab/Muslim hatred of Israel has nothing or little to do with anti-Semitism (the upshot being that Israel is at least partly to blame for the hatred). dirrigible pointed out that attacks on non-Israeli Jews outside Israel constitute refutations of this notion. I would call that an argument. True, it was a one-liner and came off as a quip, which means it didn’t address all aspects of the issue (such as pointing out that not all Leftists share the view criticized). But this is an informal forum, and one-liners and quips are standard here. Instead of being upset, why not just ask dirrigible for a clarification or a more formal statement of his views?
    Second, you yourself have been guilty of broad and inaccurate generalizations over the last couple of weeks. Just a few days ago, you wrote that the Right sees things in simple black and white, while the Left sees the complexities in a given issue (and without supporting this statement). And several times, you identified “the Right” as equivalent to what is in fact a small fringe. (A good example of a straw man argument.) If you consider dirrigible’s comment a “smear”, I don’t see how you have avoided the same transgression.
    Earlier, I thought that your attacks on the Right were just insults, but I’m starting to think that you might actually believe that right-wingers are nothing but a gang of crude, nasty simpletons with no arguments. Have you ever read Azure, Commentary, the Weekly Standard, the New Criterion, City Journal or any of the better conservative magazines or books (and no, that doesn’t include Ann Coulter)? These are the thinkers and arguments you’ll have to understand and take on if you want to play in the big leagues. (And before you ask, I read the New York Review of Books, New Republic, soon the Washington Monthly, and occasionally the New Yorker, so I do in fact take my own advice. Always read your opponents’ paper.)
    As for the right-wing Jews you described, I reiterate the questions I posed earlier. A few comments on blogs is really no measure of the size and importance of a political group. There are in fact extremely few Jews of the type you describe. By any reasonable measure, they have no influence on the political scene in Israel or the US. Jews, like any group that numbers in the millions, are going to inevitably produce a few loons. To point to these loons as comprising “the Right” is unfair, and you should stop doing it.
    Finally, I was not actually implying that you or anyone else should be obligated to police this website for stupid comments by co-ideologists (is that a word?). We all have other things to do. (I would say that once already involved in a thread, it would be a good idea to do so.) But since you said earlier that right-wingers are so obligated, I was pointing out that you should be consistent. And no, I wasn’t at all offended by Dameocrat’s foolishness. It kind of made my point for me.

  20. Oops, missed one point:
    “On the other hand, there are many leftists like myself who argue that criticism of Israeli policy – or even of Israel itself – is a different phenomenon than anti-Semitism (though the two often overlap), and that deliberately conflating the two is as sickeningly dishonest as it is inaccurate. ”
    That’s not a Leftist argument; it’s pretty much universal. Almost everyone agrees that criticism of Israel is not by definition anti-Semitism. The Left/Right divide tends to be over how often there is overlap. Obviously, the more justified a policy of Israel’s is, the more likely it is that harsh criticism of that policy is made in bad faith and originates in anti-Semitism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.