Monday, October 29, 2007
|
|
Why Not Ask About Pakistan's "Right to Exist"?
|
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
9:45 AM
|
|
Does Pakistan have a right to exist?
Though a Newsweek cover story recently labeled the turbulent South Asian state “the most dangerous nation in the world” no one dares to ask this obvious question.
In fact, Pakistan represents an arbitrarily constructed, chronically unstable, perpetually embattled, deeply dysfunctional and undeniably shaky creation of the retreating British Empire. Before 1947, the territories eventually designated as “Pakistan” (the name means “Pure Land” in Urdu) comprised an integral part of British India. The hastily and sloppily drawn borders corresponded to no historic nation state, and represented only a desperate concession to Muslim agitators who wanted no part of a newly independent, Hindu majority India. The creation of Pakistan led to an explosion of unspeakable barbarity and bloodshed, with “Independence Riots” claiming a total of at least 500,000 lives (some sources say more than a million). Meanwhile, Pakistan’s creation created the greatest refugee crisis in recent history; UN figures indicate that more than 14 million human beings fled their homes in desperation, with Hindus and Sikhs trying to escape the hostile new Muslim state and find safe haven in India, and Muslims moving from India to Pakistan.
During most of its 60 year history, Pakistan has suffered from dictatorial military rule – in contrast to the surprisingly durable democracy in its gigantic neighbor, India. The majority of the nation remains both illiterate and impoverished—with little of the spectacular economic progress that his made India into a high tech and commercial powerhouse. In 1971, the eastern portion of Pakistan engaged in a bloody struggle against federal forces to separate itself into the new country of Bangladesh. Border wars with India over the disputed province of Kashmir have flared up on two major occasions, with the issue still unsettled at a time that both combatants possess nuclear weapons. Now a new crisis looms as General Musharraf tries to hold onto power in the face of twin challenges from rabid Islamist fanatics and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, recently returned from exile.
In light of this history, it’s shocking that few Americans or Europeans question the troubled and divided nation’s existence.
Instead, agitators on the international left love to challenge the “right to exist” of Israel – a far more stable, prosperous, democratic and, yes, peaceful nation than Pakistan. Though formally recognized as a modern state at almost exactly the same time as Pakistan (1948 rather than 1947), Israel occupies similar borders to the ancient Jewish commonwealth that flourished for more than a thousand years. Moreover the transfer of refugee populations – with 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fleeing the territory of the new state of Israel, and more than 800,000 Jews fleeing Arab states and finding new homes in Israel --- represents scarcely 10% of the massive population shift (involving more than 14 million people) attendant to the birth of Pakistan.
This doesn’t stop the President of Iran, or the terrorist organizations he openly supports (Hamas and Hezbollah), or twenty states in the Arab League (except for Jordan, Egypt and Morocco), from regularly denying Israel’s very existence – excluding it from maps, referring to the Jewish State as “Occupied Palestine” or “The Zionist Enemy.”
This Islamist intransigence raises the obvious question: on what basis does Pakistan constitute an “authentic,” “well-established,” “respect-worthy” nation, but Israel does not?
On every conceivable basis—history, international recognition, authorization by world bodies (The League of Nations supported a Jewish homeland on the site of Israel in 1923, a decade before anyone even proposed the idea of Pakistan), stability, functioning economy, democratic institutions, rule of law, enforceable borders, successful self-defense on multiple occasions, desire of peace with neighbors, support by a majority of its own citizens, respect for religious and ethnic pluralism --- Israel contrasts favorably with “The Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”
No, the nightmarish, basket-case nation on India’s northwestern border won’t disappear or dissolve. But its persistence (despite horrendous civic unrest, Islamist fanaticism, rampant militarism, and nuclear threats to its neighbors and the rest of the world) should help persuade antagonists and skeptics that Israel will remain at least as permanent a feature on the world stage.
|
|
Why would anyone listen to Scheuer? He's only the CIA's foremost expert on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. :) (Tongue firmly in cheek... I'm disgusted at how people have tried to discredit this honorable man.)
If we invade or bomb Iran, the fallout would be disastrous. Aligning the Shiites with the Wahabbi nuts (former ENEMIES), we'd really be shooting ourselves in the foot.
My biggest fear of possibly having Rudy president is foreign policy would be driven by Norman Podhoretz, who's just dying to bomb Iran.
|
|
You must not watch the news, read the paper or listen to the radio then.
--I sometimes watch the news. Used to be a TV news junky, but you're right - not so much anymore. I never saw anything too in depth about the plight of Palestinians, just sometimes a mention in passing, which didn't say much of anything.
Why can't we just blame the terrorists for being terrorists. They'd hate us no matter what we did.
--I don't agree with that. They might not like our culture, but if not for our intervention, they'd have no reason to go to so much trouble to murder us. Our rampant intervention throughout the latter half of the 20th Century has generated loads of resentment.
Israel elects democratic type govts, Palestine elects terrorist govts.
--That's irrelevant, IMO. What matters more than anything else is the civilian body count. The higher the Palestinian body count, the more hard-line the government they'll demand... hence, Hamas' gains over Fatah.
Any innocent life taken is a tragedy, but this particular wars'(Israel/Palestine) blame lies squarly on the heads of the Palestinians,IMHO.
--I disagree. There's plenty of blame for both sides. As an American, I'd prefer our government distance itself as far as possible from this conflict. But if other Americans want to join the IDF, no problem here.
|
|
apologies for the delay - had to be in the hospital today.
In case you're still checking in here...
You’ve touched on many of the precise reasons why I support Ron Paul. I can’t stand my tax dollars going to fund stuff of which I don’t approve. And only one candidate is proposing an end to the income tax, abolition of the IRS, and to drastically cut federal spending. No more pork, no more corporate welfare, no more federal Dept. of Education (let the states handle it)... and his voting record is 100% consistent with all these promises.
Just about every other Repub presidential candidate says they’d like to cut taxes. My problem is 1) they don’t say by how much, and more importantly, 2) they don’t say where they’ll cut spending. Only Ron Paul has specific plans on what to cut, and he’s the only one with the guts to say how much he’d like to cut taxes.
About Coulter’s column, I honestly didn’t get much out of it. Just more of the same. She’s trying so hard to retain her status as the Howard Stern shock-columnist of the right. I guess it sells well, but I don’t find her columns to be very insightful. And besides, she is the one who said Jews need to be perfected by becoming Christians, so it doesn’t sound like she has the utmost respect for the Jewish people. I figured her column was a plea to Jews to reconsider their politics and become Republicans... and she's probably not the best person to make that plea. JMHO.
|
|
writes, "...the plight of the Palestinians is IMO very underreported."
You must not watch the news, read the paper or listen to the radio then.
writes, "America draws hundres of millions of enemies throughout the world because of this allience (w/ Israel)."
Why can't we just blame the terrorists for being terrorists. They'd hate us no matter what we did.
One last thing c/o equating Palestinian deaths w/ Israeli deaths: Israel elects democratic type govts, Palestine elects terrorist govts. Do you think that collateral damage inflicted on Europeans during WWII was murder or a necessary evil? Picture a hostage situation in which the hostage takers start executing the hostages. The police intervine, and while doing so they accidentally kill a hostage (they being the police). Would you blame the cop for the civilians death?
Any innocent life taken is a tragedy, but this particular wars'(Israel/Palestine) blame lies squarly on the heads of the Palestinians,IMHO. |
|
"Specifically, with respect to Israel, they may not have squandered the money, but it doesn’t change the fact that it was seized by force from American citizens and given to them without taxpayer consent"
Take Israel out of this equation and this issue still exists. Our tax payer money, without my permission at least, is being stolen from me to pay for things I would prefer not to contribute to.
If only I could elect my tax money going to the military, the police, the fire department and then refuse to have it go to NPR, welfare, special interest programs, and also to find out if dropping a ball off a building will bounce 5 times. I don't have kids, I reap no tax breaks and yet my taxes are being usurped from me to pay for other people's children and teachers.
So, that is why I still will and always vote republican. I'm a true fiscal conservative and I hope to find one that will cut my taxes.
I live in the blue state of Illinois...they just raised taxes in my county by 27%. That's 27%. We have tollways, we have lotteries, we have casinos, all these things generate millions upon millions for the state and counties. But we have many illegals living here, we have high crime, they are not insured, we have highly democratic and corrupt politicians who wish to fill their pockets, we have state funded construction workers who build sub-par roads which takes them 2 years to finish just so they can re-build the same broken down road 3 years later, it goes on and on. I know...off the subject.
Ann Coulter wrote a great article on the ADL. You should check it out. Dolly Llama is not back--I really do believe he was booted. But there's a lovely Cassandra Vox who is another example I forgot to name for you that has posted there. |
|
"Btw (a little off topic), collateral damage is precisely why I believe al-Qaeda loves the fact that we’re in Iraq."
I think you are right. One of the reasons Bin Laden stated according to Michael Scheuer was by having the US in Iraq it brought the US closer, therefore, easier to kill Americans. Bin Laden would be ecstatic if Bush is stupid enough to mess with Iran. He would have the US killing the Shiites in addition to the Sunnis he considers to be apostates. |
|
Specifically, with respect to Israel, they may not have squandered the money, but it doesn’t change the fact that it was seized by force from American citizens and given to them without taxpayer consent. If Israel is developing technological breakthroughs with the cash, why can’t those expenditures go to American universities or government labs? Or, more to the point, why can’t the taxpayers just keep more of their money without politicians deciding what’s best to do with other people’s money?
I agree 100% with you that Israel could exist just fine on its own with no subsidies whatsoever. It’s a powerful nation with an estimated 400 nuclear warheads and one of the best militaries in the world. They could unequivocally wipe any threat out within hours. I’d like to see a fully independent, prosperous Israel become a reality.
|
|
I'll read Dolly's posts. So far, I haven't seen anything I would deem outlandishly offensive, but I'm only a semi-regular contributor.
-- My friends who fled from there said they wanted them to purposefully provoke Israel into doing such things. It's an upside down world there.
Yes, it probably is what they want. Yes, there are upside down aspects of what’s happening there, IMO. More civilian deaths mean more supporters of terrorism. Israelis are left with two distasteful options: to kill the perpetrators as well as surrounding civilians, generating more resentment and hatred... and therefore, more terrorist sympathizers, or just let the murderers go.
Btw (a little off topic), collateral damage is precisely why I believe al-Qaeda loves the fact that we’re in Iraq. The civilian death toll is in the tens (hundreds?) of thousands. That means a lot of people who can blame America for ruining their lives, translating into more hostile terrorists. But again, I digress.
As for foreign aid to any nation, I don’t see what we’re getting for our money. I think it’s a feel good measure by pols. American pols can boast to their special interest supporters how generous they are with other people’s money. Special interests can gloat about their cause being advanced. Recipients get free money. The losers are the American taxpayers who never authorized the money transfer.
(cont) |
|
There is a nice poster named Dolly, but the one I speak of is Dolly Llama. I haven't seen them yet today so I suppose his shelf life has expired already on TH.
"Israelis just hit back harder, the heavy-handed, indiscriminate retaliation in many cases needlessly kills many civilian non-combatants. That only breeds more resentment and more terrorism, which can’t be good for Israeli citizens."
--Do you think this could be what the Palestinians want? My friends who fled from there said they wanted them to purposefully provoke Israel into doing such things. It's an upside down world there.
I would love to pull all foreign aid to countries that chose to burn our flag and effigies of our president, who spit on the US symbolically.
Each president in our history has given foreign aid to countries as a bargaining tool, some of it has been beneficial and some hasn't been. But once we start giving out the checks, they will never ever end.
If we cut them all off right now at this very time, do you think it may have negative reprocussions later on, given this world we live in?
But IMHO, foreign aid is like car insurance---you always wonder why you're paying into it until you backup into your mailbox.
As far as aid to Israel, it's not that they have squandered this money. Many technical and scientific advances that help us today have come from Israel.
BUT! Did we need to give foreign aid to Israel to make them our ally? Not at all.
Do we still need to? I don't think it's necessary at this point because they can manage on their own financially.
They are the proverbial bullseye in a vast arab land of hatred towards them. They have to really think carefully what they do. I want them to survive, I want peace for them and make the ME one day a great flourishing prosperous place to be, for everyone. |
|
and happy Halloween back at ya. :)
I've read a few posts from Dolly, and I didn't find anything objectionable. If I see anything resembling your bigfoot hypothetical, I'll surely note it. I'll look out for his posts and see if I find anything indicating a desire for Israeli deaths. Hoping for any civilian group's deaths is a horrible concept.
I'm glad to see you do lament Palestinian civilian casualties. I'm always incredulous when I read others opine that Palestinians somehow deserve such a fate. That kind of reckless mentality is how terrorists drum up support against us.
I'm not so sure Palestinian terrorists are always the ones who shed first blood. Like you pointed out, that can be argued either way, depending on your view of the history. Reading someone like Uri Avnery, one would come to the opposite conclusion.
And even if what you say is true, that Israelis just hit back harder, the heavy-handed, indiscriminate retaliation in many cases needlessly kills many civilian non-combatants. That only breeds more resentment and more terrorism, which can’t be good for Israeli citizens.
My main point on Israel/Palestine is that, as an American, I view this conflict as none of our business. I don’t want our government to intervene on either side. I believe our involvement costs us dearly in terms of money and credibility, so I’d like to see our government withdraw all foreign aid to all countries. I just don’t see how our involvement helps our cause in any way.
By the same token, if another citizen wants to contribute to the Israeli government or join the IDF, I say have at it. No way would I want to stop that, since it’s none of my business. I just don’t want *my* money going overseas to a country or cause of which I may not approve.
|
|
I hope you do understand the difference of my outrage for the civilians of Palestine, that they purposefully are made to be in the crosshairs by their own people who provoked the fighting by suicide bomb, kidnapping, what have you.
I also feel I must interject this, although I feel as if I am needlessly defending myself:
I work in a company that is pretty much a salad bowl of all cultures. I have made many friends here who were from Palestine who fled to the states. All their stories are sad and similar.
They did not support the conflict of their people. They wanted to live in peace. They were disowned by their own families because they refused to kill or harm Jews. They all said land had little to do with it in their communities. All that mattered to their families were to seek and destroy Jews and Israel.
So they each fled and came here. I just found it interesting.
|
|
You said : "My question to you is this: do you feel the same sense of rage and anger whenever there’s a Palestinian civilian death resulting from Israeli military action?"
---I don't like getting into the History of Israel, because everyone has a difference of facts, so I will try to keep my answers to your above question as simple and as honest as possible.
My feelings are a different kind of outrage when I see Palestinian civilians caught in the crossfires. I feel badly yes, I feel remorse for the innocent, I am never thinking it's a simple fact of collateral damage.
When it comes down to fighting between them, the Palestinians fighters always shed first blood. The Israel will counter attack, and they hit back much harder.
What outrages me is that the Palestinian fighters will mix into their own civilian areas on purpose to create more bloodshed, more hatred and outrage against Jews, and make it a media circus. They do not value life, nor the life and peace of their own people. That is what outrages me. That instead of negotiating for peace and disarm, that they always will fight, knowing that Israel will always counter attack.
|
|
--Of all the Paulbots, Al is actually one of the most reasonable
That kind of looks like a compliment, so thanks, I guess. :)
--I just wish that people would open their eyes to what the Israelis have to go through over there
Very true, but the plight of the Palestinians is IMO very underreported. And as an American I question exactly what We the People get out of all the aid we send to Israel. I'd love to see an answer to that question. I have no problem with anyone sending their money to Israel voluntarily, but in no way should Israel be able to get any of the taxpayer largesse.
--but I do respect their courage (as a nation)
I do as well. I have great respect for Israel, but I don't think the status quo between our nations does anything to help the US. As a matter of fact, I'd say that our relationship hurts Israeli citizens as well. I have Israeli friends who agree.
|
|
Thank you for the compliment. Let's continue and Happy Halloween!
You said "And from what you’ve written here, I don’t think there’s enough evidence to justify calling that poster such a damning epithet."
--You had admitted yourself you did not read the actual thread. Also, you are unfamiliar with this poster, which means you have not read anything else by him yet. This poster just popped up a couple weeks ago.
An example of his style: If there was an article on Bigfoot, Dolly would post that it was an evil Jewish conspiracy that Bigfoot is forced to live in the woods in isolation which is why most Jews won't go camping.
At first I thought Dolly was just another anti-semite. But once he disclosed weeks later after all his hateful posts that he was Jewish, my jaw dropped. He is a classic texbook case of a self hating Jew. He is ashamed of himself, and his passion and hatred for Jews makes it so.
You made an excellent point with Sowell, how he is known as an Uncle Tom amongst his people. Yet, with Dolly it's a different case. Dolly would wish for Israeli's to die. Sowell would never wish harm on his people. That's my argument. |
|
-- Agreed. But he didn't answer it; he only provided evidence, in the context of challenging those opposed to Israel (be they numerous and important or otherwise), to justify the legitimacy of the question.
Well, the evidence was the answer. And I agree with Medved - that it's ludicrous to question Israel's right to exist. I just don't see the point here - who in the US question's Israel's right to exist? If the letter is to international nuts, then no problem. Since it's on TH, I assume the target audience in American.
The inference, that most Americans give Israel a pass because they aren't aware of that country's misdeeds, doesn't strike me as all that meaningful. In this internet age... I don't think Medved is worried about Americans looking into Israel's checkered past. Every nation has its share of mistakes, misdeeds and failures.
You're actually making my very point: that the info is out there and easily accessible. I've found that most Americans support Israel blindly without scrutinizing the alliance. How many people know about the USS Liberty, for instance? Really not that many... but it is only a click away, so facilitating this debate isn't doing Medved's point of view any favors.
Certainly the US has quite a checkered past (genocide of the Indians and slavery). In the case of Israel, however, we Americans pay in part for their misdeeds. Americans draw hundreds of millions of enemies throughout the world because of this alliance, and our government gives Israel billions every year. And for what?
That's the question I'm sure Medved doesn't want widely asked in the US. |
|
My question to you is this: do you feel the same sense of rage and anger whenever there’s a Palestinian civilian death resulting from Israeli military action? Maybe I’m being presumptuous, but I suspect a tragic event like this would not elicit such an impassioned response from you... and if not, then you’re putting one group of people’s lives ahead of another. I know all too many in the US who strongly condemn violence from Palestinians, but write Israeli “collateral damage” off as if the IDF just happened to kill a few pesky insects. I hope you’re not someone who thinks like that.
I realize that it’s not Israeli policy to target Palestinian civilians – commendable to be sure, but after some heavy-handed incursions and indiscriminate bombing, and realizing that the civilian body count ratio is between 3-4 Palestinians to one Israeli, I’m not entirely convinced that Israel holds the moral high ground. If a family member of mine dies from a murderous suicide bomber thug or an errant artillery shell, that family member is just as dead either way, and the motive of the culprit would hardly matter to me.
Moreover, Israel has been maintaining an illegal (according to the UN) occupation for some 40 years now, and the Palestinians live in deplorable conditions.
Now, I wouldn’t be any more interested in this than I am in the Russia/Chechnya conflict except for one thing: that my government has chosen to intervene and gives my tax dollars to Israel, thereby, supporting this status quo. That being the case, I believe the Israeli government should be held to higher standards than they are now. Thankfully, many Israelis agree.
|
|
A very good pair of posts, shells – I may have misunderestimated you, to borrow a term from W. In any case, I can see how impassioned you are on the Israeli/Palestinian issue, and I can respect that. You’re showing the same kind of passion that many Paul supporters demonstrate, but I digress.
About this specific conversation with this poster, you’re right – I didn’t read it. I have, however, seen many cases where Jews who are critical of Israeli policy are castigated as “self-hating” or even “anti-Semitic”, and in many cases, I don’t believe it to be true. I think it’s a cheap shot. I’ve seen Norman Finkelstein (son of Holocaust survivors) called both of these, and I believe it’s a disgusting ploy, just like calling Thomas Sowell an “Uncle Tom” for daring to question affirmative action. It’s designed to force everyone into lock-step thinking. And from what you’ve written here, I don’t think there’s enough evidence to justify calling that poster such a damning epithet.
Addressing your scenario specifically, I can understand why you’d be enraged. As an Israel supporter, these comments must have incensed you, and it looks like you reacted accordingly.
My personal take is (and maybe Dolly agrees) that every death in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is tragic, particularly every civilian death.
(cont) |
|
I agree with you on both counts. Al is semi-tolerable which is why I bother to have a discourse with him. I still feel as though I am on trial when we he is questioning me, something the Paulettes have an uncanny ability of doing, which is nonetheless a turn off.
The hatred of Jews stems from being biblically related, plus, in our century, it also is combined with myths and legends passed down from families or communities. Heck, 15 years ago I even had a guy from DC ask me where I hid my horns...on my head...He worked for NASSA.
|
|
|
what a pathetic hack you are Medved. How about writing about something original? |
|
|
Of all the Paulbots, Al is actually one of the most reasonable (next to JackShiite, at times). I just wish that people would open their eyes to what the Israelis have to go through over there. I'm not a Jew, but I do respect their courage (as a nation). I can only think that the hatred is somehow biblically related; nothing else makes sense. |
|
Let me re-iterate in case you miss the point.
Dolly has a different view on Israel than I do, so do you, so does Medved, so do a lot of others. Everyone has their little book of facts they like to review and go by. Although I felt Dolly's ideals were false, that was not where my anger against him, a fellow Jew, was.
My anger was that he in fact had no remorse over Israeli's being killed. Innocent civilian Jews going about their day to day business with their children being murdered. I at least thought he could put his agenda and slef hatred aside and say, "Yeah...I wish things were different...I wish they weren't getting killed."
But that was not his answer. He is ashamed of who he is to the point of supporting the death of his people. If you were a Jew, religious or not, you would understand the evil complexity of this. |
|
I answered you on the other thread, but let's start this. "As for me being an amateur, well, I'm not the one who thinks all Jews should be in lock-step, thinking precisely the same way. That's really bordering on racism in my eyes."
As a Jew, I took a huge offense to a diatribe of hateful posts from Dolly. We sparred on Burts article from Monday. If you read those threads, as well as his other posts, I think you might understand my contempt for that person.
I don't believe in lock-step thinking. But what truly amazes me, and I don't know if you can understand this, but there is such a thing as self-hating Jews. I am a Jew, I don't feel any shame of it, and I support the Israeli's right to exist in peace.
Dolly posted very poisonous comments about Jews in general and had no remorse over the hundreds of innocent Jews being killed by suicide bombers. Now, think what you will about the state of Israel, but when he, a Jew, is rooting on the Palestinians in their war against these Jews, I find it sickening.
As I said before, when I asked him how he felt about those innocent families in public areas getting murdered in broad daylight by suicide bombers and if he feels at all bad about it, his reply was:
"The only reason they use suicide bombs is because they have no air missles. It's tactical."
What does this direct answer say to you? And you call me the racist? If you knew the context of the argument, rather than singling me out due to how I feel about Ron Paul and felt the need to attack me, you might be retracting your statement.
I refuse to retract my statement. He is a puke, everyone with a cognitive sense who read his posts know he's a puke. Being a puke is bi-partisan and non racial. He is, was, and forever will be a puke. So don't come off so sanctimonious and tell me what I said was ignorant when you have no clue what the context was. That makes you ignorant. Get it?
|
|
Medved wrote: "Does Pakistan have a right to exist? Though a Newsweek cover story recently labeled the turbulent South Asian state 'the most dangerous nation in the world' no one dares to ask this obvious question."
al wrote: "-so what does that mean to you? To me, it means that Medved isn't dancing around this one... that he's taking the bull by the horns and flat out asking the question."
-- Agreed. But he didn't answer it; he only provided evidence, in the context of challenging those opposed to Israel (be they numerous and important or otherwise), to justify the legitimacy of the question.
al wrote: "In so doing, he's opening a big can of worms. Most Americans don't know too much about Israel's history. Medved should be careful about stimulating this debate. If people learn more, they'll realize that: [List of Israeli faults]. Do you really think Medved wants average Americans to look into these issues?"
-- The inference, that most Americans give Israel a pass because they aren't aware of that country's misdeeds, doesn't strike me as all that meaningful. In this internet age, when sources like Wikipedia and others (such as the one I used to dispute "no bs artist" on US aid to Israel) are one click away, there's no sense in trying to deny what is on the increasingly public record. With that in mind, I don't think Medved is worried about Americans looking into Israel's checkered past. Every nation has its share of mistakes, misdeeds and failures. |
|
I missed your posts on the other blog. Just answered them.
As for me being an amateur, well, I'm not the one who thinks all Jews should be in lock-step, thinking precisely the same way. That's really bordering on racism in my eyes.
Will you please admonish the racist claim you made that someone of Jewish descent must think the same way you do on matters of Israel, lest he/she be a "self-hating Jew" or a "puke"?
Your words, not mine. I'd never write such ignorant remarks.
|
|
Please go back to the Ron Paul article written by Medved where you tried to nail me.
I've answered all the questions you peppered at me, 3 posts to you because you truly are special. I hope you read them, I've numbered them. You haven't answered them yet. Should my feelings be hurt?
If you wish to debate me on foreign policy, I'd rather spend my time doing that with an expert, not a smarmy amateur.
If you wish to debate me on psychology of the mind of Ron Paulers, I'd be happy to oblige. |
|
I'll debate you anytime on foreign policy. I've seen your posts. You're a proud graduate of the Hannity School of Debating: no need for silly facts or historical perspective, just call your opponent names, paint him as an extremist, and voila: you win the argument!
Oh, and shellsie, nice take on Dolly Llama's opinions on all things foreign policy. Apparently you think all Jews should be one monolithic group who all believe the same way. No room for dissention if you're Jewish, right shellsie? The only ones who could possibly disagree with you are just "self-hating Jew pukes"... right shellsie?
I'd say your post above is more of a racist assertion than anything I've read from any Ron Paul supporter. |
|
and I quote:
"Does Pakistan have a right to exist?
Though a Newsweek cover story recently labeled the turbulent South Asian state 'the most dangerous nation in the world' no one dares to ask this obvious question."
-so what does that mean to you? To me, it means that Medved isn't dancing around this one... that he's taking the bull by the horns and flat out asking the question.
In so doing, he's opening a big can of worms. Most Americans don't know too much about Israel's history. Medved should be careful about stimulating this debate. If people learn more, they'll realize that:
1) Israel's borders are arbitrary like Pakistan's
2) Israel is criticized by many human rights organizations for abuses and violations
3) Israel has been a perpetual source of instability in the Middle East
Having written that, I haven't even brought up:
1) the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty
http://www.gtr5.com/
2) imprisoned for life Israeli spy Jonathon Pollard (ubiquitous citations)
3) the Israeli "art students" who were deported for spying
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/05/07/students /index_np.html
4) the sale by Israelis of sensitive American missile defense technology to the Chinese
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15 760
-NOTE: WND is a *very* pro-Israel publication, and even they reported on that.
Do you really think Medved wants average Americans to look into these issues?
Again, in no way would I contend that *any* country has no right to exist. I'm asserting that Medved is stepping in it by stimulating this debate. If I were in lock-step with Medved, I'd prefer to keep my trap shut and just allow average Americans to be ignorant of all these things. |
|
-- One really must wonder what color the sky is in "no bs artist's" world.
no bs artist: "up until after the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel was doing just fine without US aid." From the Jewish Virtual Library (JVL): "Israel has received more direct aid from the United States since World War II than any other country ... Between 1949 and 1973, the U.S. provided Israel with an average of about $122 million a year, a total of $3.1 billion"
artist: "In fact all Truman did in 1948 was recognize Israel and that was it."
JVL: "Truman's commitment was quickly tested after Israel's victory in its War of Independence when she applied to the U.S. for economic aid to help absorb immigrants. President Truman responded by approving a $135 million Export-Import Bank loan and the sale of surplus commodities to Israel. In those early years of Israel's statehood (also today), U.S. aid was seen as a means of promoting peace."
artist: "Yet Israel survived without US aid."
JVL: "As of December 31, 2001, Israel owed the United States government $1.977 billion in direct economic and military loans."
Link to the article:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/forei gn_aid.html
Link to a table of US aid to Israel, year by year:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._ Assistance_to_Israel1.html
-- You will notice that, while military GRANTS began after 1973, military loans and grant aid for other things have been constant since Israel's birth. To Israel's credit most of the money has been in the form of loans that they have repaid, but to assert that they have persevered without aid from the US is misguided at best and disengenuous at worst. |
|
I have to agree with you on this. This article will and already has attracted every Jew hating crackpot and Israel basher.
You know your history of Israel, and you also know what the Palestinians want. It's not land. It's a pile of festering dead Jews.
Wait til you get a load of a poster who will literally make you wretch. His handle is Dolly Llama, and his is a Canadian self hating Jew, a textbook classic case.
I asked him if he felt terrible for the innocent Jews in Israel being blown up at coffee shops, malls, or bus stops by suicide bombers.
Dolly's reply was: "The only reason they use suicide bombs is because they have no air missles. It's tactical."
This guy is a puke. |
|
RecknHavic writes: Monday, October, 29, 2007 11:22 PM Interesting Comparison For some strange reason alot of the comments disagreeing w/ Michael's GREAT point regarding the hypocracy of those who question Israel's right to exist are the same people who vehmenantly support Ron Paul (in the previous post)...huh?
_________________
BINGO |
|
The whole point of Jewish/Israeli independence was that the Jews would never ever again have to depend on unreliable gentiles for anything. In fact up until after the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel was doing just fine without US aid. In fact all Truman did in 1948 was recognize Israel and that was it. He didn't send so much as a rifle or a tin hat over to help the new state fight off bloodthirsty British trained Arab armies determined to destroy her at birth. Yet Israel survived without US aid. Israel isn't a welfare client post-colonial vassal of the US. If it ever came down to Tel Aviv vs Tehran it's no contest. Team Tel Aviv all the way! You don't think Judea can lick the Persians again?????
Anyhow ghetto Jew Mike should stick to bashing liberal Hollywood. He doesn't know squat about anything else. |
|
al wrote: "I wouldn't defend Pakistan's record on human rights, but to suggest they have no right to exist is about as ludicrous as suggesting Israel has no right to exist."
-- And vice versa. And that's Medved's point. Thanks for restating it. He IS NOT personally calling for the dismantling of Pakistan; he's challenging those he labels "agitators on the international left" to explain why they challenge Israel's right to exist when there are other nations in the region, Pakistan chief among them, that are far worse and potentially far more dangerous.
'no bs artist' wrote: "You are woefully ignorant of the complexities of global history." Followed by: "Here's the dirtiest secret of all--the Palestinians don't want a state--they just want to play the victims and whine oh poor me forever."
-- Would it surprise you to discover that Medved, the "self-hating ghetto Jew" probably agrees with you on that point? I'm pretty sure he does. Either he's NOT ignorant or you both ARE. |
|
-- First, titaniczilla writes: "Actually Mike couldn't have picked a worse choice for comparison to the eternal Israeli/Palestinian stalemate." Then, for reasons we get: "Pakistan was originally part of India until about 1948 (the same year Israel declared independence)", which is interesting, because TWICE in his article Medved gave the correct date of 1947. It makes one wonder how thoroughly or completely the poster read the article.
Other reasons? "India probably feels that Pakistan is still part of their country and there are many unresolved issues between Pakistan and India involving territory. Both sides dislike and distrust each other. It's also a squabble over religiion--Muslim Pakistan vs Hindu/multi-religious India."
-- Well! How could one POSSIBLY see a parallel between that situation and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? Unresolved issues involving religion and territory that remain unresolved due to distrust? You're right; they're completely different.
"Pakistan already has nukes so close to India. No wonder India is nervous about having it's hated rival armed to the teeth with WMDs on its border."
-- Again, the SAME point made by Medved in his article. When one tells a blogger "You're wrong", and then proceeds to unsarcastically agree with said blogger ... that's comedy. |
|
yeah, Ryan... another non-sequitor from the TH Village Idiot! When did this conversation switch to Paraguay?
Oh, I get it - a reference to Nazi war criminals fleeing justice to South America.
Please keep contributing, S/A86. Your idiotic posts serve to give me ever more confirmation that I'm on the right side of the war of ideas.
Sometimes I feel like I'm teaching third graders on this site. And that's being generous. |
|
Invariably, those who take issue with Medved say something like, "Go back to being a movie critic".
You should know that Michael Medved was deeply involved in politics long before he became a film critic. As for his geo-political knowledge, I would put it up against yours any day of the week. The man is very historically well read. Read any of his books and discover this for yourself. |
|
:D
Boy, A/S86 really nailed you with that last one. I'm so impressed with him I think he should guesthost Hannitys' show, for he is a worthy successor. He's got Hannity's technique down pat.
I think he has not only caught up with Anne, but surpassed not only her, but OHM as well.
|
|
Paraguay?
Does goose-stepping hurt your feet? |
|
post of idiocy from S/A86. Did you read the column? Why the diatribe on the 1992 elections? I think you're violating TH posting rules by not staying on point here. But then again, reading comprehension doesn't appear to be your stong suit.
|
|
Which I will get to at the end of this post.
When I read Hugh's posting on this, I knew that it would whip the PaulBots into a lather. Much of this reminds me of 1992, when Ross Perot stepped into the mix.
There was an element of the conservative base upset with GHWB, and their anger attracted the 'black helicopter' crowd....conspiracy theorists, crackers and neo-nazis.
Much of Perot's support, in fact, came from this element. Indeed, Timothy McVeigh was an adherent of Perot as was much of the Michigan Militia and the Ku Klux Klan. As war & national security was not an issue in 1992, the black helicopter crowd of the left, which we would now call 911Truth Movement, Moveon.org, CodePink, etc. ad nauseum, did not enlist in the Perot camp, sticking instead with Bill Clinton, who, with a split conservative electorate, achieved a plurality of the vote, and thus a victory in 1992.
And, all of this support Perot enjoyed mirrored as well the support had, a decade earlier, by the Federal Prisoner Lyndon LaRouche, whose supporters are now reduced to tables at the County Fair and shoving leaflets beneath wiper blades at suburban shopping malls.
Ron Paul will not win the GOP nomination. You heard it here, perhaps not first. No matter how pasionate you might be for Ron Paul, he will not win.
Ron Paul is now attracting the aforementioned left wing crazies, added to the right wing crazies, which will likely split the dimocrat vote as much as it does that of the GOP.
My question for the PaulBots, some of whom have expressed views, on this and other blogs in line with the doctrine of the American Nazi Party, is:
If Ron Paul does not win the Presidency (he won't), are you guys going to take your submarines and move to Argentina? |
|
I thought this was a hypothetical situation involving Pakistan's right to exist not Israel's right to exist.
Thanks alot Mike--now every Jew hating and Israel bashing crackpot is crawling out of the woodwork. We need this like we need a hole in the head. Hey, lots of resentful sheeple still think Jews shouldn't exist either. Just ask your new best friend Psychobabe Coulter!!! |
|
Really? That's all you can write?
I hate to be demanding, but please explain to me why that's nonsense. I expect a bit more than a simple-minded one word response.
Do you have the foggiest idea of Israel's history? Do you know how much land was mandated to become Israel by the UN? Do you believe the Occupation of the West Bank is legal? How about Gaza before Sharon forced the evacuation? Please do explain all this, oh learned one.
And once again, please tell me any influential American group that claims Israel has no right to exist. Just one. Which leftists are saying this? I want names, not blind assertions.
I'm preparing myself to be bowled over by your very learned opinion on this.
And in no way would I say Israel has no right to exist. That's just utterly ridiculous. I will, however, say that Israel should exist without any subsidies from the US.
I fully agree with you - that Israel can and does make wonderful contributions on its own. I'd go so far as to claim Israel would do just fine with zero foreign aid from the US.
Do you agree with that statement? Do you support Israel existing on its own, without US subsidies? I do. I think Israel is plenty strong to stand on its own. |
|
"If Pakistan is a failed state so does Israel. Since her Independence Americans have poured billions as financial aid and they continue to do this every year. This is abvious without this aid they cannot survive" ------------------------ This is completely absurd. Just to educate you as to how Israel is a successful state with great contributions to the world, I urge you to visit this website and read about Israeli achievements. http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enPage=HomePage
You will find that it is far from a failed, dependent country. You may be surprised to learn what technological and medical achievements which you are familiar with came from Israel. |
|
"He complains that Pakistan's borders are arbitrary, they're violators of human rights, they're a source of instability in their region, and they have a dictatorial government. All of these points can be said of Israel" -------------------------------- Nonsense.
As to what leftists have said Israel has no right to exist, I don't know where you have been, but the left constantly questions Israel's right to exist. |
|
where did I or any other American question Israel's right to exist? Name a group with any clout that says Israel has no right to exist. Maybe some nuts overseas, but I don't know of any in the US.
Now, if the question is, should America continue to give Israel or *any* other country billions of dollars in foreign aid... that's an entirely different debate.
RecknHavic - where did you see a Paul poster say Israel has no right to exist? It's probably wherever those mysterious Iraqi WMDs are... |
|
|
For some strange reason alot of the comments disagreeing w/ Michael's GREAT point regarding the hypocracy of those who question Israel's right to exist are the same people who vehmenantly support Ron Paul (in the previous post)...huh? |
|
If Pakistan is a failed state so does Israel. Since her Independence Americans have poured billions as financial aid and they continue to do this every year. This is abvious without this aid they cannot survive. Mike is worried that American multi-billion dollar aid to Isreal is not halted.
|
|
|
If you hate Jews and wish Hitler had finshed the job please say so. Why beat around the bush. Here's the dirtiest secret of all--the Palestinians don't want a state--they just want to play the victims and whine oh poor me forever. Hey it worked thus far so why give up a great racket now. |
|
|
Mike, your forte is bashing those evil liberal Hollywood flicks which brainwash all us into hating America. You are woefully ignorant of the complexities of global history. Besides, any shred of respect I may have had for you went out the window when you started kow-towing to Psychobabe Coulter, she wolf of the SS.You shamefully started acting like a pathetic self-hating ghetto Jew. |
|
some don't question *any* nation's right to exist. Maybe some don't want to get involved in *any* other nations' affairs. Maybe some want to stay out of *everyone* else's business. Maybe it's not in our best interest to choose which nations have a "right to exist".
Tt's not difficult to see what Medved's intentions are. He got his wish with Iraq. Now he wants Iran bombed, Podhoretz style. Next would be Pakistan. You may deny the obvious, but I can connect the dots.
I wouldn't defend Pakistan's record on human rights, but to suggest they have no right to exist is about as ludicrous as suggesting Israel has no right to exist. And Medved's "logic" is shoddy at best. He complains that Pakistan's borders are arbitrary, they're violators of human rights, they're a source of instability in their region, and they have a dictatorial government. All of these points can be said of Israel, except Israel is democratic.
On that point, let's ask Mr. Medved whether he'd like to see Pakistan become a democratic republic with their Islamic extremists fairly represented. Somehow, I think he'd take Pakistan's dictatorial status quo over that scenario.
And LL, if you don't think most Muslim nations have "the right to exist" then fine. Put your money where your mouth is, take up arms, and fight them. Be a big bad freedom fighter, going after all Islamic despotism.
Or maybe you'd prefer *other* people fight these wars for you. I suspect that's the case. Typical chicken hawk.
Oh, and LL, who on the left in the US questions Israel's right to exist? Is there any single influential group out there vocally denying Israel's right to exist? I've yet to see one.
|
|
"you see, Medved thinks that Pakistan, a Muslim nation... a nuclear Muslim nation, no less, shouldn't have any right to exist." ---------------------------------- Personally I don't think Pakistan or most muslim countries have the right to exist considering that they are repressive, terrorist, barbaric, failed states. However Michael Medved is not actually advocating the dismantlement of Pakistan. If you had a modicum of intellect, you would understand that Medved's point is to expose the hypocrisy and yes antisemitism of those who question Israel's right to exist. Why of all nations, does the left question Israel's right to exist, whereas they don't question the right of such a repressive, failed state like Pakistan to exist, established around the same time as Israel. Or perhaps question the existence of many of the repressive, failed arab states established after WW1. I dare you to answer that logically. I would be interested in how you can spin such a blatant double standard. |
|
you see, Medved thinks that Pakistan, a Muslim nation... a nuclear Muslim nation, no less, shouldn't have any right to exist. He's trying to plant the seed into the heads of all Americans that 1) Israel is the greatest nation on God's green earth, 2) America needs to continue our imperialistic foreign policy, and we're perfectly justified in invading whomever we want (even though we're trillions in debt and our military is massively overextended), 3) Israel is moral, peaceful, just, and kind, and deserves our unquestioned, undying support.
Funny thing is that Israel's borders far exceeded what the UN mandated, Israel's history began with brutal terrorism and Fascist methods, and it's well-documented... so Medved's stepping in it by writing this piece.
Don't believe me? Check this letter from many prominent intellectual Jews (including Albert Einstein) to the NY Times in 1948:
http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/369
Michael - definitely stick to those "evil liberal" movies. The more you post this kind of drivel, the more blowback you'll get. The internet is your enemy. Information is ever-more unregulated and plentiful. The last thing you want, Mr. Medved, is people doing some fact-finding on your columns. People aren't as dumb as they used to be. You should realize this sooner than later. |
|
|
What is the purpose of this post? |
|
|
Pakistan already has nukes so close to India. No wonder India is nervous about having it's hated rival armed to the teeth with WMDs on its border. |
|
Actually Mike couldn't have picked a worse choice for comparison to the eternal Israeli/Palestinian stalemate. Pakistan was originally part of India until about 1948 (the same year Israel declared independence). India probably feels that Pakistan is still part of their country and there are many unresolved issues between Pakistan and India involving territory. Both sides dislike and distrust each other. It's also a squabble over religiion--Muslim Pakistan vs Hindu/multi-religious India.
So why not ask India if Pakistan has a right to exist? The answer might surprise you.
Mike, please stick to trashing so-called liberal movies. Your knowledge of geo-politics really stinks. |
|
|
|