Hillary, no longer a "New Yorker," supporting Palestine over Israel

[Jamisjockey]

I think you got my drift.

There are a lot of "strange" things happening these days.

Oh, "geez".  Back to the "anaolgies" again.  "You" love quotes, "don't" you?

 

[HankB]

Nor would we argue that the President of the United States hates HIS country.

Based on his actions . . . I'd find it hard to argue against someone who asserted that.

Seriously. 

As for Hillary & Co. funnelling aid to "Palestinians" . . . I'm thoroughly unconvinced that our sending shiploads of money to Gaza will benefit the USA (or, for that matter, Israel) in any way, shape, or form. I'm also unconvinced that Israeli concessions of land or anything else will do anything other than encourage the worst sort of response.

This is really one of those times I hope I'm wrong, but the only solutions offering a reasonable chance of success seem to be either a long-term occupation or Rome's response to the Third Punic War . . . neither of which is likely to take place.

So, no matter what course is actually followed, I expect several more generations of trouble.

[longeyes]

Oh, "geez".  Back to the "anaolgies" again.  "You" love quotes, "don't" you?

Try addressing the message, not the messenger.

[roo_ster]

WRT OP:

Yeah, HRC has adopted the position most convenient for the current circumstances.  Par for her course.

Again, that is completely irrelevant. There are thousands of people suffering in a crisis that is not their fault - over 50% of the Palestinians in Gaza didn't even vote for Hamas. We cannot just stand by and watch them suffer just because they're not brave enough or not sufficiently heavily armed to overthrow Hamas.

Who is "we," kemosabe?

The vast majority of humanity exists in vile, violent squalor.  Palis in Gaza are just another group doing so.

I can stand by and let them sleep in the bed of their own making indefinitely.

Also, polls taken in the Paili parts there'bouts generally show a large majority in favor of killing Jews, any Jews, as a matter of policy.  Then, they elected the party most likely to continue the conflict with Israel...after Israel pulled out of Gaza.

Not holding Palis responsible for the consequences of their views and behaviors is to treat them as children, not adults.  Take them seriously and visit the consequences of their behavior upon them.

Gaza could have been a tourist resort. Instead it's a missile base occupied by people whose only purpose in life is sour grapes.

Thats a pretty bias statement against the people of Palestine.

Other countries on the Med have done as MW described.  Or does your bias prevent you from believing that Pali Arabs in Gaza might be able to conduct such an enterprise, if they valued economic development over killing Jews?

The problem is trying to mesh Conservatism with Christianity.   One is inherently rational and individualistic, the other non-rational and "compassionate."  One is built on inequality, the other on leveling.  One is about improving this material world, the other focused on another, immaterial realm. One worships the Bill of Rights, the other the parabolic wisdom of the New Testament.  

Dude, you have been going to the wrong churches or watching too much Oprah.  Liberal/liberation theology is just one (very small) strand of Christian thought.

Also, I take issue with conservatism being about, "improving this material world."  Conservatism, properly understood, is wholly anti-utopian.

Both Christianity and conservatism are partial philosophies* and are complementary in many ways.  








* Using "philosophy" as viewed from the outside WRT Christianity.

[longeyes]

Well, then, according to you, conservatism and capitalism must be at odds...

We agree this is a complex issue.  I realize there are different strains of Christianity, but that doesn't change the fact that the basic message of Christianity is not congruent with advancing material prosperity.  That is not a comment on whether that message is good or bad.

Oprah, the billionaire businesswoman, isn't exactly an example of "other worldly" Christianity now, is she?  Perhaps she embodies the very contradictions I am referring to.

[Balog]

Longeyes: your premise is entirely incorrect. I'm not sure what kind of "Christianity" you're referring to, but you seem to have a very skewed view.

Perhaps you could outline what you basis you have for your statements?

[MicroBalrog]

Who is "we," kemosabe?

We. Israelis.

I advocate a carrot/stick policy WRT Gaza and the West Bank. Kill those people who attack us. Help those willing to work towards their prosperity achieve prosperity.

Then, they elected the party most likely to continue the conflict with Israel...after Israel pulled out of Gaza.

55% of the Palestinians did not vote for Hamas.

Conservatism, properly understood, is wholly anti-utopian.

Only according to Burke and his cronies.

[longeyes]

Skewed view how exactly?

You read the New Testament as an tract on free enterprise?

I realize that many over the centuries have found ways to marry the two but always by philosophical sleight of hand.  Where do you think these ideas of "income inequality" are coming from?  "Compassionate" conservatism?  When Marx was writing Das Capital there were a lot of people in Britain advancing "progressive" ideas that borrowed heavily from what today we would call a liberal view of Christianity.  

This double-pull of Christian lovingkindness and public charity versus more Darwinian free enterprise has been at the heart of America from the outset.

[roo_ster]

Only according to Burke and his cronies.

That's pretty funny, right there.  (I assume, sincerely, you were going for a humorous riposte?)

A: "Christianity is anti-Satan."

B: "Only according to Paul and his cronies."

Skewed view how exactly?

You read the New Testament as an tract on free enterprise?

If you are looking for a Rothbardian treatise on free enterprise, yes, you will be disappointed...just as someone looking for a Bible tract would feel let down by ol' Murray.

But, the Bible (NT included) is not hostile to the market economy.  Rather it assumes it and does reference it upon occasion:

Deuteronomy 25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out [the corn].

Matthew 10:10 Nor scrip for [your] journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

Luke 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

1st_Timothy 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer [is] worthy of his reward.

2nd_Thessalonians 3:7-12
3:7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not
ourselves disorderly among you; 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread
for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we
might not be chargeable to any of you: 3:9 Not because we have not
power, but to make ourselves an example unto you to follow us.

3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if
any would not work, neither should he eat.

3:11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly,
working not at all, but are busybodies.

3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus
Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

The Bible, and Christianity in particular,  is not a totalitarian creed where everything that is not forbidden is mandatory.  There is plenty of space left for a market economy.

Many Protestant faiths put forth that diligent, legal, and ethical work in a market economy is a "good work" in and of itself, as honest labor benefits many people other than just one's self.



I think you could benefit from speaking with my pastor, who earned his degree in economics before going into seminary, as well as his predecessor, who ran businesses across the USA before going to seminary.  They have a very healthy view on the intersection of economics and Christianity.

[MicroBalrog]

That's pretty funny, right there.  (I assume, sincerely, you were going for a humorous riposte?)

A: "Christianity is anti-Satan."

B: "Only according to Paul and his cronies."

What I mean is that 'conservatism' is not limited to Burkian existential conservatism. It also includes libertarians and classical liberals (or what, are you implying libertarianism is a left-wing movement? :D), as well as certain theocratic groups. These world-views are to some degree utopian.

(WhaT I think about Edmund Burke cannot be expressed in polite words).

[roo_ster]

What I mean is that 'conservatism' is not limited to Burkian existential conservatism. It also includes libertarians and classical liberals (or what, are you implying libertarianism is a left-wing movement? :D), as well as certain theocratic groups. These world-views are to some degree utopian.

(WhaT I think about Edmund Burke cannot be expressed in polite words).

I agree that there are several threads to conservatism.

I am not implying libertarianism is left-wing, but I am stating that libertarianism is not a branch of conservatism or synonymous with classical liberalism.

If it were, there would have been no need for the conservatism/libertarianism "fusion" project during the Cold War...and the quick fission after the CW showed the fusion not to be a permanent state.  Also, Hayek hinted at the distinction in his cryptically titled, Why I Am Not A Conservative.

I would argue that classical liberalism is not utopian in the way that libertarianism is.

Hmm, it seems that you hold a level of animosity toward Burke similar to the animosity I hold for JJ Rousseau.

I think Burke a fine antidote to the vacation from reality Jefferson took in his support of the French Revolution.  To think that one of the founding fathers supported the first atheist totalitarian state-cult in the history of Europe (and maybe the world), is an embarrassment...a sort of philosophical incontinence.

[MicroBalrog]

Edmund Burke had several things I dislike:

1.His opposition to revoution in general.
2.His support of tradition qua tradition.
3.His belief in the inability of people to design their own government.
4.His belief in gradual change as the only way forward.
5.His opposition to the beheading of Louis Capet. Good autocrats are dead autocrats.

[longeyes]

It has always been about where "Authority" is rooted.

Dissent is as old as Lucifer's fall and disobedience as old as The Garden.

Conservatives have never been comfortable with messy rebellion.

As for capitalism and the Church, we had 15 centuries before Luther brought a more libertarian spirit to Christianity (unless, as I do, you include the Gnostics and their spiritual cousins).  Of course Christians can be capitalists and enterprising, but that depends on the secular advances in banking, accounting, and contracts, not some top-down "order of things."

[roo_ster]

MB:

Maybe GK Chesterson is more to your liking:
"...all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post..."

Quite a bit to chew on, there.

[roo_ster]

As for capitalism and the Church, we had 15 centuries before Luther brought a more libertarian spirit to Christianity (unless, as I do, you include the Gnostics and their spiritual cousins).  Of course Christians can be capitalists and enterprising, but that depends on the secular advances in banking, accounting, and contracts, not some top-down "order of things."

Hey, as a member in good standing of a theologically conservative protestant denomination (http://www.lcms.org/), I take the back seat to no one when it comes to detailing the foibles of the RC church.

But, the RC church and the RCs themselves were not as backwards as you seem to imply.

It was RCs that developed double-entry accounting, venture capital, the concept of owning shares in a company (even the concept of a business "company"), stock exchanges...I could go on.

Yes, these were secular innovations not detailed in the Bible.  My question is, "What's your point?"

Your thesis needs some work.  More experience with more theologiaclly conservative Christians might help.

[longeyes]

More like CINOs, I would say.  (Roman) Catholics in name only.   There were many
"RCs" who followed the Church "officially" but entertained theologically renegade notions, and then there were closet secularists who were more interested in commerce than spiritual congress.

I didn't say that Christianity pre-Luther was "all dark," I said a new spirit of libertarianism arrived, openly in conflict with Authority.

But perhaps we are wandering here in a desert and should maybe start looking for water...?  :)

[guns and more]

We cannot just stand by and watch them suffer just because they're not brave enough or not sufficiently heavily armed to overthrow Hamas.

Yes we can. I remember watching on 9/11 as the palestinians danced in the street as the buildings fell. They can rot in hell.



However, 75% of Jewish Americans supported Obama, so when he he buys missiles for the palestinians, you will reap what you have sown.

[MicroBalrog]

Yes we can. I remember watching on 9/11 as the palestinians danced in the street as the buildings fell. They can rot in hell.


However, 75% of Jewish Americans supported Obama, so when he he buys missiles for the palestinians, you will reap what you sow.

1. I am not an American. Unfortunately.

2. Obama is not buying missiles for the Palestinians. At best he is going to be providing new houses for them (do you know over 50% Palestinians voted AGAINST Hamas?).

[MicroBalrog]

Netanyahu: We can outperform the global economy

"The Palestianians should understand that they have in our government a partner for peace, prosperity, and rapid economic growth."

Prime Minister designate Benjamin Netanyahu spoke this morning at the STEP Jerusalem Wealth Management Conference, saying that security, prosperity, and peace are all intertwined. Netanyahu said, "I will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority for peace".

The STEP (Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners) conference, in conjunction with Fortress Capital Management and Anglo Capital Ltd., was held in Jerusalem's David Citadel hotel.

Netanyahu said that he was glad Ehud Barak and the Labor Party had joined his coalition, saying, "We need a strong and stable national unity government". He later said, "The Palestianians should understand that they have in our government a partner for peace, prosperity, and rapid economic growth."

Netanyahu, who as finance minister was generally credited with turning around the Israeli economy in its last crisis, spoke of the steps taken then, and said that even now, "I think we can outperform the global economy".

The Prime Minister designate said that a strong Israeli-Palestinian economic relationship is a strong basis for peace. He noted, however, that the economic track is not a substitute for political negotiation, and said the Palestinian Authority security forces should "progress from policing to terror fighting".

He added that after speaking with Tony Blair, he felt that Israel can remove some bureaucratic obstacles to the Palestinians without compromising security.

Netanyahu concluded with some investment advice: "I urge you to invest in the Palestinian economy, and in the Palestinian-Israeli economic relationship".

Dylan Shub of Fortress Capital was the moving spirit behind the conference, which deals with the issues faced by individual and institutional investors who want to invest in the Palestinian and Israeli economies.

Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes-online.com - on March 25, 2009

© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd. 2009