Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on February 27, 2009, 12:12:56 PM
-
http://wcbstv.com/national/hillary.clinton.israel.2.945238.html
Whodathunkit? You mean she only catered to "the jooz" to get the New York vote? And the Obama administration is choosing to increase support for the Palestinians? I'm so shocked... ;/
Jewish Leaders Blast Clinton Over Israel Criticism
Zuckerman, Lawmakers, Local Jews Say Secretary Of State Not The Hillary Clinton They Used To Know
Hillary Pressuring Israel To Speed Up Aid To Gaza Reporting
Marcia Kramer NEW YORK (CBS) ―
In a swift about face from her views as New York's senator, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now hammering Israel over its treatment of Palestinians in Gaza.
As First Lady, Clinton raised eyebrows when she kissed Suha Arafat.
Since she was then seeking a Senate seat the resulting brouhaha caused her to "re-think" her positions.
"I'm a very strong supporter of Israel," Clinton said back in February 2000.
On Thursday, as Secretary of State she had yet another about face in the form of angry messages demanding Israel speed up aid to Gaza. Jewish leaders are furious.
"I am very surprised, frankly, at this statement from the United States government and from the secretary of state," said Mortimer Zuckerman, publisher of the New York Daily News and member of the NYC Jewish Community Relations Council.
"I liked her a lot more as a senator from New York," Assemblyman Dov Hikind, D-Brooklyn, said. "Now, I wonder as I used to wonder who the real Hillary Clinton is."
Clinton's decision to hammer Israel comes as the Clintons and President Barack Obama are planning to give the Palestinians $900 million toward the rebuilding of Gaza in the wake of the Israeli offensive that was sparked by Hamas rocket fire.
"We are working across the government to see what our approach will be," Clinton said.
Is Hillary Taking Sides? Submit Your Comments Here.
"I don't believe that we should be in a position at this point to do anything to strengthen Hamas," Zuckerman said. "We surely know what Hamas stands for as I say they are the forward battalions of Iran."
For some, Clinton's change of position is upsetting.
"I feel it's unfortunate that they don't continue the policy of the Bush administration, which was much more pro-Israel," said Akiva Homnick of Jerusalem.
"I happen to have a lot of family who live in Israel and I feel, personally, when you are dealing with people who are very strong against you, you have to stand up to them," said Tami Davudoff of Kew Gardens.
"Hillary had Mrs. Arafat here and she invited Mrs. Arafat for lunch when she was the first lady," added Babak Chafe of Great Neck. "She is pro-Palestinian 100 percent, really. Of course, we always knew it."
"The easy way to make a peace agreement is to pressure Israel because you can't pressure the Arabs," said Solomon Loewi of Monsey, N.Y.
All this could lead to a chilly reception when Mrs. Clinton arrives in the Middle East next week.
The new U.S. envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, arrived in Israel on Thursday with a mission to inject new life into peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
-
They need a bailout, they bought the bigger rockets they can't pay for.
-
1. Hillary is an American Senator. She is not an MK. She is not sworn loyalty to Israel. If she believes that America can benefit from cutting Israel loose, then it is her duty as an American public official to act on these beliefs. Period. Israel is not sacred.
2. Saying Palestinian civilians have a right to decent living and that Gaza should be rebuilt is not somehow 'pro-Palestinian'. If a person says otherwise, they have an agenda.
-
1. Hillary is an American Senator. She is not an MK. She is not sworn loyalty to Israel. If she believes that America can benefit from cutting Israel loose, then it is her duty as an American public official to act on these beliefs. Period. Israel is not sacred.
2. Saying Palestinian civilians have a right to decent living and that Gaza should be rebuilt is not somehow 'pro-Palestinian'. If a person says otherwise, they have an agenda.
Except that most all of the funds going to the Palis are going to be siphoned off by Hamas to buy crap that they will then launch at you.
Gaza could have been a tourist resort. Instead it's a missile base occupied by people whose only purpose in life is sour grapes.
-
Except that most all of the funds going to the Palis are going to be siphoned off by Hamas to buy crap that they will then launch at you.
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.
More importantly: Hillary Clinton is not an Israeli official. She is an American public official. If the American interest can somehow be served by siding against Israel on some issue, it is her duty to stab Israel as hard and deep as she can.
-
2. Saying Palestinian civilians have a right to decent living and that Gaza should be rebuilt is not somehow 'pro-Palestinian'. If a person says otherwise, they have an agenda.
My agenda is for neither Israel nor Palestine to cause my country grief.
Israel succeeds at that. Palestine does not. Considering they are a leading state-sponsor of terrorist attacks, and democratically elected to put terrorists in power in their government, I'm just dandy with letting them roast in their own self-created juices.
Obama's blanket Palestinian amnesty infuriates me. I wonder how long until we get Palestinian terrorists in our country.
-
Obama's blanket Palestinian amnesty infuriates me. I wonder how long until we get Palestinian terrorists in our country.
We are going to import thousands as refugees. I pointed to the order he signed last month in a thread on round table.
-
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.
The 50% that didn't vote for Hamas stood idly by while they pelted Israel with rockets. By doing nothing they are as responsible as Hamas.
If they don't want to suffer the consequences of harboring thugs within their society then they should rid themselves of the thugs.
Otherwise they should just STFU, live with the consequnces of their actions/inactions and put their hands back in their pockets. But they will not do that because the USA is now ruled by a boneheaded bleeding heart who thinks money grows on trees and every poor, downtrodden soul on the planet needs some of it.
-
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.
More importantly: Hillary Clinton is not an Israeli official. She is an American public official. If the American interest can somehow be served by siding against Israel on some issue, it is her duty to stab Israel as hard and deep as she can.
Hmm... so we have three options:
1. Give money to the Palestinians in order to "Relieve the Suffering" that will, for the most part, just be used to prop up the Palestinian leaders and support their war against Israel.
2. Realize that sometimes "colonization" is actually better for the people there and just take over governance of Gaza
or
3. Stop trying to mess around in other countries.
Of these, my preference is #3. However, of these, #2 has the best chance of ending these problems.
Which one is most likely to occur, though? Oh right, #1 cause it's the one that makes us feel good even if it doesn't work.
-
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.
The 50% that didn't vote for Hamas stood idly by while they pelted Israel with rockets. By doing nothing they are as responsible as Hamas.
That is a ludicrous statement, thats like saying the Americans on board the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon are equally responcable for 9/11 as the terrorist who committed the atrocity. What means do the Palestinian people have to revolt against an elected part of their government?
If they don't want to suffer the consequences of harboring thugs within their society then they should rid themselves of the thugs.
How? Hamas is the armed orginization in Palestine, the Palestinian civilians would get slaughtered.
Otherwise they should just STFU, live with the consequnces of their actions/inactions and put their hands back in their pockets. But they will not do that because the USA is now ruled by a boneheaded bleeding heart who thinks money grows on trees and every poor, downtrodden soul on the planet needs some of it.
WoW. Well first off the USA has always has a reputation of suppling aid to foreign countries as a means of building a relationship with the international community. Not that I agree we should be suppling so much aid to ANYONE but ourselves during the current economic times but I think its ignorant that not many posters here can form a distinction between Hamas and the Palestinian people.
Hama is made up of Palestinian people, but the Palestinian people are NOT made up entirely of Hamas supporters.
A hypothetical situation would be if terrorist camps in Mexico went active and started committing acts of terrorism across the US and the federal government withdrew all federal aid to the Mexico and started bombing the entire country. To hell with the civilians there they should have taken up arms against the terrorists. Granted its a bit of a reach but I think you can see the point of the comparison.
-
Thats a pretty bias statement against the people of Palestine.
Yeah, it is.
They need to stop acting like bratty children stomping their feet, too, and take responsibility for their own future. Jordan kicked their behinds out for being lousy guests who caused a lot of trouble. Egypt built a border wall because they were killing Egyptian police. They demand stuff from Israel, then attack Israel. Nobody else in their right mind wants to deal with such a dysfunctional society in terms of selling them a damned thing. Nobody but the Iranian regime that's supplying them things that explode.
Jordan, on the other hand, is stable and has money from Dubai flowing in. Skyscrapers going up.
Biased? You bet. I'm not very PC, I'm a realist. Deal.
-
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.
More importantly: Hillary Clinton is not an Israeli official. She is an American public official. If the American interest can somehow be served by siding against Israel on some issue, it is her duty to stab Israel as hard and deep as she can.
I got some pretty poor grades in high school history, but what I've read since then has convinced me of the actual truth of the phrase "of the people by the people and for the people". It means that the people in a society -are- the power of the government. So, I respectfully disagree.
While I would not want the civilian walking by the trio setting a rocket launcher next to the local school to face recriminations for that I do believe that in aggregate the -people- that make up a country -do- have responsibility for it's government. And, in aggregate, the folks who call themselves "Palestinian" do pay a price for allowing hamas to continue. I sincerely look forward to the day that I can in some way help a group looking to throw off the reigns of hamas and move those people toward peace. I don't think it'll be next week though :)
-
That is a ludicrous statement, thats like saying the Americans on board the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon are equally responcable for 9/11 as the terrorist who committed the atrocity. What means do the Palestinian people have to revolt against an elected part of their government?
How? Hamas is the armed orginization in Palestine, the Palestinian civilians would get slaughtered.
...
The peoples power extends far beyond armed revolution, especially in countries with elections. They have economic, political (as long as they can vote in reasonably fair elections) and social power.
Economic- even if you are unemployed you have hours in a day to spend outside of scavenging for existence. Here you could make signs (and do much more). I don't know the conditions there but a kid with a spray can can make a point most places.
Social- when people in Gaza sit in a blacked out room with candles so foreign photographers can picture the "effects" of Israeli blackouts their friends can be verbally kicking their butts (and, points up to the posters on youtube who did that).
political- there's an election coming there, I believe there are organizations looking for watchers, there are certainly opportunities for people on the scene to walk around and talk to their friends about the cost of the last election.
My point here is not these three examples, they're only examples. But people have ways to effect power, even in Gaza, even without using force.
-
Biased? You bet. I'm not very PC, I'm a realist. Deal.
Yea, you sound like a bigot too. Its unfortunate your clearly unable to make a distinction between Hamas a terrorist orginization, and Palestinian people. Your probably the type who preaches about Nuking Iraq for the better of the world.
My point here is not these three examples, they're only examples. But people have ways to effect power, even in Gaza, even without using force.
I partially agree with your statement, but in reality I think is any Palestinian civilian that tried openly protesting Hamas is liable to get killed rather quickly. As I've said before Hamas uses civilians as a PR tool, they'll set up shop in a school, fire at Israeli troops, run and then blame Isreal when 10 Palestinian children are killed. I dont think it would be beyond them to murder people openly speaking out against them.
-
Yea, you sound like a bigot too. Its unfortunate your clearly unable to make a distinction between Hamas a terrorist orginization, and Palestinian people. Your probably the type who preaches about Nuking Iraq for the better of the world.
Oh, I'm a BIGOT because I point out the fact that the "Palestinians" are a broken society who need to take a good look in the mirror and be something besides a missile base of hate and jealousy. Right.
And keep your strawmen to yourself. Also, it's "you're", not "your".
-
Yea, you sound like a bigot too. Its unfortunate your clearly unable to make a distinction between Hamas a terrorist orginization, and Palestinian people. Your probably the type who preaches about Nuking Iraq for the better of the world.
Back off the name calling.
I decided to not lock it but I've got my eye on this one.
-
I dont think it would be beyond them to murder people openly speaking out against them.
It is not beyond them. They actively kill people who protest against them.
And, in aggregate, the folks who call themselves "Palestinian" do pay a price for allowing hamas to continue.
And?
The fact that a government is elected by majority vote does not mean that the civilians in the area in question 'have it coming'. As decent people, we are to be concerned about abuse of innocent civilians, whenever it may occur. More importantly, without economic development in Gaza and the West Bank, there will not be peace.
This is not some left-wing drivel position. This is the position of Binyamin Netanyahu and the Likud party. How is it anti-Israeli for Hillary to take the position of Israel's ruling party?
-
More importantly, without economic development in Gaza and the West Bank, there will not be peace.
[/b]
Got that backwards.
Investors are adverse to having their stuff blown up and appropriated by terrorists.
Jordan has LOTS of investment. Wonder why that is?
-
That does not exclude what Micro said. Palestine is in a negative feedback loop here, economy-wise!
-
That does not exclude what Micro said. Palestine is in a negative feedback loop here, economy-wise!
If they'd stop, oh...launching rockets, investors might actually take a look.
-
I've never understood why a Jewish person who had the slightest bit of understanding of their history and/or had empathy for the state of Israel would ever vote Democratic.
-
Have you missed the entire bit where the West Bank is not controlled by Hamas? Where missiles are not being fired from the West Bank? Where Israel and the West Bank people are negotiating a joint private-public project to make the area more welcoming to investors and to have European companies move in giant car factories there?
Again. This is the position of Israel's ruling party - that we need to help the moderate Palestinians put their country on its feet, create a middle-class and everything.
Are you implying Likud is anti-Israeli?
-
The West Bank is not Gaza.
-
The West Bank is not Gaza.
...I am quite aware of the geographic difference, thank you very much. I had a rocket from Gaza fall a block away from my house but a month ago.
-
What I mean to say is that Fatah, who appears to be getting along with Israel for the moment, wouldn't benefit nearly as much from the aid in question as Hamas would.
-
Look. My point is simple. It is the same policy as advocated by the Israeli government.
A carrot and a stick.
Kill Hamas militants dead while supplying new houses, food, and infrastructure to innocent people who live in Palestine. Provide the infrastructure for them to have normal lives, jobs, and 32-inch TVs rather than just sitting on the UNRWA dole. If a person loses their house in the fighting and they're not a terrorist, why is it a bad thing to rebuild it for them?
Now, you can argue that is the wrong policy.
But to denigrate Hillary as an anti-Israeli because she backs it is completely ridiculous, because the Israeli government holds the same position. Surely you would not argue that the Prime Minister of Israel hates the country.
-
In theory, I'd think thats a good policy for Israel. In practice, I think you will run into all sorts of problems with getting the aid into the right hands.
I denigrate Hillary Clinton for all sorts of reasons.
-
Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't like Hillary. But on this one, she's not doing some rabidly anti-Israeli thing.
P.S. FWIW I voted for Likud in the last election.
-
Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't like Hillary. But on this one, she's not doing some rabidly anti-Israeli thing.
P.S. FWIW I voted for Likud in the last election.
Except as I said, they won, and then promptly punched themselves in the crotch.
-
If they don't want to suffer the consequences of harboring thugs within their society then they should rid themselves of the thugs.
Yet we Americans harbor Congress - one of the most thuggish groups of people in the world, with a variety of alphabet soup organizations at their beck and call. Think of all the damage the CIA has done in the last five decades as it manipulates governments around the world. Congress is responsible for allowing the CIA and we are responsible for allowing Congress. I can see why some see America as a terrorist nation.
I'm playing devil's advocate of course, but we should spend more time thinking about what we can do to be the shining light on the hill that we're supposed to be.
-
Yet we Americans harbor Congress - one of the most thuggish groups of people in the world, with a variety of alphabet soup organizations at their beck and call. Think of all the damage the CIA has done in the last five decades as it manipulates governments around the world. Congress is responsible for allowing the CIA and we are responsible for allowing Congress. I can see why some see America as a terrorist nation.
I'm playing devil's advocate of course, but we should spend more time thinking about what we can do to be the shining light on the hill that we're supposed to be.
I imagine that when Americans start dying at the same rate as the palestinians do and we determine the reason to be Congress that there will be fewer getting reelected or otherwise returning to congress.
-
Except as I said, they won, and then promptly punched themselves in the crotch.
The perfect description of the Republicans after they came to power.
-
The perfect description of the Republicans after they came to power.
I do believe there's probably some deep cultural/philosophical flaw that makes people do that.
-
Except as I said, they won, and then promptly punched themselves in the crotch.
The perfect description of the Republicans after they came to power.
I do believe there's probably some deep cultural/philosophical flaw that makes people do that.
I think it's because many "conservative" politicians are simply acting the part; down deep, they're liberals at heart.
-
Naw, it's just humanity's inherently depraved nature. Power corrupts D's and R's equally.
-
The issue is simple in my mind. Modern US conservatism (and many of the conservative movements in the West) is a graft of several contradictory tendencies (something some people called 'creedal conservatism' and 'mindset conservatism'). I think most of us here would like to live in a society like the one Goldwater wanted – with no graduated income tax, a free market, a privatized/defederalized system of schooling. But on the other hand, a lot of people seem to be afraid of rapid change. They seem to think Obama is messing up America, but forget America was already 'messed up' before Obama. They're afraid of talking about the systemic differences between what we really want and what we really have – and some of them actually believe that the System is here to stay, so all we can do is to manage it in a more right-wing manner.
So then they come up with guys like McCain and Bush (and earlier, Eisenhower), or, on our side of the pond, Sarcozy and Bibi and so forth. People who talk the talk of free markets and individualism, but who want to keep wearing a suit and tie. People who won't hose out the ant hive, but instead keep growing it, perhaps at a lower pace. Second-rate arsonists.
Then we act surprised that the house is on fire.
-
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.
-
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.
:rolleyes:
Yes, the basis of individualism and western rationality (i.e. Christianity) is "non-rational" and corporate.
Funny, I think Adam Smith would disagree. (Amongst MANY others)
Edit: Also, WHAT does this have to do with Hillary?!
-
Adam Smith's moral beliefs were (and are) important underpinnings of his economic theories but they do not reflect the radical left-leaning interpretations of Christianity that are often cited today as reasons for wealth redistribution. Christianity can cut any number of ways. You had Christian socialists in 19th century England.
Why would anyone expect a leftist like Hillary to espouse anything other than a pro-Palestinian position, especially when she's working for Barack Obama?
-
Why would anyone expect a leftist like Hillary to espouse anything other than a pro-Palestinian position, especially when she's working for Barack Obama?
Again. How is supporting the de-facto position of the Israeli government a Pro-Palestinian position?
-
I think you will have to ask the Israeli government that question. You know more about the conflicting currents of political thought within Israel than I do, I'm sure, so you probably understand what to some appear baffling positions.
-
Again. How is supporting the de-facto position of the Israeli government a Pro-Palestinian position?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsk1.yt-thm-a03.yimg.com%2Fimage%2F5fdc9cf38df9d3e6&hash=6d591c513209ef0571d1d97551c25df621b08f15)
;/
Longeyes, you're falling for the communist/socialist hijacking of Christianity that has happened in the last 100 years.
I've decided I oppose the current Western idea of Human Rights.
This abusive concept is responsible for the staggering debt being foisted upon our unborn generations of Americans. It is an anchor around the neck of our Economy. It is a slimy miasma that seductively globs itself onto valid moral standards and then acts as a barrier to truly understanding them.
I'm not a bible thumper and haven't set foot in a church for service in about 5 years. I casually believe and deal with my relationship with God in my own way, at my own pace, on my own terms. Which basically amounts to a tip of the hat and a nod of acknowledgement every now and again, with some thanks thrown in here and there for truly remarkable things. I should probably do more... but I don't. :rolleyes:
But your understanding of Christianity is tainted by the new age community churches that are on the prowl for those easy to fool into communo-socialist practices. This is the "slimy miasma" I mentioned.
-
I'm not falling for anything. I'm an interested observer. I'm saying that are irreconcilable philosophical forces here that muddy our thinking. The irony is that the Left, which professes to be beyond such niceties as orthodox religion, has in fact absorbed at least the outward signs of the Sermon on the Mount.
I think, as A. Smith did, that capitalism requires morality but not the morality that is essentially anti-enterprise and pro-feudalism.
-
Surely we would not argue that the Prime Minister of Israel hates his country.
Nor would we argue that the President of the United States hates HIS country.
Or would we?
People can be sincerely misguided or...driven by darker impulses not fully known even to themselves. That's not news to anyone.
-
So you're telling me all of the political parties in Israel (with the exception, possibly, of Jewish Home with its 3 Knesset seats) hate the country and hold 'pro-Palestinian' positions?
That *I* hold a pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli position by saying that they have a point?
-
Whoa. I'm not telling you anything, I'm asking you what's going on. That factions within Israel are acting at cross-purposes wouldn't be a shocker, would it? I think we'd all like to understand better what's happening.
-
Surely we would not argue that the Prime Minister of Israel hates his country.
Nor would we argue that the President of the United States hates HIS country.
Or would we?
People can be sincerely misguided or...driven by darker impulses not fully known even to themselves. That's not news to anyone.
Well - I firmly believe that obama hates everything the US currently stands for. Personal freedom, personal responsibility for sure (can a true believer in the nanny state do otherwise). He hates the role the US has assumed in the mideast probably but may be pragmatic enough to overlook his what could be vs what is world view and do what is necessary to protect US Citizens from harm.
Leftists are elitists and Obama has shown his true colors along those lines already by his actions. He alone knows what's best for the country and his stooges in congress are ever willing and able to go along and play to his notions.
-
I think you got my drift.
There are a lot of "strange" things happening these days.
-
Whoa. I'm not telling you anything, I'm asking you what's going on. That factions within Israel are acting at cross-purposes wouldn't be a shocker, would it? I think we'd all like to understand better what's happening.
To my knowledge, absolutely every significant political player in Israel would agree with the following general statements:
1. That a Palestinian state must be formed in the near future.
2. That in order to ensure the security of Israel, major land concessions to the Palestinians are required.
3. That Israel must take action to improve the quality of living of the average Palestinian civilian, including helping secure assistance from civilized nations to build roads, electric power plants, to rebuild houses and so forth.
By this I mean that Labor, Kadima, Likud, and Israel Beitenu agree with these statement. Labor is a leftist party, Kadima is centrist, and the other two are right-wing. Obviously, leftist parties like Meretz and Hadash will also agree with these statements. Shas is making noises about this some times, but they don't actually oppose these policies in any significant way.
The only party which is on record for opposing these things outright is The Jewish Home, which represent the completely insane wing of the settlers.
-
The only party which is on record for opposing these things outright is The Jewish Home, which represent the completely insane wing of the settlers.
The insane wing? Your party, then, I presume. :P
-
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?
;/
-
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.
-
Oh, "geez". Back to the "anaolgies" again. "You" love quotes, "don't" you?
Try addressing the message, not the messenger.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...? :)
-
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.
-
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?).
-
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