Posted under Election 2008 & Israel
Al Franken and Norm Coleman subjected the voters and Minnesota (and Wisconsin too because we’re so close) to the vilest amount character trashing ever known to recent politics with their TV and radio advertisements that cost untold millions all through last year.
And yet, last weekend, both shared the stage at a Jewish community center in the Twin Cities suburb of St. Louis Park along with former Minnesota U.S. Senator and still non-entity Mark Dayton to all agree that Israel has every right, in fact even a responsibility (if you believe Tom Friedman) to blow Gaza to kingdom come.
Watching it on local TV news broadcast, it all looked so surreal, seeing two men who no doubt despise if not hate each other outright, come together over bloodshed and even joke about it too. (“We agree on absolutely nothing except…”, you get the picture).
I guess one can only say thanks to Israel to bringing these two bitter opponents together for one day to forget their differences and celebrate 1,000 Palestinian dead. Now that there’s an election coming soon in Israel, maybe the two of them can run on the same Kadima slate and continue to build upon their new found friendship.
Forget about Obama promising to bring the country together, Israel’s invasion of Gaza already done that, from Minnesota all the way to Washington D.C and Congress.
Weaver on 15 Jan 2009 at 12:07 pm #
Nation-states are wonderful, don’t get me wrong, but liberal Jewish Zionists are hypocrites.
Why is Israel special while America is a “nation of immigrants”?
Weaver on 15 Jan 2009 at 1:44 pm #
Antiwar.com article on the Arab-Israeli party banning.
roho on 15 Jan 2009 at 1:48 pm #
It’s almost comical to watch Congressmen and Congresswomen pander for Jewish Doners, like little monkeys tied to the “Organ Grinder”……….What happens when the Chinese can out-donate the Jews?(Or has the Clinton’s already tapped into that source?)
And Weaver is right regarding immigration comparrisons. The Israeli sometimes confuses the world by the meaning of immigration in context to conversation. A recent article stated that 30%+ of Israeli citizens support the idea of “Arab Immigration”………As I read farther, I realized that they were talking about immigrating Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt!
roho on 15 Jan 2009 at 8:00 pm #
AntiWar.com has some good links at the bottom to other stories within the last 48 hours such as:
Israel bombing the U.N. building in Gaza with refuges in there, with WHITE PHOSPHORUS which was outlawed at the Geneva Convention.
How Rueters and the media building has been targeted and bombed!(Remember the USS Liberty?) They hate witnesses.
And of course everyone should do a google search on the Israeli Poilitician that recomending NUKING Gaza! He’s the same genicidal Knessit member that recomended furnishing enough buses to carry all of the Arab/Israeli citizens to the Red Sea and drowning them all!
His name is AVIGDOR LIEBERMAN.(He represents Israel democracy?)
Andrew T. on 16 Jan 2009 at 12:34 am #
roho,
There is ample report of atrocities on both sides of this conflict.
Weaver on 16 Jan 2009 at 1:14 am #
Andrew,
I don’t doubt the Palestinians would commit an atrocity if they could, but they can’t.
Roho is right – the white phosphorus was shocking.
—
The question as always is: should the US be involved, not is Israel immoral? It’s none of our business.
Andrew T. on 16 Jan 2009 at 3:52 am #
The Palestinians are well-known to resort to human shields, made up of women and children. Don’t forget that detail.
Weaver, if you want paleodom to become more popular, I would find a better way to phrase it than saying “it’s none of our business” (which goes against the universal sense of morality possessed by Christians and really most people). Instead, make a point of grounding your argument in the pragmatic difficulties of enforcing the United States’ military power on other regions, and how everyone ends up better off if we follow your foreign policy.
If you do that, you only have to deal with the sea of people from all around the political spectrum that accuse you of being a “defeatist”.
Weaver on 16 Jan 2009 at 8:37 am #
It’s the same thing, just a different way of phrasing it.
Christianity doesn’t mandate that I meddle half way around the world.
I’m supposed to take care of my family and kin and those around me. A man who can accomplish that alone is great indeed. And if a miracle were to occur and everyone nearby were well off, then there’d be millions more in South Carolina alone.
I can’t bother with Palestine and Israel too – that’s none of my business.
—
We don’t really know how militants use “human shields”. All we have are military reports that are hardly unbiased. There is layer upon layer of propaganda and lies to sift through. The Israeli government is as dishonest as the American government, and the US “free press” is more pro-Israel than many Israeli news sources.
Al Qaeda I think it’s certain uses “human shields”, but each of these groups are different. All Muslims aren’t the same, and I suspect most Palestinian militants value their own people, simply because it’s a natural instinct.
Modern warfare involves propaganda. Each side attempts to dehumanise its opponent and make him appear evil. There is no honor in modern war; dishonesty is the rule. Warfare has always been dishonest, it’s like hunting you try to outsmart your opponent, but it used to be wrong to lie to one’s own people. And Christians certainly shouldn’t produce such lies, which I believe are only justifiable in specific circumstances.
—
There are Likud interest groups who want to use America to accomplish Likud goals. And there are defense contractors who want to make money off war. And there are other companies that want to make money off it. They aren’t trying to help, these are not saints, they’re each trying to accomplish their political and economic goals.
This is not about good and evil; this about using America.
The excuse is that the “democracy” of Israel is better than the “democracy” of Palestine. But the truth is, it’s interest groups. Recently there was even an Israeli official bragging about his influence over Bush, and it isn’t the first time.
—
Why did America and Britain not go to the aid of Rhodesia after Carter brought in Mugabe? Our governments helped destroy that state, a Christian people known as being “more British than the British”, and there was never much of an attempt to defend the whites there (they were called “whites” and had most everything they owned taken from them) let alone anyone else who got in Mugabe’s way.
The reason? Rhodesia didn’t have a good lobby, and also America was in the middle of an egalitarian frenzy. Had Ian Smith established a lobby group in America, he might still have his country.
Weaver on 16 Jan 2009 at 12:59 pm #
I’m not a universalist, but I don’t wish anyone harm of course.
I don’t like that the US and Britain helped destroy Zimbabwe, and I do hope the US isn’t doing too much damage elsewhere. We are slightly responsible for what the empire does to others, but we’re also slightly responsible for what it does to Americans, and we have the higher duty to defend Americans first from the evil empire that is our government.
And certainly I’m more inclined towards Rhodesians because they’re Christian and British, though again Rhodesia was a foreign state. Britain certainly should have helped its colonists though.
Gen 9-12. Man was meant to be tribal.
Weaver on 16 Jan 2009 at 1:16 pm #
Actually, it’s conceivable there might be some natural disaster I might favor either a government institution or private charity sending aid for, and missionaries ought to be sent out in general.
I dunno what the ideal is, but currently the US meddles too much and can’t be trusted to do most anything. And private charities are often poorly run.
I shouldn’t take an absolute stance and say there’s never a case for helping people on the opposite side of the globe, but regardless we shouldn’t have anything to do with any foreign state right now.