Now that John McCain's decided he's through with John Hagee, what about his friends in the "pro-Israel" community at AIPAC and elsewhere. I've always wondered how a man whose view of his own policy prescriptions is that they'll lead to the destruction of Israel can count as "pro-Israel" but I suppose by the perverse logic some Jewish leaders apply, anyone who supports killing some Muslims somewhere must be a friend to our people. They started J Street to provide a home for those of us who are tired of that sort of thing, so check it out if you fit the bill.
« Parsley | Main | Early Polling »
Hagee and the Jews
23 May 2008 10:41 am
Comments (34)
Moshe Arens, the Likudnik who was thrice Israel’s defense minister, has a bracing op-ed in Haaretz in which he reminds those who insist that terrorism cannot be defeated by military force that they are forgetting (very recent) history:
As long as Israel seemed unable to find an effective answer to Palestinian terror [during the second intifada], the defeatists in our ranks claimed that terror could not be defeated by force, while the more cautious argued that terror could not be defeated by the use of force alone. The implication was that Israel had no choice but to concede to at least some of the terrorists’ demands–that they must be given a “political horizon.”
But once the Israel Defense Forces and the security services began to seriously tackle Palestinian terror, following the massacre at the Park Hotel in Netanya in the spring of 2002, it quickly became clear that terror could be defeated by force. As a matter of fact, it could be defeated only by the use of force. The terrorists view any hints of Israeli willingness to give in to a portion of their essentially limitless demands as a sign of weakness, which only serves to encourage further acts of terror.
But Israel’s victory over Palestinian terror, which put an end to the daily bouts of suicide bombings, also induced amnesia in the minds of some of Israel’s leaders. The lesson was quickly forgotten.
Exactly right. The extent to which Israel’s military victory in the intifada is simply not acceptable for discussion in enlightened quarters is amazing as a matter of cultural psychology. But this refusal also has a crippling effect on Israeli politics, as the military option against Hamas is continuously framed as a foreordained failure. Arens concludes:
A truce with the terrorists, meaning that Israel would cease its attacks against organizations in Gaza whose leaderships are pledged to Israel’s destruction, is ludicrous and self-defeating. It has not worked with Hezbollah, it will not work with Iran, and it won’t work with Hamas. Until such time as Israel adopts the only strategy that works in the war against terror — attacking the terrorists until they are soundly defeated — Israel will continue to be weakened, and its citizens will continue to be casualties of terrorist acts.
Compare:
Clueless J streeter Klein:
"Late last week, Gershom Gorenberg, an Israeli-based writer, reported that Khaled Meshaal, the head of Hamas, had stated his willingness to accept "a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 boundaries -- that is, alongside Israel, not in place of it." This statement, a bombshell if there ever was one, received coverage in the Israeli press, some mentions in the Italian press, and virtually no visibility in the English-language press."
Hamas
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/21/carter.hamas/
Talk about Heads in the Sand!!!
""a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 boundaries "
This is typical Hamas doublespeak. No where do they say they accept Israel's right to exist. They just accept a Palestinian state from which they will continue to try to destroy Israel.
""a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 boundaries "
This is typical Hamas doublespeak. No where do they say they accept Israel's right to exist. They just accept a Palestinian state from which they will continue to try to destroy Israel.
More on clueless Ezra Klein:
"Speaking as a Jew who's been to Israel [WHOOP DE-DOO; THAT MUST MAKE YOU SUPREMELY WELL-INFORMED, AS IN "HOLY SH*T, i JUST TALKED TO AN ISRAELI CAB DRIVER WHO CONFIRMED ALL MY LEFTIST LEANINGS" (ACTUAL CHANCE OF THAT IS 2%]and fears for his best friend who'll live in Tel Aviv this summer [CLUELESS -- IF YOUR FRIEND LIVED IN HAIFA, THEN MAYBE; BUT TA? TA WAS DANCING WHILE THE KAYTUSHAS WERE COMING OVER THE BORDER]; as an American repulsed by our complicity in the ethically indefensible expansion of the settlements and worried about our standing in the Arab world [EVERYTHING IS THE RESULT OF THE SETTLEMENTS]; and as a decent person who laments the fear and anger that poisons the lives of Jews and Palestinians alike [BUT NO MENTION OF SUICIDE BOMBINGS EZRA? GEEZ, WHY NOT?], it's long past time that the quiet majority who seeks peace and is exhausted by the continued prosecution past grudges and grievances asserted our role, and created a conversation in which participants didn't need to fear the backlash that would result if they prioritized the search for security above the positions adopted by Likud.[THOUGH THE LIKUD HAS NOT BEEN IN POWER IN MANY YEARS]"
Ezra -- MY -- why let facts get in your way? you guys talking about Israel/Palestine is a bit like me talking about dunking a basketball -- something i know very little about from personal experience but could, ignorantly, drone on and on about....
dave
STFU with this 'right to exist' nonsense. It means nothing. The Palestinians are willing to negotiate with the Israelis. Thats enough of a concession that the state can exist. Acknowledging the negotiating partners right to exist was never a condition for any other negotiation (USSr/US, DRV/US), so stop with the silly rejectionist position.
""a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 boundaries "
This is typical Hamas doublespeak. No where do they say they accept Israel's right to exist. They just accept a Palestinian state from which they will continue to try to destroy Israel.
rickm,
I can only assume that someone who begins his screed with STFU is more ignorant than thoughtful. so let me educate you on the "right to exist."
the reason everyone -- including Barack Obama -- insist that Hamas first recognize Israel's right to exist before negotiations begin is because for the past, oh say 100 years more or less, the Arabs (and many of their Western enablers on the Left) have been specifically saying that Israel has NO right to exist. Logic then dictates that if I sit down with you while you continue to deny my right to exist as a sovereign state, negotiations are likely to be a zero sum game.
Israel doesn't want to lose the zero sum game.
I'm not sure this will get through your thick "STFU" skull. But i hope it does. Read a little before you come to the party.
All due respect,
EK
dave, are you really as fucking stupid as you sound?
that applies to "EK" as well.
EK-
I don't know why you think snark and intelligence are incompatible.
Regarding your point, you wrote:
"the reason everyone -- including Barack Obama -- insist that Hamas first recognize Israel's right to exist before negotiations begin is because for the past, oh say 100 years more or less, the Arabs (and many of their Western enablers on the Left) have been specifically saying that Israel has NO right to exist. Logic then dictates that if I sit down with you while you continue to deny my right to exist as a sovereign state, negotiations are likely to be a zero sum game."
The truth is, however, that logic does NOT dictate that acknowledging the other negotiating partner's right to exist is the only way to prevent negotiations from being a zero sum game. This point is, as I have pointed out in my first post, supported by the fact that acknowledging the other negotiating partner's right to exist was never an important factor in previous negotiations between hostile parties. Your rejoinder that this is because 'the Arabs' have explicitly said that Israel has no right to exist doesn't adequately demolish my point because similar sentiments were expressed in those prior negotiations (like legitimacy, sovereignty, etc.)If Hamas refuses to verbally acknowledge Israel's right to exists, it does not preclude Hamas from using the ability to halt attacks against Israel as a bargaining chip.
Moreover, Israel's actual denial of the Palestinians right to exist in a sovereign state is a much more important issue that any of Hamas' potential verbal acquiescence to Israel's demands.
Joe,
Are you really as ignorant as you sound?
The Covenant of Hamas
See also: wikisource:Hamas Covenant
The 1988 Hamas Covenant (or Charter) states that the organization's goal is to "raise the banner of God over every inch of Palestine," in order to establish an Islamic Republic.
The thirty-six articles of the Covenant detail the movement's Islamist beliefs regarding the primacy of Islam in all aspects of life. The Covenant identifies Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and considers its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." Hamas describes resisting and quelling the enemy as the individual duty of every Muslim and prescribes vigilant roles for all members of society; including men and women, professionals, scientists and students.
The Covenant outlines the organization's position on various issues, including social and economic development and ideological influences, education, as well as its position regarding Israel. Amongst many other things, it reiterates the group's rejection of the coexistence principle of the peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
JOE -- I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES. NOW GO BACK TO YOUR 3RD PERIOD CLASS!!! DON'T BE LATE.
EK,
Just out of curiosity, when was it that Israel acknowledged Hamas's right to exist?
What's kind of interesting about most of the "pro-Israel" posters on Matt's comment threads is that they post under initials. It's as if they know their arguments are stupid, and are too embarrassed to associate them with their names.
William,
Looks like you need a little education too. The broad spectrum of Israeli politicians now accepts the necessity of a Palestinian state. They recognize the Palestinians as a people. That was the breakthrough of Oslo in 1993.
Hamas is a political party. It's not for Israel to accept or not accept a political party's existence any more than it matters whether the Socialists of France recognize the Republican party in the US.
But it makes zero sense for Israel to recognize -- as a party to negotiations -- a group that is dedicated to it's destruction (see post above). Would it have made sense for Israel to recognize the Nazi party? to what end?
EK
EK-
Wrong again.
Olmert thinks that Israel's right to the land between the sea and Jordan is beyond question.
Oh, the "necessity" of a Palestinian state. Is that the same as a right to exist? And of course, the issue is not really whether Israel negotiates with Hamas (which it's doing, by the way) but whether it is willing to negotiate with the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people, whichever party they are from.
Rick,
You expressed nothing in your prior post except for "STFU" -- really witty.
Shall I point out to you that not all negotiations are similar. there are different issues in each. The issue of each party's right to exist was not present in USSR/US negotiations. It was accepted that each state had a right to exist. Negotiations were commenced to prevent misunderstanding from turning into catastrophe.
A better example is China and the US (and the initial US-USSR relationship) -- the breakthrough in US/China relations happened when Nixon, in going to China, acknowledged the Chinese communists as legitimate rulers of the country (or at least rulers acceptable enough to have a relationship with). If Hamas took the Nixon to china approach to its "relations" with Israel, I would accept your point. They don't.
Your ridiculous assertion -- "If Hamas refuses to verbally acknowledge Israel's right to exists, it does not preclude Hamas from using the ability to halt attacks against Israel as a bargaining chip" -- besides making absolutely no grammatical sense, seems to imply that Israel should negotiate under fire. Why on earth the stronger party would negotiate under fire with a party they are physically destrying in a conflict is beyond me? but if that's your logic, then it's your logic rick.
William -- I don't believe that's your real name. Mine is Edward Keeble. I live in NY. I'm not in your high school so maybe you don't know me.
Did anybody ask William Kristol if he still stands by his judgement that John Hagee has been unfairly attacked?
From a Fox News discussion with Chris Wallace: http://mediamatters.org/items/200803230004
"
WALLACE: Let me switch to something else, Bill. With all the talk about Obama and Reverend Wright, I got a bunch of email this past week from viewers who said: "Why don't you ever talk about McCain and the evangelical -- some of the evangelical ministers who have endorsed him?" And let's put up a couple of these: Reverend John Hagee, who has called the Catholic Church a "false cult," and Reverend Rod Parsley, who has attacked Islam and said that Allah was a "demon spirit." Do you think it's fair, Bill, to compare McCain's, quote, "ministers" to Obama's pastor?
KRISTOL: No, because these are just individuals who've endorsed Senator McCain. I think, actually, some of the attacks, especially on Reverend Hagee, are unfair. "
EK-
Wrong again.
Olmert thinks that Israel's right to the land between the sea and Jordan is beyond question.
Rick -- provide one iota of evidence for this. one.
Believe whatever the hell you want about me, Edward Keeble. However, your puerile insults of people who disagree with you are not aiding the Zionist cause.
William,
Are you going to the prom with Betty Simpson or are you just going to snuggle up and read HITS that night?
Just asking.
EK
EK-
From the Washington Post, May 24, 2006, Olmert's speech to Congress:
"For thousands of years, we Jews have been nourished and sustained by a yearning for our historic land. I, like many others, was raised with a deep conviction that the day would never come when we would have to relinquish parts of the land of our forefathers. I believed and to this day still believe in our people's eternal and historic right to this entire land."
So, Olmert believes that the Jewish people have an "eternal and historical right to this entire land" of Eretz Israel.
Truly, Edward Keeble, your valiant, witty and original insults of people who are better informed than you has placed you in the pantheon of heroes of Zion. Your name will be remembered forever with Herzl and Ben Gurion.
I do, however, thank you for avoiding the tired "mom's basement" line of internet insults.
Actually, Heads in the Sand is a rather good book. You might even enjoy it.
Rick -- good one. but, like the lying snark you are, you leave out the operative part of the speech:
"For thousands of years, we Jews have been nourished and sustained by a yearning for our historic land. I, like many others, was raised with a deep conviction that the day would never come when we would have to relinquish parts of the land of our forefathers. I believed, and to this day still believe, in our people's eternal and historic right to this entire land.
But I also believe that dreams alone will not quiet the guns that have fired unceasingly for nearly a hundred years. Dreams alone will not enable us to preserve a secure democratic Jewish state.
Jews all around the world read in this week's Torah portion: "And you will dwell in your land safely and I will give you peace in the land, and there shall be no cause for fear neither shall the sword cross through the Promised Land".
Painfully, we the people of Israel have learned to change our perspective. We have to compromise in the name of peace, to give up parts of our promised land in which every hill and valley is saturated with Jewish history and in which our heroes are buried. We have to relinquish part of our dream to leave room for the dream of others, so that all of us can enjoy a better future. For this painful but necessary task my government was elected. And to this I am fully committed."
Rick -- just a question -- what part of "fully committed" don't you understand.
for the full speech, go here -- http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ehud_Olmert's_2006_Speech_to_the_US_Congress
Have you no shame rickm, now that i've caught you in a blatant LIE.
EK
EK,
What part of "to this day still believe, in our people's eternal and historic right to this entire land" don't you understand?
EK-
For one, I didn't lie. I excerpted the relevant part of the speech. I never said that Olmert believed that Israel would never compromise, or that it would never allow Palestinians to live and control land that Israel believes it has a right to. Indeed it supports my point about how utterly unimportant and vacuous are verbal acknowledgments of the other's 'right to exist' and who has the historical and eternal right to the land. These verbal acknowledgments have no bearing on what either party will be willing to compromise in negotiations.
Mr Burns,
the idea of being "better informed" than I am is laughable. have you added anything to this discussion?
at least rickm has tried -- through his obfuscations and sloppy reasoning. But you've added exactly zero.
FWIW, I'm a NY'er, not Jewish (as if that needs to be said). I've been to the region 24 times -- Egypt, Lebanon, Israel, including the territories, & Jordan. I've been to Gaza and talked with poor women and children and been to ramallah to speak with (absurdly wealthy) christians. I've lived with Palestinians from the territories while studying Hebrew in Israel and with Israeli soldiers while studying Arabic. I can even speak a bit of both.
and where do you come by your knowledge? from a sh*tty little book by an author who doesn't get up off his couch in DC?
just askin'.
EK
Dear rick -- or should i say -- thickm,
You initially said -- "Olmert thinks that Israel's right to the land between the sea and Jordan is beyond question" -- in order to drive home the point that Olmert's and Hamas' positions were identical, vis-a-vis each other.
The difference -- as if i need to point this out to anyone who can read -- is that PRIOR to entering negotiations, Olmert signalled to ANYONE with a brain, in the most PUBLIC place imaginable, that Israel, was willing to give up something pretty significant -- that she is willing to give up "sacred cows" in exchange for a peaceful future. Hamas has, at each point, stated its unwillingness to give up anything significant.
rather than proving your point that "verbal acknowledgments have no bearing" on negotiations -- Olmert's speech -- the part you left out, of course -- is precisely tuned to tell Palestinians that negotiations are preferable to arms.
EK
Billy burns -- obviously you are reading challenged as well.
How's Mom's basement working out for you guys? Can I come over and visit some time?
From Wikipedia:
"The Megaphone desktop tool is a Microsoft Windows application distributed by the World Union of Jewish Students and other pro-Israel organizations, through the Giyus.org website. Released on July 19, 2006, it delivers real-time alerts about key articles, videos, blogs, and surveys to subscribers so that they can voice their opinions and work together to support Israel on the public opinion front."
Chet, thanks for that reference. I was wondering how SLC knew to respond instantly to one of my posts without hanging on his browser all day long.
Look at the scum posting on this thread. A total hijack by right wing Zionist freaks. This makes TPM Cafe's freaks look civil.
Just reading these scum makes it clear that Israel has no right to exist. Any country supported by scum like this has no right to exist.
And you've gotta laugh about the one where "the IDF defeated terror" - as they bitch and moan about Hamas and the little rockets. Some "defeat", guys! Try again!
Better yet, try again in Lebanon, so Hizballah can hand the IDF their asses yet again.
You jerks couldn't even get a simple coup running in Lebanon a week or so ago. Hizballah cracked the Israeli commo code and moved first, sending your hired thugs running.
Tough tit, boys! Try again!
The comments section of this thread reminds me of the final scene in Blazing Saddles where a raging mob fistfight storms into the middle of a Hollywood musical film set.
Obsessively stalking a particular subject and then spamming pre-canned screeds ultimately reflects negatively on your position.
It still puzzles me that so many are tone deaf to this.
Comments closed June 06, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Taking It to the (J) Street
Noah Pollak - 04.15.2008 - 3:11 PM
I just got off a journalists’ conference call with the proprietors of the new “J Street” project, which fancies itself an enlightened answer to AIPAC. J Street’s website advertises the organization as “a new pro-peace, pro-Israel political voice” that will stand against the prevailing U.S.-Israeli mindset of “advocating military responses to political problems.”
So what does J Street want? A “comprehensive negotiated peace between Israel and all its Arab neighbors.” Well, what if some of those neighbors — Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas — don’t want the same thing? This is a forbidden thought. A similar litany of foggy platitudes surrounds other issues: “You make peace with your enemies, not your friends” (i.e., Israel should negotiate with Hamas.) The list goes on; to save time, imagine roughly the editorial positions of The Nation magazine in the mouths of lobbyists.
J Street places near the top of its list of supporters someone named Avram Burg, who may not ring a bell to many Americans, but who is notorious in Israel. Burg advocates, among other things, the dissolution of Israel as a Jewish state; recommends that Israeli parents secure foreign passports for their children; and compares Israel today to late 1930’s Germany. When asked during the call why someone like Burg is affiliated with J Street, the group’s proprietors downplayed and misrepresented the man’s radicalism. It is difficult to imagine how the J Streeters believe their organization will be taken seriously as a pro-Israel lobby at the same time they advertise the endorsement of a figure like Avram Burg.
One of the more interesting aspects of the J Street phenomenon is the belief that there are great battalions of American Jewish doves languishing in voicelessness, awaiting mobilization by leaders whose answer to Islamist terrorism is interminable dialogue. One of the salutary benefits of J Street might be a demonstration that the absence of a peace lobby is not the reason why diplomatic fetishism retains little currency among policymakers.
Posted by PL | May 23, 2008 11:14 AM