President Jimmy Carter has an op ed in today’s Washington Post that calls the current military actions in Gaza “an unnecessary war.” As you might imagine, this provoked much hooting of derision from the Right Blogosphere. In right-wing iconography, President Carter is the Ghost of Liberal Wussiness Past, and he can have nothing to say that they will hear.
Elsewhere, however, Andrew Bacevich writes,
THE ISRAELI military action in Gaza raises both moral questions and strategic ones. The moral issues are more complex than partisans on either side are prepared to admit. Not so the strategic issues: here the verdict is clear. Israel’s return to Gaza constitutes a tacit admission of strategic failure now stretching back four decades.
How is that not true? Whatever you think of the moral issues surrounding Gaza, the Israeli policy toward the Palestinians has failed. The actions of Israel over the past several days is an admission of failure.
No matter what this particular round of fighting may achieve, the conflict will continue. Indeed, the punishment inflicted on the residents of Gaza all but ensures its perpetuation.
Again, this is the plain truth many of us have been saying. In the collective adolescent brain of the Right, because there is Palestinian terrorism and because there are people who hate Jews because they are Jews, anything Israel does is justified. And if you criticize Israel, you must be for Hamas.
But I think for most of us it’s not about being for or against anything. Indeed, if I could will the nation of Israel to stay right where it is and enjoy many centuries of security and prosperity, I would do so. If I would will Hamas to dissolve, I would do so. The plain truth that the Right refuses to acknowledge is that Israel’s policy has failed. It has been failing for a long time, and there’s no earthly reason to think it will not continue to fail.
As always, Professor Bacevich’s op ed is worth reading all the way through. But now I want to switch gears a bit and take up an article Juan Cole wrote for Salon: “Neoconservatism dies in Gaza.”
For years the neoconservative fantasy was that if Saddam Hussein were taken out, all the problems of the Middle East would somehow unravel. That this theory made no sense whatsoever never deterred them. No end of overeducated and overpaid dweebs in the American Enterprise Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Hudson Institute, and of course the Project for a New American Century, etc. etc., pushed this magical thinking as holy writ. And, finally, it became Bush Administration policy.
However, I think Professor Cole is a fool if he think neoconservatism will shrivel up and die just because it has been shown to be colossally wrong. Magical thinkers are magical thinkers. They will take up some new and equally nonsensical idea and run with it, eventually.
Actually, I don’t think Israel’s policies have failed in that all that has transpired on that god-forsaken piece of real estate was planned long ago. We’re talking a plan that encompasses years, perhaps centuries until Israel realizes what has merely just begun.
The big picture for Israeli zealots is their eventual hold – apparently promised by god – on all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates. Making life miserable for Palestinians is only step one. Iraq, the invasion of which was instigated by AEI types among others, is only another step. If they have their way, Iran is next.
Sound ludicrous? Study the marches throughout history of conquests made in the name of some religion and it’s not ludicrous.
Pingback: American Street » Blog Archive » You May Not Be a Liberal
Is there a link to Bacevich op-ed?
Magical thinking only works if you know how magic works, just as scientific thinking only works if you know how science works. Unfortunately for everyone, neocons have no idea how anything works.
The Bacevich piece is here.
There’s legal, and there’s moral, and then there’s sensible. Sometimes the three don’t even overlap.
This gent:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allan-gerson/proportionality-and-dispr_b_156068.html
patiently explains how Israel’s latest incursion is perfectly legal. (He tries, and IMO fails, to explain how that makes this incursion a proportional response. I believe he fails because he omits any examination of morality or common sense.)
Now, it’s certainly not moral for Hamas to draw the IDF into close urban combat in Gaza, but from a common-sense perspective, it entices Israel to attack civilian homes, schools and relief convoys. Hamas feeds on Israel atrocities (or “accidents”).
If, unlike Hamas, the Israeli government truly seeks peace, it needs to use common sense of its own. Is it legal (under international law) for Israel to proceed as it has? Apparently it is. Is it moral? That’s definitely arguable. But when it comes to achieving stated goals, does this incursion make any sense? Only if Israel’s goals are the same as those of Hamas– to perpetuate hatred and bloodshed, at any cost.
I don’t know of any conservatives who believe(d) that toppling Sadam would accomplish much of anything outside Iraq. Further, I agree that most of the last 40 years of Israeli dealings with the Palestinian issue have been a failure. Negotiating in good faith with people who don’t believe you have any right to exist is a waste of time. At no point has Israel ever gotten anything except more pain from any of the concessions she has made throughout the years. It is magical thinking indeed to expect that the same groups who have stated that their raison d’etre(E.G. Hamas, PLO,) is the destruction of Israel could ever be counted upon as reliable peace partners.
Are you a serious thinker? I think not.
On the contrary, the derision cast Mr. Carter’s way has more to do with him classifying the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt as ‘defensive’ than his proclamations about whether the actions taken by Israel were necessary or not.
After quoting Andrew Bacevich you state…
The failure isn’t in Israel who is only doing what people like you have forced them into. The failure is with the UN and all those who have forced Israel into negotiating with the PLO, Hamas, et al.
Next…
You, sir or ma’am, are a hypocrite. You sit here lambasting the “collective adolescent brain of the Right”, because you believe they see no wrong on the part of Israel, yet in a gross display of simplistic thought, you claim the “collective adolescent brain of the Right” summarily declares all who criticize Israel are all for Hamas.
And then…
Exactly what policy are you talking about? Define it and explain it. From what I’ve read so far, I really doubt you know.
And then you say…
I’d love to read Bacevich’s piece and see for myself, but you forgot the link. And as for Jaun Cole… Now I understand how you’ve come up with you delusions.
After that you say…
For years the neoconservative fantasy was that if Saddam Hussein were taken out, all the problems of the Middle East would somehow unravel. That this theory made no sense whatsoever never deterred them. No end of overeducated and overpaid dweebs in the American Enterprise Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Hudson Institute, and of course the Project for a New American Century, etc. etc., pushed this magical thinking as holy writ. And, finally, it became Bush Administration policy.
Is that your astute and educated opinion, or just the blathering of the nutroots? I’d guess the latter.
In fact, the goal for Iraq was democratization and the model was Japan (or Germany). There was about 8 years of occupation in Japan before we turned over the control of the government to native Japanese rule. We are certainly ahead of schedule when viewed from that light.
I find it ironic you attack the American Enterprise Institute and yet it was Peter Wallison from the American Enterprise Institute who predicted correctly the consequences of Bill Clinton’s rule change for GSE’s, when he stated in 1999, “From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us.” He followed that with, “If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”
Here’s the link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Lastly you say…
You guessed one thing correctly… Juan Cole is a fool, but he’s a fool for other reasons.
It’s interesting and tragic to me that geopolitical decisions made in the wake of gigantic conflicts have enormous consequences, unforeseen, that lead to ever more conflict.
The treaty of Versailles, after WW1, penalized Germany to such an extent, that Hitler rose up in response and plunged the continent into war only a generation later. We’ve since learned that punitive measures such as these are counterproductive, and we generally don’t do them anymore.
The creation of the state of Israel, after the Holocaust, has spawned unending violence in this region, and even at home, with a chain of events leading to 9/11. Had the creators of this state been aware of what they were unleashing back in 1948, would they have hesitated or sought a different solution? Please don’t misconstrue this as an anti-semetic comment – it isn’t – I’m just being practical by doing some “what-if” thinking. I see the unending violence committed by both sides as the consequence of a poorly thought out solution.
Your comment suggest a lack of historical knowledge of the forces at play in the Middle East. The fact of the matter is, Muslims have engaged in internecine, religious and ethnic warfare going back as far as the 7th Century.
Are you a serious thinker? I think not.
“Serious” in the wingnut lexicon means “war and destruction are the only solutions ever worth considering.” So in that sense, no, I am not serious.
I don’t know of any conservatives who believe(d) that toppling Sadam would accomplish much of anything outside Iraq.
You need to broaden your knowledge base. There is an entire genre of wingnut literature going back to the mid 1990s dedicated to nothing else but the idea that if only Saddam Hussein were taken out all the problems of the Middle East would disappear. Google “PNAC” sometime, or maybe someone else here wouldn’t mind providing the links.
The fact of the matter is, Muslims have engaged in internecine, religious and ethnic warfare going back as far as the 7th Century.
So have Christians, Kevin, on a massive scale. Your point?
As an American Indian, I look at many of these wars a bit differently. As for Kevin and his comments, I think he should go back where he came from and get off my land. However, I puzzle over these wars, which seem to be pointed at some particular bad guys; e.g., bin Laden, Hamas. I have always heard that if you want to kill the snake, cut off the head. Yet, the wars seem to never end and the head of the snake is still in tact. (Of course, in the illegal, immoral, and genocidal war in Iraq, the head of the snake has been killed and the war still goes on. Hmmmm . . .) I have also heard that Israel has a really good secret service, I wonder why don’t they secretly infiltrate Hamas; and, then, kill the leaders when they are discovered; thus, leaving the innocent bystanders alive.
On a less serious note, today is Elvis’ birthday. If he were a live, he would be 74. I personally cannot imagine a 74-year-old Elvis. But, there is no one–absolutely no one–who can sing “Blue Christmas” like Elvis.
Star Treck TNG: Booby Trap “While investigating an ancient ship left adrift in space, the Enterprise accidentally trips the ancient booby trap that disabled the old vessel over 1000 years ago.”
Some of you may rember the episode; the mighty Enterprise could neither flee by impulse or warp drive nor blast their way out. Some other option had to be found. There’s truth (and I mean absolute truth) that Israel can not win by military action, and there’s truth to the claim that past negotiations have not improved the security of Israel. But I refuse to accept that this is a puzzle with no solution.
If and when we achieve peace, it will be because Israel, the Pallistinians and the organization that hammers out a ‘deal’ transcend traditional thinking.
What’s with comment #10?. I can’t make the connection between moonbat’s comment and Kevin’s response. . Is it like some sort of a koan?
Kevin, do you go to school or by bus?
I can’t make the connection between moonbat’s comment and Kevin’s response. . Is it like some sort of a koan?
Koans make more sense.
Swami – I think moonbat (in # 9) was making a valid historical observation. Kevin was responding, “But they started it.”
Maybe a more accurate post title would be “Dadaist Thoughts.”
Misinformed and bigoted non sequiturs strung together, trying to pass as a worldview.
Here are three items to chew on;
few realize that Predident Carter narrowly averted a full scale nuclear war with the Soviet Union, he is the best and most heroic President since Kennedy. Suck on that Kevin…..
Why isn’t Israel using their “Patriot missile defense system”, that billion dollar baby provided by the U.S.A.?
Either the weapon doesn’t work, or well….
it will not work on the punny Pal. missiles?
Rumor has it that oil and natural gas have been discovered in Gaza waters.
Something is rotten in Haifa.” by way of deception, thou shalt do war”
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-why-do-they-hate-the-west-so-much-we-will-ask-1230046.html
HERE’S A BIT ‘O MAGIC….
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/01/08-9
Kevin and moonbat both had valid points. Kevin said that neighborhood is a rough one, it didn’t need Israel to be turbulent. Moonbat said that Israel’s foundation may have been poorly thought out. I don’t see any conflict between those comments.
On the one hand, founding a nation in that region is just asking for trouble. On the other hand, if we’re going to play alternate history, then Israel probably hasn’t made the situation any worse than it would have been.
I agree with Kevin that, were there an Israel or not, the Middle East would still be in trouble, if only because of oil, modernity and centuries-old ethnic feuding. I agree with Moonbat that it’s still a open question whether Israel was a good idea. What alternative propositions does moonbat have in mind?
Seems to me that in some dark & deranged corners of Rightie World, killing is {i}always{/i} the answer. Kill Bin Laden. Kill Sadam Hussain. “Kill him [Obama]” shouted at a McCain rally. “If only the other students at Virginia Tech were carrying guns on their person, they could have killed the gunman…” Etc., etc. So Israel killing Hamas (and a lot of civilians with them) makes perfect sense to them. The fact that killing creates more terrorists is totally beside the point. Just kill those terrorists too; it’s a no-brainer.
Btw, “magical thinking” is one of the major symptoms of mania, “Magical thinking is the rule in mania” as are “…distractibility and delusions with an omnipotent and omniscient content,” quoting from {i}Observations on Mania{/i} by Thomas Freeman. (No, i’m not a shrink, but I occasionally play one on the ‘net.) Consider that in the context of the last eight years.
Ah, rats, Joan – I misread your post elsewhere. You meant that I need to replace your {} with angle brackets. Sigh. I’ll figure this out some day.
paradoctor #20, good question. I don’t have any alternative solutions – my knowledge of the context of Israel’s creation is very limited. The 2000 year Jewish diaspora worked OK, sort of, except for all those pogroms here and there – clearly that’s what the state of Israel was intended to end.
On the formation of Israel – and I really don’t intend to be offensive here, and hope this isn’t interpreted as offensive in any way – if anyone had an opportunity to learn the WWII lesson that “nationalism is bad,” it would be the Isralis. We just keep repeating the same mistakes. There’s only so much dirt to live on, and we all have to live there. Work it out, guys.
I was struck by the pictures and videos of the former presidents alongside George W. and of course our incoming president. Other than Obama, the most alert person in the room was Jimmy Carter.
Kevin reminds me of the self-justifying character General Armin von Roon in Wouk’s The Winds of of War. Everybody is a fool or an imbecile except him.
Pingback: Jimmy Carter on “An Unnecessary War” « Liberty Street
Just a couple of other links worth reading:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/01-4
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/08-9
Listen to you pathetic rubes with your righty world demogoguery.
If the natural tendency for the right was to wage war first, then North Korea to Iran to Russia should already be smoldering ruins. As well, there are numerous historical examples that are contrary to the strereotypes being used on this site to castigate the right. Even Nicholas Kristof had to admit the truth that vis-a-vis charitable giving, those on the right put their money where their mouth is, and those on the left are the tightwads.
Ultimately, it seems all you people really have in your arsonal against the evil right, are seriously pathetic ad hominem attacks and stereotypical over-generalizations.
And as for paradoctor, this person seems to get the point I was making as it applied to violence in that region and the creation of the state of Israel.
While the creation of the state of Israel may have brought the bigotry and tribalism rampant in Muslim culture to the surface, it did not create it. For many centuries prior to the creation of Israel, the Jews who lived in the area in and around the predominately Jewish city of Jerusalem, were relegated to second rate citizen status and taxed at a higher rate as part of either the Ottoman Empire or any of the various Islamic empires that existed prior to the Ottomans.
For many in that region, Jews could only be tolerated so long as they stayed in their place under Muslim rule. It is only in that strictest of sense that the creation of the state of Israel caused any of this. If not for this bigotry, the creation of th state of Israel in 1948 would have been seen as the creation of just one more in a series of nation-states that had come into existence since 1920.
“bigotry and tribalism rampant in Muslim culture”?
‘Ever read the “Old Testament”?
I hear this rediculous argument “they have been fighting for centuries, they will never stop” Regarding the Arabs and Jews.
That statement is interesting since THIS country was formed after a revolution, numerous wars against native populations, wars to gain real estate from France, Spain,and England, numerous foreign wars “from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli”
Bigotry and tribalism are the hallmarks of the human race, not just Muslim culture.One would think we could evolve beyond this, but I fear we never will.
If the natural tendency for the right was to wage war first, then North Korea to Iran to Russia should already be smoldering ruins.
The Right (which were not always the same as Republicans) have not had free rein to run anything until after the 2002 midterms, after which they promptly bleeped up the planet. Before that, we either had more moderate commanders-in-chief or, or a conservative President was restrained by a Democratic Congress.
But even Reagan, the most right-wing post WWII president before Bush II, had some sense to know when to quit, such as high-tailing it out of Lebanon after the Marines barracks bombing. Reagan was more talk than action about most things. He talked right-wing but his actual policies often were less radical than his speeches, possibly because he had to deal with Congress.
Before Reagan, Republican presidents generally were moderates in comparison to today’s flame-throwing Right. The Right that took over the GOP from the 1980s on, and who dominate it today, are the descendants of a group called “pseudo conservatives” in the 1950s, back when they were just fringe whackjobs with no power at all. These people wanted Eisenhower to bomb China, and Eisenhower had enough sense to ignore them.
Really, dude, you should learn some history.
All — I didn’t have time to referee yesterday. Have y’all had enough of Kevin yet, or are you still having fun whacking him?
Barabara – not quite finiahed with our buddy, Kev. He’s obviously math impaired. In 7 years the rocket attacks have killed a total of 3 Israelis. What’s the death toll in Gaza? 600? How many children?
So you have to be math impaired to only see the fault in the Muslim Culture? The only ‘good’ that may come out of the excesses of Israel is that some 3rd party may intervene to hold both groups back.
There are some horrific parallels between the way Israel is withholding humanitarian aid – and has for months before the conflict, in the same the way Stalin starved the farmers into submission in the Ukraine. It’s an ugly, inhumane tactic.
That said, you won’t find anyone on this blog who is more in favor of Isralels right to exist, and I have made it as clear as Jimmy Carter did that the shelling of civilians in Israel by Hamas is a terror tactic that must cease.
But look at both sides and do the math.
Off topic and you don’t need to post this, but a serious suggestion. As we come up on 10 days prior to the Innaguration I suggest it’s appropriate that maha do a daily countdown in BIG letters.. 10 .. 9.. 8. Really, as a spokesperson for the loyal opposition for YEARS, you shoud do it, and feel a sense of great pride for your contribution during the dark years.
maha — hahaha — historically challenged doesn’t even begin to describe yours and your comrades analysis. A generous description is that analysis is it is distorted by partisanship. A more accurate description is that it is an analysis from an opportunistic liar who has an ax to grind.
The simple fact of the matter is, if fundamentalist Muslim’s in Gaza wanted peace and honestly negotiated a settlement with Israel, we’d have peace. Would the same occur if Israel disarmed itself in the name of peace? I think not.
Sadly, my simple, but astute observation and question will find ridicule with you supposedly open minded people. But then true open-mindedness is actually antithetical to the left.
But I digress. The point here that you sycophants for Middle Eastern extremests always seems to ignore is that Muslims have hated and killed Jews long before the creation of Israel. Yet for you morons, it’s all the fault of the Jews. Those silly Jews, they should have never had the temerity to want their own nation in the historical homeland of the Jewish people.
Moonbat said, “The 2000 year Jewish diaspora worked OK, sort of, except for all those pogroms here and there – clearly that’s what the state of Israel was intended to end.”
I hope you were being facetious, Moonbat, when you said the Diaspora “worked OK, sort of”. I really don’t think now’s the time to go over the 2000 years of violence against Jews–and this sad history is certainly not a justification for what’s being done in Gaza right now–but I really have to call you on what to me is a statement which demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge of the history of the Jews. Hopefully, you WERE just being facetious. If not, I’d be happy to fill you in on the constant and horrific persecutions of the Jews in the Diaspora up until just past the middle of the 20th century.
Once again, I repeat that this history cannot be used as justification for current events. In fact, if both the Israelis (and Diaspora Jews) and Palestinians continue to justify their actions based on recent and ancient history, a peaceful settlement will never be found.
In a perfect world, the modern creation of the State of Israel would not have been necessary. Some Jews would have perhaps still wanted to live in their people’s ancestral homeland, but the creation of a political entity would not have been imperative. This political homeland is a direct descendant of centuries of progroms in Europe (from England to Russia and all points in between) followed by the ultimate pogrom, the Holocaust.
But two (or 6 million and 2) wrongs do not make a right. As a Jew, I have struggled with my attachment to the idea and yes, the need, for a Jewish homeland versus my discomfort with some of the facts of its modern founding.
Israel was founded in much the same way as the US and Canada were founded–by displacing and sometimes outright killing the indigenous populations (though it is important to note that there was always a small Jewish population in Palestine throughout the time of the Diaspora). The only reason, sad to say, that North American indigenous populations have not risen up in sustained (I stress the word) revolt is that it took another 200-odd years before colonialism was seen for what it is and condemned.
If Europeans tried to take North America away from its indigenous inhabitants today, imagine what an explosion of protest would take place–just like what we’re seeing in most of the world today vis-vis Israel’s actions.
So where does this leave us? I have the distinct impression–though I will not point a finger at any particular Maha faithful reader–that some would say the only alternative is to dismantle the State of Israel and give the land back in its entirety to those who were displaced in 1948. To them I answer that we North Americans should then all move back to our countries of origin (but then again, I suppose that would mean I should go to Palestine, despite the many centuries my parents’ families spent in eastern Europe) and leave this continent to the Crees, the Abenakis, the Mohawks, the Inuit, and all the other tribes I have failed to name.
I don’t think that’s going to happen, no matter how basically logical it seems. In North America, very, very few people question the right of all to continue living here, no matter when or where we originally came from.
Applying this same logic to Israel/Palestine, the only solution seems to be to create two real (as opposed to puppet) states that are ready to live in peace, side by side. It means giving up the ancestral homes of Arab families in Haifa, lost only 60-some years ago. It means abandoning all Israeli settlements on the West Bank. It means no more Israeli control over the affairs of Gaza (border controls must go). It means putting a total and immediate stop to the shelling of towns in Israel.
It means that neither side will get anywhere near all that they want and that both sides must give up things that *seem* entirely non-negotiable. I don’t feel particularly optimistic (one of the largest understatements I’ve ever made in my life!) but I see no other solution.
The murder of innocents is unacceptable. That and the fact that neither camp has a monopoly on being right or being in the right are the only truths that I recognize.
For a starter Kevin needs to tighten up on his online social graces. It was his hostile tone coming out of the starting gate in comment # 8 that made his stupidity stand out more than it might otherwise have. To make the comparison between the occupation of Iraq and that of Japan following WWII where the only remotely common denominators are an American occupation, and an unfixed time frame is an indicator than Kevin might be trying to buffalo the crowd with a cursory knowledge of history. The only rehabilitation for stupidity is the acknowledgment of it, Kevin.
Kevin, #38 — First, I don’t consider nyah nyah nyah to be a viable argument. You are supposed to actually show me where I’m wrong.
The simple fact of the matter is, if fundamentalist Muslim’s in Gaza wanted peace and honestly negotiated a settlement with Israel, we’d have peace. Would the same occur if Israel disarmed itself in the name of peace? I think not.
STRAW MAN ALERT. I don’t think Israel should disarm. I have never said Israel should disarm.
“Fundamentalist Muslims” in the Mideast do not want peace, of course. This is why the only long-term solution is to persuade the Muslim majority in the Mideast to stop listening to the hate-mongers. This is why indiscriminate bombing is not a coherent policy for Israel, because it has the effect of creating more fundamentalist Muslims and cementing Hamas’s power.
Put more simply, every bomb Israel drops makes Hamas stronger.
Oh yes smarmy… err, swami… we have a starting post that attacks those on the right as having an “adolescent brain”, “overeducated and overpaid dweebs” and “magical thinkers” and you have the hypocrisy to claim my tone was hostile?
Your a hack and not worthy of further dialog.
A Canadian Reader, at the very least, has a far more realistic view of this situation than the preponderance of commenters I’ve seen so far, but there is one assertion I will challenge, which is this, “…though it is important to note that there was always a small Jewish population in Palestine throughout the time of the Diaspora.”
Setting aside the fact that there was never a nation called Palestine, you assertion here suggests that the Jewish population in the area was a minority population until the creation of Israel. But all information, particularly the census’ taken by the Ottomans, ought to prove that Jewish people were always the majority in the area around Jerusalem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jerusalem
Guys, you’re on your own with Kevin for a few hours. I have other work to do. I’ll check back later. If there is sentiment toward banning him, he’s gone.
I would like to commend Canadian Reader on what is by far the most intelligent comment on the IP situation that I have seen on any blog anywhere since this latest tragic episode began. I particularly cheer your point about the Native Americans, because the hypocrisy of those who condemn Israel as a land grabber has always been disturbing to me — unless, as you say, they’re willing to cede their own homes back to the various tribes that THEIR ancestors displaced.
I also really appreciate the general sanity and civility of the discussion here on this issue. As a supporter of Israel (though not of its current actions) I have also been deeply disturbed by some very ugly sentiments that I have seen emerging on other “progressive” blogs.
Oh, and maha — hahaha… go ahead an ban me. That’s in the nature of leftists anyway, so embrace your leftism and be a little Castro, or Mao or Lenin or Stalin…
And it’s in the nature of righties to be assholes.
For the record, a strawman fallacy is where a person ignores the actual position argued, and replaces it with an easily refuted position, and then acts as if they’ve refuted the original argument..
Yes, very good. Now, based on the rest of your comment, I’d say the next phrase you need to work on is “intellectual dishonesty.”
When they call you an asshole you know you hit the nail on the head.
Kevin,
We are all guests here at the Mahablog. A little civility goes a long way.
With respect to your assertion regarding the Jewish population of Palestine, I quote the Wikipedia and part of its definition of “Palestine”:
“Palestine is a name which has been widely used since Roman times to refer to the region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.[1] In its broader meaning as a geographical term, Palestine can refer to an area that includes contemporary Israel and the Palestinian territories, parts of Jordan, and parts of Lebanon and Syria.[1][2] In its narrow meaning, it refers to the area within the boundaries of the former British Mandate of Palestine (1920-1948) west of the Jordan River.”
When saying that there has always been a Jewish presence in Palestine, this is the area that I was referring to. If the Ottoman census is correct, “kolakavod” to the Jewish population in Jerusalem. However, it takes nothing away from what I said.
Yes, your attacks on the right are intellectually dishonest, because…
A.) You advocate positions you know are false or misleading. One such example is your claims about the “collective adolescent brain of the Right”. I’m certain you know who Pat Buchanan is and his long standing opinion on Israel and his political leanings.
B.) You advocate positions you have not thoroughly vetted for truthfulness. As an example, you claim that the right believe that “if Saddam Hussein were taken out, all the problems of the Middle East would somehow unravel.” You clearly have not researched the position of those on the right. All you’ve done is substitute your feelings for actual thought.
C.) You advocate positions while omitting relevent arguments that counter your position.
It’s really sad if you truly believe all you have written, because it shows a true lack of understanding and empathy, and futher shows that your are not progressive or liberal… You’re just a leftist.