Rodger,
I owe you a full reply, but that will take me another day or two. In a comment today on another DofM post
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...6855109/
#247503
,
I've tried to explain my main concern. The more direct reply to you won't be too long because I'm less concerned with defending the Iraq War as such (realizing though I do that it's a large thing to bracket) than with defending the principle of promoting human rights more generally. Again: I don't take human rights' promotion to have been the war's primary aim, and _whatever_ sort of aim it was the US can be said to have failed, in many respects, to achieve it. What that should tell us about interventions more generally, though, is open to debate. More on that when I write more fully--I just wanted to say thank you for replying to mine.
I agree, democracy is much more than elections.
It's a long time since I read "Illiberal Democracies," but I think most of the democracies Zakaria mentioned function better than Iraq.
Providing physical security is the number one duty of a state. That's what makes internal sovereignty. Iraq is not sovereign. (And it would be even less so witout the US troops.)
Praising elections only makes sense if the country we are talking about is sovereign...
I am not sure, if I expressed all this very well in these few sentences.
Sure, it is a some success that millions of Iraqis risk their lives to vote, but if that is all to show for, it's not much.
Joerg,
"Providing physical security is the number one duty of a state. That's what makes internal sovereignty. Iraq is not sovereign. (And it would be even less so without the US troops.)"
Isn't that, then, an argument for US troops remaining there until such time as Iraqi sovereignty doesn't depend on their presence?
(Now we will be told, I expect--and in some tension with the respect-for-sovereignty arguments often made on this blog--that there are things that do trump sovereignty. Like getting US troops out. ..Which seems to trump _everything._)
Yes it is.
I know that some on the left believe that the US presence in Iraq is making matters worse and the US troops are the problem, i.e. Iraq would still be in bad shape but be better of without the US.
I disagree.
On our blog we have been discussing a potential NATO involvement in Darfur. I then brought up Somalia and Iraq:
"I believe the US cannot leave Iraq anytime soon. It's the china shop rule. You are now responsible for Iraq. If you leave and civil war breaks out and/or Saddam-like warlords rule various regions of Iraq and one of them provides a safe haven to Al Qaeda, I am going to blame the United States for "breaking" Iraq, making matters worse (Iraq was less dangerous under Saddam) and leaving Iraq too soon. Democrats will put the blame on the Republicans for starting the Iraq war. And Republicans will put the blame on Democrats for withdrawing too soon. I, however, would blame both parties and their voters. That's just my humble personal opinion, of course."
http://atlanticreview.org/
archiv...ring.html#c4451
Unfair? Wrong? Too harsh?
Just wanted to add: While I disagree with those who think Iraq would be better of if US troops leave more or less immediately, I do respect that opinon, of course.
How would the world be different if the so-called "china shop" rule (or "Pottery Barn" rule, in Colin Powell's words) had been firmly accepted through the period of decolonization?
Just how long would decolonization have been postponed?
It seems quite clear that Americans are not doing a great deal to minimize the sectarian violence that is exploding around them. Iraq already has quite high mortality rates -- and these are violent deaths.
Do we know for a fact that the fire will burn hotter once the US is gone? What if the troops are adding gasoline?
And I don't buy the "safe haven" argument any more. As I've noted previously, Marc Lynch had a great post or two on this issue some weeks ago.
Rodger,
"How would the world be different if the so-called "china shop" rule (or "Pottery Barn" rule, in Colin Powell's words) had been firmly accepted through the period of decolonization?
Just how long would decolonization have been postponed?"
How stable or sovereign or democratic would Germany have been, had the post-war Allied occupation there ended sooner than it did? My asking that question shouldn't be taken to imply my equating Saddam Hussein's Iraq with the Third Reich. I'm just saying: not all occupations are best viewed through the lens of colonialism.
I did not call it "Pottery Barn rule", because this specific company said that they don't have the rule that Colin Powell described. 
Comparing decolonisation with the Iraq occupation is apples and oranges. Besides, the situations during decolonization were different in the countries concerned.
Here's a PIPA poll that supports your argument: "Most Iraqis Want US Troops Out Within a Year.
Say US Presence Provoking More Conflict Than it is Preventing
Approval of Attacks on US-led Forces Rises to 6 in 10"
http://www.worldpublicopinion.or...nt=250&
lb=hmpg1
Vox Populi is not always right and often changes is mind. I would not be surprised to see a poll in a couple of years that concludes that most Iraqis feel abandoned by the US and blame the US for breaking their promises.
Joerg,
"Just wanted to add: While I disagree with those who think Iraq would be better of if US troops leave more or less immediately, I do respect that opinon, of course."
That's a principled position--respecting the pro-withdrawal opinion--to take, and it's one I share myself so long as it confines itself to positions re. whether the war was right or wrong and whether troops should stay or go. Often, however--not in most cases, but often enough to warrant mention--opposition to the war is tied to positions both on the Israel lobby and on Israel itself that are--how shall I put it?--more difficult for me to respect. European anti-war demonstrations often had explicit anti-Semitic (I am being careful with terms here; I don't just mean anti-Israel) aspects to them. In America there was less of that, and however much or little of it there is it doesn't tell us whether the war itself was right or wrong. One can oppose it and be altogether free of prejudice. But, as a Jew, I cannot help noticing that not all of the opposition has in fact been free of prejudice. The bigots themselves worry me less, in a sense, (due to group size) than those who stand by and abide them, telling themselves that by definition, there can be no bigotry on the left.
The automatic recourse to insinuations of antisemitism is getting pretty tiresome. It's intellectually dishonest and, anyhow, if you are going to call people critical of America's foreign policy antisemites because they are critical of Israel what are you going to call people like Mel Gibson who really are antisemites?
Jim,
"The automatic recourse to insinuations of antisemitism is getting pretty tiresome."
I can't speak for all insinuators, of course. I can only say that in my own case, I don't think there's anything automatic about it. It's never been something I've done cavalierly.
"It's intellectually dishonest"
Well, except where it's accurate.
"and, anyhow, if you are going to call people critical of America's foreign policy antisemites because they are critical of Israel"
From me, at least, being critical of Israel doesn't, by itself, earn a person the label "antisemite." But some of those demonstrations I mentioned had pretty blatant displays in them that went beyond mere criticism, and some of the criticism is colossally disproportionate on any reasonable scale--even after taking into account America's massive support for Israel--in a way that makes one wonder hard about motivations.
"what are you going to call people like Mel Gibson who really are antisemites?"
Antisemites. (They come in different varieties. It's hardly the only variegated form of bigotry out there. Not all anti-Black racists are in the KKK.)
Why don't you just call the people who disagree with you supporters of NAMBLA while you're at it? Obviously you have no trouble enlarging the meaning of antisemitism to encompass anybody who disagrees with you. Maybe you're being sincere in saying "being critical of Israel doesn't, by itself, earn a person the label "antisemite." The majority of those who use that line certainly aren't. You can't even point out the disproportionate political influence of the Israeli lobby without being called an antisemite, any more than you can raise the question of whether America's unconditional support for Israel is good for us from a real politik point of view or the right thing to do from a moral point of view.
"You can't even point out the disproportionate political influence of the Israeli lobby without being called an antisemite, any more than you can raise the question of whether America's unconditional support for Israel is good for us from a real politik point of view or the right thing to do from a moral point of view."
We'll have to agree to disagree about all that. But the Walt/Mearsheimer case is a notable recent one, in which for all their pre-emptive talk about how they'd be called anti-Semites, a lot of the critiques I saw were substantive refutations, and even the ones that weren't scrupulously refrained from calling them that. (Sometimes befuddlement was expressed in the form of: "what on earth can have motivated these otherwise serious scholars to go so wrong, be so obsessive about this issue to the point where all else is obscured, etc?" ..But for the most part, I saw those sorts of questions ending with question marks, falling short of being full-fledged accusations. I'd be happy to send links to the articles I have in mind.)
As for myself, when I think there might be antisemitism present, I say--as I was raised to with respect to all bigotry--that I think there might be antisemitism present. There is a history, for Jews, of bad consequences for being too shy to call Jew-hatred by its proper name, and a reluctance--at least among some of us--to repeat that particular past mistake.
..But again: I haven't seen too many people cavalierly toss the charge around. Certainly I don't think I've tossed it around cavalierly myself.
And NAMBLA has no part in all of this. (Probably for the best, that. Things are fraught enough without adding them to the mix.)
You don't have to consider any particular academic study to recognize the remarkable influence of the Israeli lobby on American politics. It's obvious.
Your assertion that you are an even-handed opponent of all kinds of bigotry is, let's say, convenient. And the notion that you have any compunction about playing the antisemistism card is hogwash. Such charges are absolutely automatic and usually beside the point, though quite effective.
Look, you're a Jewish guy defending Israel. I get that. I don't doubt that looking at the Middle East objectively is easier if you don't have divided loyalties, just as it was easier for Americans who weren't of Irish descent to think clearly about the Troubles. But all the special pleading in the world won't alter the extent to which Israel is a strategic liability or obviate the need to figure out what to do about the anomaly of state the size of El Salvador with a huge nuclear arsenal and an ideology of aggressive ethnic nationalism.
Jim,
re your statement: "I don't doubt that looking at the Middle East objectively is easier if you don't have divided loyalties, just as it was easier for Americans who weren't of Irish descent to think clearly about the Troubles."
American Jewish opinion is NOT monolithic. Some American Jews support the current policies of the Israeli gov't, but many American Jews vigorously oppose those policies. Some American Jews support the Israel lobby, but others, perhaps even a majority, think it has way too much influence on American policy (just as Walt/Mearsheimer say). The strongest supporters of Israel are in fact right-wing evangelical Christians. American Jews do not have 'divided loyalties,' just as Irish-Americans did not have 'divided loyalties' re the Troubles. So let's get off this false 'divided loyalties' stuff.
p.s. I do not agree with the tenor of some of a's remarks. I think one should be just as careful with charges of anti-Semitism as with
charges of 'divided loyalties'.
What can we make of a statement like "American Jews do not have 'divided loyalties'"? Some of 'em do and some of 'em don't. It may be pious to act as if the phenomenon doesn't exist. It plainly does. Divided loyalties are a recurrent problem in a multi-cultural nation like the U.S. You've never heard of the German-American Bund?
I'm well aware that many Jews and many Israelis are unhappy with the current course of Israeli policy. Indeed, a lot of my own thinking about Zionism has been shaped by reading the Israeli historian Zeev Sternhell, who puts Zionism in the context of early 20th Century European nationalism. As a number of people have pointed out, frank discussions about things Israeli are more likely to occur in Israeli papers than in the American media.
I personally feel israel was a mistake. it probably made sense after world war two, but it's not feasible anymore. I don't think it has a right to exist. sorry.
Also, i have nothing against jews. as a libertarian it would be hard for me to deny the genius of murray rothbard and ludwig von mises. not to mention howard stern.
it's a growing sentiment , so you better get used to it. good luck.
"[1]Your assertion that you are an even-handed opponent of all kinds of bigotry is, let's say, convenient. [2] And the notion that you have any compunction about playing the antisemistism card is hogwash. [3] Such charges are absolutely automatic and usually beside the point, though quite effective."
[1] That an assertion is convenient doesn't make it false. But okay: if you want to say it makes it _suspect,_ alright. It's just that two can play at that game: if one believes, as I do, that anti-Semitism is one of the central tropes in the history of Western civilization (including the history of the left) then it's awfully convenient to be able to say that one's criticisms are only of the Jewish State, not of Jews as such. I'm sure that in many cases, the criticisms _are_ in fact only of Israel, but you ought to understand why there are, for many Jews, the antennae that there are for this issue.
[2] How do you know what I do and don't have compunction about? My mere raising of the topic? (That oughtn't to be sufficient.)
[3] For whom are they automatic? I'm not playing dumb; I honestly want to know. They _weren't_ leveled in most of the responses to Walt and Mearsheimer that I saw, for example. And I saw _a lot_ of responses.
a- fine. I hate jews then. how does that help you? wouldn't you prefer people were against israel and not all jews? if wanting to prevent another 9/11 makes me an anti semite, then I regrettably am one. wouldn't you be to protect your family?
lester,
Just out of curiosity: are there other states that, in your view, don't have a right to exist? It would be interesting if it turned out that Israel was the only one. Even that, I suppose, wouldn't be iron-clad proof of anything. But it would be, em, convenient.
missouri. no i'm kidding. have you ever read any of henry cattan's stuff? there was never supposed to be a "jewish state" it was supposed to be a homeland for the jews. and even that was done without the approval of the people who lived there who I think knew the score from the begining. at best, it's a legacy of coloniolism. but if 9/11 hadn't happened honestly I probably wouldn't care. same with the rest of our middle east policy. as of 9/10/01 supporting egypt and saudi arabia and israel made perfect sense. made things "stable" etc.
lester,
"a- fine. I hate jews then. how does that help you? wouldn't you prefer people were against israel and not all jews? if wanting to prevent another 9/11 makes me an anti semite, then I regrettably am one. wouldn't you be to protect your family?"
Neither your being against Israel (well, it depends I suppose on the sense in which you are against it and whether when you come across the same sorts of flaws in other places you are equally critical of them) nor your desire to prevent another 9/11 make you an anti-Semite, though I do find it odd (not in the sense of uncommon; in the sense of odd reasoning) that you think that wanting to prevent another 9/11 gives you reason to be against Israel. Being Jewish, I'm in an awkward position to answer a question about whether I'd turn anti-Semitic in order to protect my family (which is also Jewish). But I'd think there was a principle whereby insofar as it's wrong to be a bigot of _any_ kind, it's wrong to be one even in order to protect one's family. Granted: it's a pretty demanding standard that would have _anything_ trump the protection of one's family. We can be grateful, therefore, that in the case of preventing 9/11, that particular hard choice isn't required of us.
a- well it is in the sense that if israel continues to exist there will likely be another 9/11. one could argue that the US could simply cut it's ties to it, but that will never happen.
Once again, the Walt and Mearshimer debate is somewhat marginal, though I also read a lot of responses and noticed how a tremendous level of methodological scrupulousness was deployed to change the subject. I was reminded of how the issue of Bush's national guard service was smoothly transformed into a nit-picking attack on journalistic practices. Similar technique.
Calling somebody an antisemite is a pretty serious thing to do or so you'd think. On the other hand, you're quite right to call me on saying you have no compunction about it. That is, your behavior may be offensive, but it is also business as usual and I shouldn't blame you for following the lead of so many others in squirting the allegation around liberally.
lester, above, suggested that Israel was a mistake that has no right to exist. I think that notion reflects just as much anti-realism as uncriticial support for Israel. The origins of states are commonly unsavory, and the dubiousness of Israel's rights is a moot point. Israel is a fact that isn't going away, though to listen to some of its more paranoid supporters you wouldn't notice that it had a couple of hundred nukes. Even if you didn't have a positive bias towards Israel and its culture (as I and most Americans do), there is simply no prospect of the destruction of the Jewish state in the medium term. There are surely people who want to see the Jews driven into the sea, but there aren't very damned many of 'em in these parts and there are even fewer who think it's going to happen. What the shouting is about, presumably, is figuring some way to encourage the Israelis to come to terms with their neighbors on some basis beyond putting the Palestinians in the Middle Eastern version of American indian reservations.
Jim,
Liberal with the charge is the last thing I've been. Who have I called an anti-Semite? Have I called you one? I haven't even called Lester one, though I've come closer there. As for methodological scrupulousness and its deployment in subject-changing, my point was a different one: I didn't see the anti-Semitism charge leveled in the overwhelming bulk of the responses I saw, for all of W & M's pre-emptive huffing and puffing about how it would be made against them. (Or for all that you say that the charge has become automatic and widespread.)
You write:
"lester, above, suggested that Israel was a mistake that has no right to exist. I think that notion reflects just as much anti-realism as uncriticial support for Israel. The origins of states are commonly unsavory, and the dubiousness of Israel's rights is a moot point. Israel is a fact that isn't going away, though to listen to some of its more paranoid supporters you wouldn't notice that it had a couple of hundred nukes."
Well, I hope I'm not among the paranoid ones, but, for example, part of why Iran is a concern is that _if_ Ahmadinejad is the cuckoo he might be (I have a view on that, but I don't claim to be an expert) Israel's nukes might not deter him if he gets his own.
You write:
"Even if you didn't have a positive bias towards Israel and its culture (as I and most Americans do), there is simply no prospect of the destruction of the Jewish state in the medium term. There are surely people who want to see the Jews driven into the sea, but there aren't very damned many of 'em in these parts and there are even fewer who think it's going to happen."
What you say is certainly true, about the scarcity of people who want to see the Jews driven into the sea, but I think they're enough of a phenomenon, and a growing one, to warrant comment. There are stats on this that I could produce, but I don't want to start doing that and then start arguing about how to interpret them, etc. I'll grant that like all stats, there are different ways to read them, etc.
Re. the majority that thinks that Israel won't ever be destroyed: Of course, I hope (and, as much out of faith as out of reason, believe) they're right. But it will take more than the holding of the opinion to make the opinion true.
"What the shouting is about, presumably, is figuring some way to encourage the Israelis to come to terms with their neighbors on some basis beyond putting the Palestinians in the Middle Eastern version of American indian reservations."
That's a just goal, though I'd add that Israelis aren't, by a long stretch, the only ones needing encouragement. And while the goal's justice gives us reason enough to pursue it, I'm skeptical about what solving it will do so far as achieving other goals are concerned. Insofar as the left was correct to criticize domino theory, it's odd to sometimes see it embraced in the form of "if only this particular problem is solved, there will be no more Al Qaedas." That's dreaming.
That's not meant to sound like a reason not to pursue Palestinian self-determintation. It _isn't_ such a reason. It's just a plea for, well, realism.
I don't buy the ahmadenjad is a nut thing. the israelis have been bellyaching about Iran's nuks since way before he was president. remember bush "that said all options are on the table" that was the summer of 04.
25,000 jews live in iran. there is a jewish mp in parliment. ahmadenejad was in new york last week, one of his few visits was to some orthodox jews.
if israelis don't like the neighborhood they can leave. the palestinians and iranians like it just fine. why would they want to live next to a country who'd elect a crazy madman as a president?
Lester,
That _you_ don't buy the "Ahmadinejad is a nut thing" concerns me less than that all sorts of reasonable people (i.e., people who, unlike you, haven't explicitly denied Israel's right to exist) are as skeptical as they are about the possibility that he is one (notwithstanding ample evidence). But though I'm less skeptical myself, my point was just that _if_ he is one, all the nukes in Israel's arsenal won't deter him.
The Jews he visited are a miniscule anti-Zionist fringe.
Israelis aren't going anywhere, any more than Palestinians are. There are other ways than giving up on something as fundamental as one's state's existence, to respond to threats to that existence.
I'd just appreciate it if you all didn't drag us down with you. mohammad atta wrote his suicide note on the eve of the first qana massacre.
Also, I don't think you buy the ahmadenajad is a nut thing either. i think you know a modern islamic state is no more accepting of israel or american aggressions than a backward one. I think that had no small role in the decision to destroy lebanon as well. beirut is alot hipper than tel aviv.
I think the notion that the Iranians are likely to lob a bomb at Israel is simply projection. Israel and the U.S., after all, are the only ones promoting the preventative war doctrine. Claiming that all your enemies are nuts plays well to the cheap seats, but what's the evidence that it is true if you don't buy the underlying racist premise about "those people." Iran has not been an expansionist state in recent history, but it has had its sovereignty repeated outraged by the Russians, the Brits, the Soviets, the Americans, and the Iraqis, who, let us not forget, inflicted casualties on them on a World War I scale. If I was surrounded by nuclear powers (Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, and the U.S.), I'd want my country to have the bomb. Speaking as an American, I'd prefer a general ratcheting down of tensions that would make it rational for the Iranians to forgo nuclear arms, but if the U.S. is going to continue its current policies, it may be that an Iranian bomb is in the best interest of my country too since it may be the only way of deterring the administration and its sucessors from starting yet another war.
"Also, I don't think you buy the ahmadenajad is a nut thing either."
I buy it alright. He's a Holocaust denier and a would-be wiper of Israel off the map. I don't say that there are no constraints at all on the man, but he's been clear enough about what his ideal scenario would be.
"i think you know a modern islamic state is no more accepting of israel or american aggressions than a backward one."
And yet there is peace with Jordan and Egypt, and--though Syria has its proxies in Lebanon making that border problematic--quiet on the actual frontier with Syria. Plus diplomatic relations with some of the emirates. The modern/backward distinction, by the way, is yours, not mine. Certainly I don't think the Iranian _people_ are backward. And even so far as the regime goes, there's something v. modern about a nuclear program. I mentioned sanity, not development level.
As for Beirut's greater hippness than Tel Aviv, I'll keep that in mind next time I'm looking for nightlife. But I have to say that the relevance of hippness to the argument here eludes me unless it's just a taunt. (Oh wait. Now I see: it's meant to indicate how modern Lebanon is. Never mind that I never mentioned backwardness v. modernity. Never mind that even with respect to a country's modernity--and I honestly don't deny Lebanon's for a second; good for it!--a capital city's hippness only tells us so much.)
"Claiming that all your enemies are nuts plays well to the cheap seats, but what's the evidence that it is true if you don't buy the underlying racist premise about "those people.""
Forgive me: I'm too tired to produce, right this moment, the numerous quotes from Ahmedinajad, denying the Holocaust and stating that Israel must be wiped off the map.
I've claimed that Ahmedinajad was nuts, and yet somehow that has been transformed by you into "claiming that _all_ your enemies are nuts," just as earlier in the thread you said I was liberal with the anti-Semitism charge when I hadn't even made it in a single case. (Again: I think it raising the very topic that seems to provoke. But raising the topic falls somewhat short of making the charge. Many people see this v. clearly when it comes to all sorts of other bigotries, but somehow don't see it when it comes to anti-Semitism.)
And no: it's not an underlying racist premise about "those people." As I mentioned in my reply to Lester, Israel has treaties with two Arab states, a peaceful border with a third, and diplomatic relations with Morocco, Turkey and other Muslim and Arab states.
So when I say Ahmedinajad and the regime, not the people, I mean Ahmedinajad and the regime, not the people.
But no: Iraq was botched, and we must get out of that region right away, and worries about a nuclear Iran are just the same sorts of lies that got us into Iraq. And Israel wants to extend its occupation beyond the West Bank and Gaza so that it encompasses Lebanon and, in fact, the whole region.
..Not, all of these, claims that you've made yourself, Jim. But I never thought I'd be hearing them in "progressive" circles at all. I admit I'm having difficulty getting over that.
what about irans jews?
and the fact that israel has been pressuring the US to "do something" about iran since long before ahmadenajd was elected?
what does denying the holocaust have to do with anything? how is his not believing in the holcaust have any affect on israel?
I also think israel should be "wiped of the map" figuratively speaking. should george bush bomb me? it's a legitamte point of view, particularly in the arab world. in fact, it's the mainstram opinion in the arab world.
and there is NOT peace in egypt. and ask a jordanian how they feel about the US. we are still talking high 80 percentage of dissaproval. you mentioned jordan and egypt because those are the countries the US pays billion too to recognize israel. if we didn't, they obviously wouldn't as is demonstrated by their peoples continuing non acceptance of the tiny jewish state.
"and there is NOT peace in egypt."
Peace _with_ Egypt is what I wrote. Egyptian society has internal problems, yes, but there is peace between Egypt and Israel.
"and ask a jordanian how they feel about the US."
Again: the point is that there is peace between Jordan and Israel. Many Jordanians may not like that, but I was responding to Jim's point about calling all of Israel's enemies cuckoos, by emphasizing that I hadn't called all of enemies cuckoos and that I (and, more importantly, Israel)don't view all Arabs or Muslims as Israel's enemies.
"you mentioned jordan and egypt because those are the countries the US pays billion too to recognize israel."
No, that isn't why I mentioned them. See above for why I mentioned them and other countries.
"If we didn't, they obviously wouldn't as is demonstrated by their peoples continuing non acceptance of the tiny jewish state."
Here I wonder whether you might be projecting. Is it that _you_ want to get paid in order to recognize Israel? I'd so much rather you did it out of love.
you think egypt and jordan recognize israel out of love?
and what about iran's jews? don't post again unless it includes a comment on them
Iran's Jews. A great many (most? I don't know) left. I don't have stats at my fingertips about how much anti-Semitism is directed at those who remain, but it'll take more than a rep in parliament to dispel my skepticism that life for them is fine and dandy. And no: Egypt & Jordan don't recognize Israel out of love, they recognize it out of self-interest (strategic, not only financial.) That's fair enough so far as relations between states are concerned, but sometimes individuals aspire to be motivated by something nobler, like love, which I thought you ought to try. Failing that, there's also good sense. Failing that too, we arive at an antipathetic position which doesn't even recognize Israel's right to exist. Not a widespread view, I'll grant, but again: that it should exist as a growing phenomenon on the left is worrisome.
I'm not on the left. I 'm a libertarian. and it's a sentiment shared by about a billion muslims. and most likely the chinese and russians soon enough, as Israel has been so closely associated with the US. South Africa fell, Israel can too. in fact, it's about the only way we can make lemonade out of the lemon of the iraq war. consider it a final payment to our so called allies an split.
"I'm not on the left. I 'm a libertarian."
Good for you. But that you, specifically, are a libertarian, is neither here nor there re. whether the sentiment is growing on the Left. Your not being on the Left only does the Left so much good--you're just one person.
"and it's a sentiment shared by about a billion muslims. and most likely the chinese and russians soon enough, as Israel has been so closely associated with the US."
I don't think the Chinese have such antipathy for all things American that anything like the spread of non-recognition of Israel's right to exist is at all likely as a consequence of Israel's connection with the US. In any case, I note that there are pretty good diplomatic ties between Israel and China. I'm not always happy about those ties myself, given what China's like on human rights (and sometimes there's been a risk of alienating the United States as well, which I don't think is a good idea) but the point is that I don't see why we should expect a change for the worse in Israel-Chinese relations as a given.
Russian sentiments towards Israel--to the extent that there is antipathy, though that is not all there is; like China (and unlike you)Russia recognizes Israel's right to exist--have at least as much to do with the history of anti-Semitism in Russia as they do with Israel's connection to the US.
That a billion Muslims don't recognize Israel's right to exist is unfortunate, but a) it may change & b) there is also an "ought" question. Ought they to recognize it? I think they ought to, though non-belligerence by those among them who are belligerent would go a long way in a positive direction, even if that non-belligerence fell short of right-to-exist recognition. It's only that from the liberal-democratic West, and from the Left especially, I expect more than non-belligerence, and sometimes there isn't even that.
"South Africa fell, Israel can too. in fact, it's about the only way we can make lemonade out of the lemon of the iraq war. consider it a final payment to our so called allies an split."
Here I'm just not clear on what you mean. The Iraq war as a final payment to Israel, or Israel's end as a payment to some other allies? Perhaps both. But the Iraq war was not fought primarily for Israel's benefit, and it's not at all clear how well served any genuine allies of the US's would be by Israel's ceasing to exist. Anyway: sorry, not splitting. (And, actually: not sorry for not splitting.)
yes removing saddam hussein was done for the purpose of "securing the realm" as wurmser perle and co made clear in the paper "a clean break". and again, accept it as a final payment and let us go back to living our lives without targets on our backs. much appreciated, america.
So now you're presuming to speak for all of America? Not bad. I imagine the desire not to be a target is pretty universally shared. It's only that for some (most, I think) it isn't the only value. (Or positive value, I should say.)
This program, from UK Channel 5, is worth watching:
http://
hurryupharry.bloghouse.ne..._for_terror.php
Yes it is. what other value is there? our ancestors came to this country in many cases to escape wars and conflicts, not get involved in several of them at once. One of the biggest selling points was americas geographic advantage of being seperate from europes messy hundreds of years old feuds.
We've now surrended that advantage thanks to the imperialists and the big business and court intellectuals that egg them on.
..Whereas to me it seems that you (& by that I don't mean the US as a whole, thankfully) are surrendering something altogether different, and if you don't see what other positive values there are besides not being a target of terrorism, I won't start elaborating them here. Indeed, I'm done. It's been interesting.
whiner
Monoprincipled isolationist.
Iranian TV Report on Int'l Holocaust Cartoon Contest in Tehran:
http://www.memritv.org/search.as...?ACT=S9&
P1=1280
who gives a shit?
and I 'm not an isolationist I favor free trade not protectionism
Commenting by HaloScan.com
