This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1Doug1943
White extremist threatens President Obama
Those old reactionaries on Fox News ...
Palestinian sympathyzer attacks Netanyau over Iran
Warning: the above links may be disconcerting (they were to me) but none of them contains horrifying images. (Well that may depend on how you react to Fox News anchors. You have been warned.)
(Sorry, Ridgeway Girl, I just couldn't help myself.)
Those old reactionaries on Fox News ...
Palestinian sympathyzer attacks Netanyau over Iran
Warning: the above links may be disconcerting (they were to me) but none of them contains horrifying images. (Well that may depend on how you react to Fox News anchors. You have been warned.)
(Sorry, Ridgeway Girl, I just couldn't help myself.)
2DugsBooks
Yeah, Yeah ...the world is in turmoil, whats new. I am still stunned and trying to comprehend the facts that came out in the big hedge fund guy's divorce {I will look up the name later} where his wife explained he is taking home over $60 million dollars a month....NET !!!!! Lets see, I can imagine what that would be like......nope, I really can't even imagine that, my mind breaks.
3RidgewayGirl
Thanks, Doug.
I wonder if the source of the reportage on FOX's reaction has anything to do with the contents of the article.
Cal Thomas, a FOX News regular, wrote this column on the subject, which he uses to talk about Obama not being as awesome as Netanyahu.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/03/netanyahu-iran-speech-real-reason-obam...
I wonder if the source of the reportage on FOX's reaction has anything to do with the contents of the article.
Cal Thomas, a FOX News regular, wrote this column on the subject, which he uses to talk about Obama not being as awesome as Netanyahu.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/03/netanyahu-iran-speech-real-reason-obam...
4Doug1943
Hmmm.... to tell the truth, I don't know.
I actually don't quite understand the conservative-Republican-hardline-Zionist position on Iran.
It seems to me that what they are saying is: we have to go to war with Iran to destroy its capacity to make nuclear weapons. At least, that's the logical conclusion.
The Iranians are pretty smart. I suspect that they've got their workshops buried deeply, and that a conventional military attack will only set them back, but not stop them.
It will also have the effect of bringing 99.9% of Iranians over to total support of the regime. (But these people don't think in terms of what will promote, or hinder, the internal social changes which will, if allowed to run, turn Iran into an ordinary nation.)
Therefore .... well, what then follows? Is this REALLY what they want? (A nuclear attack on Iran, which would, if done properly, not just destroy the current facilities, but Iranian society as a whole, i.e. nuking Tehran and all major population centers.)
If so, they really ought to say so. If not, they should spell out their alternative to the current negotiations.
I actually don't quite understand the conservative-Republican-hardline-Zionist position on Iran.
It seems to me that what they are saying is: we have to go to war with Iran to destroy its capacity to make nuclear weapons. At least, that's the logical conclusion.
The Iranians are pretty smart. I suspect that they've got their workshops buried deeply, and that a conventional military attack will only set them back, but not stop them.
It will also have the effect of bringing 99.9% of Iranians over to total support of the regime. (But these people don't think in terms of what will promote, or hinder, the internal social changes which will, if allowed to run, turn Iran into an ordinary nation.)
Therefore .... well, what then follows? Is this REALLY what they want? (A nuclear attack on Iran, which would, if done properly, not just destroy the current facilities, but Iranian society as a whole, i.e. nuking Tehran and all major population centers.)
If so, they really ought to say so. If not, they should spell out their alternative to the current negotiations.
5Michael_Welch
Personally I think the Netanyahu speech is here and gone; the "romance" re Israel ("Exodus" and all that) has been over oh probably since the invasion of Lebanon if not before. With say Begin?...
6RickHarsch
Interesting, Michael. The romance is gone...But not the dollars? At what point do you think the dollars, too, will begin to weigh on the US? The support is obviously ugly and cynical, but I would put the end of the romance back further, at least to the bombing of the US spy ship (Liberty?) in 1967.
7Michael_Welch
Although I think most folks hardly knew about the Liberty even then, the "romance" for Washington politicos probably did end.
As for the money -- it only "ends" when the Jewish vote becomes "negligible"?...
As for the money -- it only "ends" when the Jewish vote becomes "negligible"?...
9RickHarsch
'here' seems to suggest that you don't know what a monolith is
11Doug1943
No, wait... I see what you mean. Israel is not made out of a single piece of stone! You're right! In fact, it's not made of stone at all. Well ... maybe the buildings are. But there plenty of things in Israel that are not made of stone, much less a single piece.... so I was completely wrong. Thanks for pointing that out!
13RickHarsch
Israel allows a degree of dissent (Vanunu's kidnapping describes some limit), and there have always been dissenters there. But a monolith in political terms is an essentially unchanging organ. In the case of Israel the direction hasn't changed since post 1967 war.
14Doug1943
But in those terms, almost every country is a monolith.
What you have to do is to examine the internal social divisions and political life of a country.
Israelis are surrounded by people who would like to eradicate them. (Whether for good reasons or bad is another issue.)
This does tend to produce a certain monolithicity in Israeli society.
On the other hand, there are -- the proportion varies over time, so I wouldn't venture a figure -- a certain number of Israelis, (either because of the remarkable Jewish conscience and/or a sober assessment of the long-term impossibility of doing what they're now doing -- continuing to steal Palestinian land --forever), who would like to go down another path, pursuing a two state solution.
It's what everyone else in the world ought to be pushing for, because any other approach will ultimately lead to the most catastrophic tragedy for the region.
Since hard-line Zionists often falsely present Israel (and all Jews) as being monolithically-united behind the policies of the Likud, we should take every opportunity to show this is not so.
What you have to do is to examine the internal social divisions and political life of a country.
Israelis are surrounded by people who would like to eradicate them. (Whether for good reasons or bad is another issue.)
This does tend to produce a certain monolithicity in Israeli society.
On the other hand, there are -- the proportion varies over time, so I wouldn't venture a figure -- a certain number of Israelis, (either because of the remarkable Jewish conscience and/or a sober assessment of the long-term impossibility of doing what they're now doing -- continuing to steal Palestinian land --forever), who would like to go down another path, pursuing a two state solution.
It's what everyone else in the world ought to be pushing for, because any other approach will ultimately lead to the most catastrophic tragedy for the region.
Since hard-line Zionists often falsely present Israel (and all Jews) as being monolithically-united behind the policies of the Likud, we should take every opportunity to show this is not so.
15BruceCoulson
>14 Doug1943:
It makes as much sense as judging all Americans by the policies and actions of the G.O.P...
It makes as much sense as judging all Americans by the policies and actions of the G.O.P...
16Doug1943
Or all X by the actions of a sub-set of X.
Of course, this is a truism.
But in respect of political affairs, it's an especially pernicious fallacy, because it encourages political mobilizations which have reactionary effects.
If Israelis believe -- rightly or wrongly -- that the Palestinians are one solid mass resolved on their extermination, then a parallel counter-response is the logical outcome. And vice versa.
But just because the reality may be different, doesn't mean that the reality will be known.
How many Americans knew, or even know now, that two out of three Germans voted against the Nazis, in the last free election they were allowed to have? How many times have I heard someone smugly say, "Hitler was democratically elected."
And it's a dialectical process. Once the Germans are seen by the outside world as one reactionary mass, who will all be treated alike if they are defeated in war, then it makes sense to support your own state, which at least wants to defend all Germans.
I think this helps explain why the Germans went down with Hitler, despite the fact that 40% of them had supported the Socialists or Communists just a few years before the war, and that Hitler himself was not popular among the aristocratic officer corps.
There are many conflicts in the world which pit one ethnic or national group against another, with reactionary consequences.
The more that all such groups can be seen as NOT a single united mass, but as divided into innumerable categories, many of which have equivalents among the 'other' groups, the better.
Of course, this is a truism.
But in respect of political affairs, it's an especially pernicious fallacy, because it encourages political mobilizations which have reactionary effects.
If Israelis believe -- rightly or wrongly -- that the Palestinians are one solid mass resolved on their extermination, then a parallel counter-response is the logical outcome. And vice versa.
But just because the reality may be different, doesn't mean that the reality will be known.
How many Americans knew, or even know now, that two out of three Germans voted against the Nazis, in the last free election they were allowed to have? How many times have I heard someone smugly say, "Hitler was democratically elected."
And it's a dialectical process. Once the Germans are seen by the outside world as one reactionary mass, who will all be treated alike if they are defeated in war, then it makes sense to support your own state, which at least wants to defend all Germans.
I think this helps explain why the Germans went down with Hitler, despite the fact that 40% of them had supported the Socialists or Communists just a few years before the war, and that Hitler himself was not popular among the aristocratic officer corps.
There are many conflicts in the world which pit one ethnic or national group against another, with reactionary consequences.
The more that all such groups can be seen as NOT a single united mass, but as divided into innumerable categories, many of which have equivalents among the 'other' groups, the better.
17Michael_Welch
Israel is "surrounded by enemies" true but it has One Big "Friend" that makes all the difference. Sure no more "romance" but yes a "marriage" neither can (apparently) get out of (or want to...)
