Kerry for Israel
Sep. 7th, 2004 01:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
richardf8Conventional wisdom would have it that George W. Bush is Good for Israel, and that Republicans are better for Israel than Democrats. While in terms of things like uncritical support and funding, there may be some truth to that, a view to the big picture demonstrates, that in terms of moral capital, Israel fares better under Democrats than Republicans.
Consider: Carter forged a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in the wake of the Yom Kippur War. Under Reagan we had Lebanon and the role Israel played in Iran/Contra. Under Clinton, Israel was brought to the brink of a peace treaty with the PA, and moral capital was high when it was Arafat who turned his back on it. Under Bush we have seen increasing brutality from Sharon's IDF and a corresponding uptick in hostile acts against Jews in the Diaspora.
The reason for this disparity, I think, has to do with what Israel means to each party. To the Democrats, it is a Jewish State, a safe haven for a people who have spent a couple of millenia being crapped on and deserve a respite. To Republicans it is a strategic ally, a projection of western values into an oil rich region.
The effect of 9/11 cannot be overlooked either. Since the attacks, Bush has been ever more reaching and grasping, and one cannot help but notice eerie echoes of Bush's policies in Sharon's responses to Israel's terror problem. The thought seems to be "if America can get away with that, so can we." The problem with this reasoning is that if the world decides to hate Americans, there are few vulnerable pockets of Americans out there compared with the number of Jewish communities throughout the Diaspora. Any of those communities can be attacked without the level of focus, concentration, planning, or capital that it took to execute 9/11. Sharon's most dangerous policy is the destruction of the homes of suicide bombers. This was standard operating procedure under the British Mandate, and it worked so well for the Brits that they fled the scene as soon as there was a western-style Jewish State upon which they could wipe the booger that is Palestine. It wasn't effective then and it's not effective now.
Sharon is doing one thing right: The security fence that Israel is constructed has proven itself to be very effective at thwarting suicide bombers. The recent attacks in Israel demonstrate quite clearly the difference in safety between areas protected by the fence and areas that are not protected by it. It is a pity that Palestinians are being inconvenienced by this, but when convenience is weighed in the balance with death, it is convenience that must yield. Kerry has demonstrated his support for the fence, roundly chastising the International Court for its ruling condemning it.
Both because of the record of Democrats in helping Israel put its best foot forward on the world stage, and because Kerry would be a better role model for the Israeli Prime Minister than Bush, I believe Kerry would be the better choice for Israel and for world Jewry. The current model of Bush and Sharon as two blood-drunk bullies goading each other on to new heights of violence in the name of security must be broken. It only aids the terrorists.
Consider: Carter forged a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in the wake of the Yom Kippur War. Under Reagan we had Lebanon and the role Israel played in Iran/Contra. Under Clinton, Israel was brought to the brink of a peace treaty with the PA, and moral capital was high when it was Arafat who turned his back on it. Under Bush we have seen increasing brutality from Sharon's IDF and a corresponding uptick in hostile acts against Jews in the Diaspora.
The reason for this disparity, I think, has to do with what Israel means to each party. To the Democrats, it is a Jewish State, a safe haven for a people who have spent a couple of millenia being crapped on and deserve a respite. To Republicans it is a strategic ally, a projection of western values into an oil rich region.
The effect of 9/11 cannot be overlooked either. Since the attacks, Bush has been ever more reaching and grasping, and one cannot help but notice eerie echoes of Bush's policies in Sharon's responses to Israel's terror problem. The thought seems to be "if America can get away with that, so can we." The problem with this reasoning is that if the world decides to hate Americans, there are few vulnerable pockets of Americans out there compared with the number of Jewish communities throughout the Diaspora. Any of those communities can be attacked without the level of focus, concentration, planning, or capital that it took to execute 9/11. Sharon's most dangerous policy is the destruction of the homes of suicide bombers. This was standard operating procedure under the British Mandate, and it worked so well for the Brits that they fled the scene as soon as there was a western-style Jewish State upon which they could wipe the booger that is Palestine. It wasn't effective then and it's not effective now.
Sharon is doing one thing right: The security fence that Israel is constructed has proven itself to be very effective at thwarting suicide bombers. The recent attacks in Israel demonstrate quite clearly the difference in safety between areas protected by the fence and areas that are not protected by it. It is a pity that Palestinians are being inconvenienced by this, but when convenience is weighed in the balance with death, it is convenience that must yield. Kerry has demonstrated his support for the fence, roundly chastising the International Court for its ruling condemning it.
Both because of the record of Democrats in helping Israel put its best foot forward on the world stage, and because Kerry would be a better role model for the Israeli Prime Minister than Bush, I believe Kerry would be the better choice for Israel and for world Jewry. The current model of Bush and Sharon as two blood-drunk bullies goading each other on to new heights of violence in the name of security must be broken. It only aids the terrorists.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-08 08:28 pm (UTC)It is my understanding that the vast majority of vocal anti-Israel people and protesters are not exactly Bush supporters.
Some of the events you've described are not easily to link with the US administrations involved. And you've not given any credit for recent peace efforts that made it surprisingly far before being sabotaged.
The fence is, sadly, a good thing.
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2004-09-08 10:04 pm (UTC)Given that the goal of Hamas attacks at such times is the disruption of peace talks, the reliability with which Sharon walks away from the negotiating table when they attack grants them the ultimate capitulation. But then, if Sharon were sincere, he would not be so easily derailed. It is not "negotiating with Terrorists" to ignore their efforts to derail the peace process.
It is my understanding that the vast majority of vocal anti-Israel people and protesters are not exactly Bush supporters.
Yep. And lots of Bush's "Pro-Israel" backers are Tim Lahaye style millenialists whose eschatological vision demands that Jews accept Christ or face damnation in the "end times" they so eagerly anticipate. I'll try my luck with the anti-semites who at least disclose what they are up front, thank you very much.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-09 02:36 am (UTC)And given your given -- I will -- that Hamas has and will sabotage any peace process, what do you recommend?
Your comment about "lots of Bush's 'Pro-Israel; backers" strikes me as a bit odd. That force seems poorly represented, and contrary to logic. Even the ardently pro-Bush Protest Warriors don't have anything like this on the signs I've seen. But I listen to liberal talk radio, and see news coverage of protestors, and see protestors personally (having made many trips to downtown Los Angeles this year) and I see a tremendous amount of pro-Palestine support, including specific support at the time to pull down Israel's "illegal criminal" wall. Many -- news coverage in several major cities makes it easy to see them -- are advocating the immediate destruction of Israel. Some extend this to all of Jewish faith.
I am not aware of any voices, let alone prominent voices, on the conservative side calling for the forced conversion of Jews, let alone their destruction or removal from Israel. I'm sure a nutcase website could be dug up, but (1) this isn't equivalent to tens of thousands of such on the street, and organizations supporting them and supplying them with signs, and (2) it's not very likely that such people would support Mr. Bush. Agreed?
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 04:04 am (UTC)What do I recommend?
1. Relocation of West Bank Palestinians to land contiguous with Gaza and the absorption of the West Bank by Israel.
2. A Granting of Statehood to the Palestians on that contiguous land, with all the rights, responsibilities, and risks thereof. This would eliminate the problem of the Palestinians being stateless, and subject them to the rules of engagement that are incumbent on sovereign states.
3. What happens next depends on the Palestinians. If they continue to misbehave, Israel has a hostile neighbor upon which it can actually declare war. If it behaves well, Israel should do everything in its power to "Marshall Plan" the new Palestinian state -- build it Infrastructure, and an Educational System that does not contain an anti-semitic or anti-American cuurriculum, help it write a Constitution that acknowledges its neighbor Israel, and so on.
That force seems poorly represented, and contrary to logic.
You, sir, are an Atheist. Logic has little to do with religious beliefs or the actions informed by them. There are visions of the Eschaton which presume that when all Jews are dwelling in Israel, and Temple Service is restored, Christ will return, and all who do not follow him will be destroyed. I'm not going to take the trouble to dig up the nutcase websites now because I know you are as capable of using Google as I am, but I think you will be surprised at the number that turn up. And, LH, these people organize, and do not advertise their agenda marching in the street, because they understand what the protestors don't: that it is money, not shrill banshee howls in the street, that accomplishes things. You make the fundamental error of confusing visibility with prevalence. One is not a necessary indicator of the other. And right now, they want a strong Israel because that's one of the steps on the way to the second coming. Please don't ask for it to make sense, it doesn't, it won't, and the expectation that it should, I think, represents an excess of optimism regarding the human condition on your part.
pro-Palestine support, including specific support at the time to pull down Israel's "illegal criminal" wall. Many -- news coverage in several major cities makes it easy to see them -- are advocating the immediate destruction of Israel. Some extend this to all of Jewish faith.
Yep. It's real simple, Level Head, and I shouldn't even have to tell you. The easiest way to get a Liberal to like you is to die at the hands of a Government while doing something stupid and ineffectual.
Here is a comprehensive list of my entries on Israel.
http://www.livejournal.com/tools/memories.bml?keyword=Israel_Policy&user=richardf8&sortby=memid
no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 04:57 am (UTC)And as you know, I debate creationists, most of which are fundamentalist Christians (with a few Hindu and the odd Moonie). I have been damned to Hell on multiple occasions, and have been ... exposed ... to such logic.
Your comment suggest that "lots of Bush backers" were in this category. Since I am ... "inside", so to speak, in that organization, I look for this and don't see it. It seems the extremists are disappointed with Mr. Bush; he is too moderate to suit them. It was this statement, that lots of them were of this type, that strikes me as not likely true and contrary to logic. Still.
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 05:29 am (UTC)Their savior is Anybody but Bush, as they make clear. It does not mean that the faith of ALL worshippers of Anybody but Bush is invalid -- but as you said, these things are poor subjects to apply logic to. ];-)
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 01:34 pm (UTC)The problem with this is that too many eyewitness accounts contradict it. I will believe the words of a high-school friend of mine who watched it all play out from her kitchen window before I will believe Pacifica's read of the events. Even among those eyewitnesses who do believe that Bush, there is no doubt that planes were involved.
However, I will say, that I don't disagree with the underlying theory. But then, I am an ABB type myself. However, I also see many reasons to vote for Kerry on his merits. Most of these have to do with a voting record that has advanced my agenda more often that not. My agenda stands pretty much in opposition to yours, so it is understandable that you come out swinging for Bush at every opportunity. He has not been nearly so kind to my money-frog as to yours. I oppose Tort Reform, which is a huge agenda item for him, I have seen what little I have gotten in tax-cuts from him more than consumed by higher local taxes and user fees, and I am not quite willing to put up with the service cuts that eliminating those would entail.
Jesse Ventura did pretty much the same thing tax-wise as Bush. I received a check for 300.00 from the state, but when I wanted to do some late season camping at one of the state parks, I was told that the campground was no longer open past labor day due to budget cuts.
My view on Taxes is, I think, fundamentally different from yours. I pay taxes in exchange for services. So with $300.00 check in hand, and a closed campground I felt rather like someone who had just gone shopping, and when I got to the Cash Register, the Cashier arbitrarily sent parts of my order to be restocked. When she was done, I certainly paid less, but I did not have everything that I had wanted.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 06:26 pm (UTC)Would you do so by force if not acceptable?
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 10:20 pm (UTC)The discontiguity of the lands that Palestinians would claim for a state has always struck me as problematic. For one thing, it makes it difficult to govern centrally, and for another any conflict that would arise between such a state and Israel would necessarily be a two-front war. How well would the US fare if Canada and Mexico were both governed by a single entity bent on the US's destruction?
As for relocating by force. That is a difficult choice, but really an attractive option compared with the existing, ongoing war of attrition. If a clear-eyed, detached view were possible, I think the Palestinians would see that too. The UN, of course, would call such an action an atrocity.
Once, in a disussion I was having with a gay man in his journal about the fact that gays were holocaust victims as well as Jews, he quipped "Yeah, the Jews got all holocausted [sic] and they got Israel, when are the gays going to get Faggotia?" My only half-joking response was that he should be careful what he wished for, because if the Gays got the same treatment as the Jews, Faggotia would be established smack dab in the middle of Homophobistan, and be condemned for the next five decades for not getting on with its neighbors.
And this is the fundamental problem. When the UN established Israel in 1948, I think it was the assumption that the state would fail. Of course, the financial backing of pretty much all the Jews in the Diaspora, as well as a sympathetic US has assured that this would not be the case. I suspect this has been a source of frustration for many UN member nations.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 10:27 pm (UTC)