Israel is as nationalist/socialist a country I can think of for a "liberal democracy".

I had written "national socialism", by which I meant pan-Arab socialisms like Baathism which are partially indebted to Nazi thinking. Israel has a long history of Social Democracy (and experimentation with non-coercive socialism), and of course its people are nationalist, but unless you think countries like England and France aren't liberal democracies there is no call for your scare quotes.

And if they refuse, there's Gitmo or the ocean.

Jews should swear a loyalty oath to the US

And if they refuse, there's Gitmo or the ocean.

-- RealName

`

RN, you're being ironic aren't you?

No, RealName isn't capable of irony. He's Salon's village idiot, but not as nice.

Very well constructed argument.

Lieberman is simply, nakedly, unabashedly, pro-Israel in all situations.

The Katrina stuff is absolutely disgusting. The lack of regard for the poor and infirm, the “least of these” (whom Christ actually said were most deserving of our time and resources) is not only reviling, it is also a massive distortion of the very religion he claims to practice. It’s really worse than “lack of regard”, though. He doesn’t ignore them, he actually uses them as props in the self-aggrandizing melodrama he plays out in his own head. Logically if “they” are sinners punished by God, then he is the holy warrior bravely swimming against the tide of evil that threatens to ruin America and put Israel at risk.

L is not so different himself. Lieberman is, by all accounts, a supposedly devout Jew. By definition, this means that he thinks that this Reverend is an ignorant man preaching a corruption of L’s faith that has marginalized the primacy of the Jewish people and usurped God’s promise to them. Also, Westernized Jews who are serious about their faith have a slew of cultural resentments about the majority Christian societies in which they have assimilated.

And yet…”the enemy of my enemy is my friend”…a most Machiavellian calculation from a self-styled holy man like L. When L says Hagee is a “man of God”, it means far less than it appears. In the Old Testament, there is a Gentile man named Balaam who acts as a prophet of God without even knowing it. This is not an unfamiliar concept to an Orthodox Jew like L, and this is how he views somebody like Hagee…he’s ignorant on many levels, he bastardized my faith, and I have cultural resentments against people like him (all that talk about “Judeo-Christian”). But, when he talks about Israel, his perspective is in agreement with mine (and therefore, divinely inspired, since L sees himself as divinely inspired). This synergy is more important than anything else, and L knows he needs this wing of American Christianity to help ensure that continued all-out support of Israel remains US policy, so he makes the bargain.

Lieberman regards these calculations as the wisdom of statesmanship and the burden he bears as a guardian of the Jewish people, who are, like Orwell’s pigs, “more equal than others”.

Thank heavens! I was worried about you going M.I.A. on this topic; I was convinced you'd finally granted yourself the eternal peace you seem to long for. This world and its people just aren't good enough for the likes of you ... except maybe for one tiny sliver of the Middle East. Why aren't you there now?

If anyone didn't follow that link to Max Blumenthal's video of that nut-job convention, go do it now. Just incredible.

Max may just be the next Michael Moore. Great stuff.

I had written "national socialism", by which I meant pan-Arab socialisms like Baathism which are partially indebted to Nazi thinking. Israel has a long history of Social Democracy (and experimentation with non-coercive socialism), and of course its people are nationalist, but unless you think countries like England and France aren't liberal democracies there is no call for your scare quotes.

-- John-Paul Pagano

"which are partially indebted to Nazi thinking"

Either that, or you are ignorant of history and like that chain around your neck to be jerked. No. You must read assclowns like Daniel Pipes! The Jews had far more dealings with the Nazis than any Arabs ever did. At least the Jews were mostly white. I can find no link between nazism and the Ba'ath party from any credible source.

All these sources are Jewish, BTW.

Below is a "copy" in its entirety of a very important letter to the New York Times from Jewish intellectuals including Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, and Sidney Hook that appeared on December 4, 1948. Of particular interest is the reference to the Deir Yassin massacre which occured earlier that year. While it is quoted from in brief on several web sites, it appears nowhere in its entirety, and it deserves to be disseminated as it originally appears.

Letters to The Times New York Times December 4, 1948

New Palestine Party Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine...

Read the whole thing

http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/NYTimes1948.html

51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis

by LENNI BRENNER

http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner1223.html

I appreciate your answer to my question "Why didn't the Dems renounce Lieberman after the 2006 primary?", but unfortunately I think you missed my point. Your answer was "Given the closeness at the present time of the Senate, that would have flipped it to the Repubs (in a 50 - 50 tie, Darth Cheney gets to do one of his legislative duties)." This is precisely the bind we find ourselves in NOW, but NOT if Lamont had won as he should have. The fundamental reason he did not win is because the Dems in the Senate stood behind Lieberman, thus casting a pall over Lamont in the eyes of the Connecticut voters. If, however, the opposite had been true, then DEMOCRATIC Connecticut voters would have been very reluctant to vote for Joe, knowing he would be even more toothless that a freshman Senator Lamont, and likely to flip Repub as well.

Also, it is true that "Due to the ineptness of the Repub nominee in the Conn. Senate race, it became increasingly likely that Lieberman would win all the Repub votes" would have been even more pronounced than it already was, but since Lieberman got 70% of the Repub vote anyway, there really was not alot more to win. Even if Joe got 100% of the Repubs (unlikely) that would have added only 7 points to his finish. A full 12 points of Lieberman's finish came from Dems, and another 19 from independents. Knowing Joe would have been stripped of his power ought to have pushed most of the Dems and many of the independents toward Lamont, say 10 points each. Instead of losing at 40%, Lamont would have won in a landslide of 60% of the electorate.

Even if my guesses are way off, Lamont still should have won.