Letters to the Editor
-
"Thanks for contributing nothing"
As if, tiberius. As if.
-
Iokanaan
FYI, Egypt invaded Israel in 1973.
-
Actually the NATO proposal is more than a year old
and it originally came FROM NATO and from the EU which sees it as a halfway measure between a closer relationship with Israel and maintaining it within the EU's 'Good Neighbour' policy of which Israel is one of about a dozen countries included today.
It's also seen as a counter balance between virtual non existence in the UN and something else. Non existence? Why yes. Israel, is the only member state that is not actually officially part of any other bloc of nations because the so called non aligned bloc or blocs of African, Middle eastern, Asian or Mediterranean states won't allow it in.
But at least it's not Taiwan. They're not even UN members at all. The PLO has a bigger official presence in the UN than does Taiwan.
-
The other thing too is this
When Israel is in NATO it would turn out to be a liberal's dream because there would nothing stopping NATO from occupying the dreaded Yid Menace with NATO troops ala Bosnia and Kosovo for more or less forever. Hopefully armies from all the Arab states.
-
History check: 1973 Egyptian 'invasion'
FYI, Egypt invaded Israel in 1973.
Egypt invaded the Sinai, which Israel siezed in 1967, and did not advance beyond a shallow strip on the west bank of the Suez Canal.
At no time did Egyptian formations advance into Israel proper.
-
Dodd firming up
“Iraq Redeployment Legislation Must Have Firm Deadline, Enforceable Cut Off of Funds”
September 21, 2007
Today, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) reiterated that he will only support legislation on Iraq that contains a firm and enforceable timetable for redeploying U.S. troops as well as an enforceable cut off of funds for future combat operations in Iraq. That is why Senator Dodd voted against the Reed-Levin amendment.
I guess this was simply a gesture to the "get-out-now" segment, knowing that the cloture votes weren't there anyway.
link at name
-
Provide documentation of this claim, (~~~~)
Actually the NATO proposal is more than a year old
and it originally came FROM NATO and from the EU
I'm willing to afford you the benefit of the doubt here. Provide a link to back up this claim.
-
Explain yourself, tiberius.
Isralies, I can think of no ally that more deserves our continued support, or increasing support, than Israel except for Britain.
I'm not a jew but Isralies have helped make America the amazing place that it is.
In what way has the state of Israel "helped"?
Pray explain yourself.
-
Sorry I'm busy now
Much as I'd like to bow at the feet of your imperious demand. Because Google is too hard for you, I am busy now what with boiling children for Blood Matzah and controlling all media and banks. TTFN
-
What the pundits want versus what can really happen.
but the beltway punditocracy will welcome such a proposal and push for it.
A fair enough point. They'd also like to the Stars-and-Stripes flying over Tehran, too, but it ain't gonna happen.
I'm far less concerned about what the punditocracy wants and focused a bit more on what we as citizens can do. Encouraging mockery of them seems as constructive a start as anything.
-
I've been googling
and I can't seem to find any reference to NATO or the EU inviting Israel to join.
I guess only ~~~~~ knows the secret combination of search terms to use.
Either that, or he/she's a liar.
-
I'll take that as an "I'm lying" from (~~~~)
Sorry I'm busy now
You expect to ever be taken seriously?
Poor, lazy sod.
-
Paul Dirks
"has anyone noticed?
that to a man, everyone who has defended the proposal here has either misunderstood it or misrepresented it. It has nothing to do with the USA entering an alliance with Israel or having a mutual defense arrangement. It has to do with shoehorning Israel into an existing Alliance of 26 nations of which the US is just one member. The USA is free to negotiate anything it wants to with Isreal except its relationship to those other nations."
-- Paul Dirks
Don't get this distinction at all.
Israel entering NATO is an alliance with the US, and all other NATO nations, having a mutual defense arrangement.
Does the US not have a right to negotiate anything with other Nations?
-
Questions for Glenn
I read the article you linked to regarding "nasty" accusations of anti-Semitism. Do you agree with Jim Moran that the U.S. invasion of Iraq would not have occurred, but for American Jews who wanted America to attack Iraq on behalf of Israel?
To put it another way, do you believe that the U.S. is in Iraq because a small number of American Jews have taken control of the U.S. government and are traitorously directing its foreign policy and military operations adversely to America's interests on hehalf of a foreign country? Do you believe that George Bush and Dick Cheney are mere puppets of this small but all-powerful group of Jewish traitors?
It seems incontrovertible that Jim Moran believes the above propositions, based on the quotations in the article. If you share those beliefs, I won't call you anti-Semitic, but I would like to know if that is indeed what you think.
-
What the US can or cannot do isn't the point here.
Does the US not have a right to negotiate anything with other Nations?
Yes, it does.
What the United States CANNOT do is simply decree a country be made part of a transoceanic political/military alliance of sovereign states WITHOUT the agreement of the other members of that alliance.
Rudy's joke of a proposal is the reverse of this small reality.
-
But do they vote?
I'd be very interested to see how these public opinion polls would play out if each respondent were weighted by their likelihood of voting (demographically speaking), and, alternatively, weighted by the average amount of money their demographic would be expected to donate to political candidates and/or parties.
It's an unavoidable truism in a democracy that nobody gives a damn about the opinions of people who don't vote. It's a perhaps avoidable or mitigable fact that nobody gives a damn about the opinions of people who don't give money.
The interesting question, to me, is whether our Washington class is, as Glenn would have it, acting with no connection whatever to the whims and desires of the American people, or whether there is, in fact, some rhyme and reason to their actions in terms of being re-elected.
Such a poll weighting might not tell us much, since politicians, by all appearances, look to aim more for coalitions and blocs than individual voters (which is why the Israeli and Labor lobbies, for instance, have influence out of proportion to their size). However, it would be interesting to see if there is some correlation here, because it would explain a lot of behavior that seems like it would be counter-productive for a politician.