Letters to the Editor
-
re: Throw the rascals out song and dance
What flavor of Kool Aid are you drinking? It sounds like it is mighty tasty.
-
So what exactly IS the Answer?
The writer is good at blasting Democrats, scorching Republicans, but seems to keep the secret of Universal Middle East Peace pretty much to himself. He did give a few hints, tho:
The Israelis will need to get used to being killed; After all, they are THE problem.
Hamas is just waiting for a peaceful chance to talk things over. We just have to invite them.
EVERYBODY in the Middle East wants peace in Palestine. Except the US. so if we just say so, it will happen.
Yep, this Democrat has all the answers. Silly Republicans.
-
bernbart, they didn't need a veto-proof majority
to get America out of Iraq. All they needed to do was add a legally binding timetable to the funding for the Iraq war.
Bush vetoes, he doesn't get any money for his misbegotten war. Bush doesn't veto, he gets a timetable for withdrawal.
They didn't need to veto extending Bush's power to spy on you. They could have just voted against it.
Instead, the Democrats caved on these mandate issues, and in caving showed the American voter how little a vote for the Democrats is ultimately worth.
That is why I say vote independent - the Democrats had, and have the power to do something that you the voter mandated, but they didn't and they won't so vote for someone who will.
-
Sigh
I know I'm swimming upstream on the Israel thing here, but I want to give it a shot anyway.
Something that people should try to bear in mind when they're judging Israeli policies, and the reactions of U.S. Jews to them, is that:
a) Israel is tiny; about the size of Vancouver Island or Taiwan; it's about a quarter the size of Maine
b) Israel is the only state in the world where Jews are a majority.
I know I'm being pedantic, but think about those two points. There are 1 billion Catholics, spread out over dozens of nations, which in many they are the majority. There are 1 billion Muslims, again constituting the majority in many nations. But for the 13 or so million Jews, Israel is it. The one place they can go where they know they are welcome. And historically, we've been kicked out of an awful lot of countries, from Egypt to Spain to Portugal to England. Germany was one of the wellsprings of the Enlightenment, and then look what happened. Joseph was lionized in Egypt; within a couple of generations, the Hebrews were all slaves. And it happened plenty of times in between. (The emperor in China "reserved" certain names for Jews; how many are left in China these days?)
So when I hear someone say, as disigny did, "let's not conclude that statements about abolishing Israel must mean genocide; there is no such implication," I shudder. Yes, perhaps that's literally true, disigny, but where will those 7 million people go (many of them refugees from countries that absolutely didn't want them)? And what will the countries surrounding Israel be doing as those Jews leave? Waving bye-bye? Or lobbing mortar rounds?
Hyperbole? Perhaps. The Jews in Spain in the 15th century were very comfortable and integrated. And in 1492 they got the heave-ho.
There's no question that Israel--not unlike the U.S.--has done some seriously stupid shit in its day. But think about this, as well: I note that after we won all that land in wars with the Native Americans, the Mexicans, and the Canadians, we didn't give any of it back. There's no movement by folks on the left to turn the high plains back over to the Native Americans, or hand chunks of Texas and New Mexico back to the Mexicans, or give pieces of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont back to Canada. And yet Israel has already given up a lot of land won in a war. The vast majority of Israelis are ready and willing to give up even more of their teeny tiny country to a group of people that contain elements that have sworn eternal enmity and vowed to destroy them. And the main thing they ask for (aside from the messy issue of Jerusalem) is the recognition of their right to exist. Which keeps being refused.
Has Israel made made stupid mistakes during negotiations? Of course they have. But follow this gedankenexperiment: there are only 7 million Americans, and they are all in New Jersey. The rest of the country is Native Americans, who would prefer we leave altogether. Now a particular tribe--who have been lobbing rockets into Trenton, blowing themselves up in markets in Newark, and have splinter groups calling for all Americans to be killed--want at least a third of Jersey back for themselves. And America--which is only New Jersey--asks for an admission of their right to exist. And they are refused. And the rest of the world is saying, "Why are you being so stubborn? Just give them Newark like they want and cut Jersey in half! What's the big deal?"
And finally, for those who question how many American lives should be sacrificed in Israel's defense, I agree that an argument can be made that the answer is "none." But it depends on how much you want to prevent more war--including a potential nuclear strike by the Israelis--in the Middle East. Does anyone think that Israel, with the backing of the United States removed and its existence threatened by a nutjob--would hesitate to launch? Is that a risk we want to take, that the world wants to take?
I've probably convinced no one, which is fine. All I wanted to do was give a different perspective. If 7 million people in New York were killed, the U.S. could heal and move on. If 7 million people in California were killed, the U.S. could heal and move on. If 7 million people in Israel were killed, more than half the Jews in the world would be dead, Israel would cease to exist, and every Jew left in the world would once again be living at the sufferance of a government that may, at any time, give them the boot. Is it any wonder why a lot of Jews are jumpy about risking that?