Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abu Buchanan's Fatwah on Israel
Frontpage Magazine ^ | August 31, 2004 | Don Feder

Posted on 08/31/2004 12:56:59 AM PDT by rmlew

Israel represents the synthesis of Pat Buchanan’s paranoid delusions -- rampant interventionism, neo-conservatives (his euphemism for Jews) in charge of the Bush’s foreign policy, American empire and a war on terrorism that can’t be won.

Thus, in his new book – "Where The Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency” -- all roads lead to Jerusalem.

In Buchanan’s fantasy world, were it not for America’s outrageously pro-Israel foreign policy, Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar would be sending us anonymous love letters, the World Trade Center would still be standing, and the Moslem world would be singing “Yankee Doodle Dandy,” in unison, while Saddam Hussein (doing a passable imitation of Jimmy Cagney) tap-danced in the background.

Israel a la Pat is a homicidal, imperialist state – practicing apartheid, deliberately slaughtering civilians, occupying Palestinian land, and subjugating its peaceful inhabitants.

On page 240 of his book, Buchanan approvingly quotes Avraham Burg, who he identifies as a former speaker of the Knesset, concluding that Israel is a “thunderously failed reality,” that “rests on a scaffolding of corruption and on foundations of oppression and injustice.” According to Burg, “the end of the Zionist enterprise is already on our doorstep.”

Pat somehow neglects to mention that Burg, the epitome of the self-loathing Jew, represents the far left of Israeli politics. An architect of the 1993 Oslo Accords, Burg is bitter because his handiwork (now seen as paving the way for the present jihad) has been overwhelmingly rejected by Israeli society.

In other words, Burg is as representative of Israel as Michael Moore is of America.

When it comes to terrorism, Pat practices a moral equivalency worthy of the most slavish Soviet apologists at the height of the Cold War.

Consider the following: “Sharon promised peace and security. Since his provocation on the Temple Mount in September of 2000, he has delivered war and hatred. Over 900 Israelis are dead. Some 3,300 Palestinians have died, including hundreds of children.”

His “provocation on the Temple Mount”? For an Israeli prime minister to visit Judaism’s holiest spot (where the First and Second Temples stood), in Israel’s sovereign territory, is a “provocation”? Besides, Sharon’s visit -- which was approved in advance by the so-called Palestinian Authority -- was a pretext for the violence, which was planned months in advance, as Palestinian leaders have since admitted.

Regarding those dead Palestinians and Israelis, Buchanan overlooks some significant details. Most of the dead Palestinians were fighters killed in confrontations with the Israeli Defense Force. Their civilian dead were overwhelmingly people caught in the crossfire, because brave Palestinian fighters usually choose to challenge the Israelis from civilian enclaves.

Most of the dead Jews were women, children and the aged -- elderly Holocaust survivors attending Passover seders, babes sleeping in their mothers arms, toddlers eating ice cream cones, families with small children taking a break at a pizzeria, shoppers boarding buses, 13-year-old boys dragged off to caves and stoned to death, etc.

There was the April murder of Gaza resident Tali Hatuel, who was riding with her four children (ages 2 to 11), when Arab snipers forced her car off the road. Pat’s precious Palestinians then walked up to the vehicle and shot each passenger at point-blank range. The mother, who was eight-months pregnant, was also shot in the stomach, to ensure that her unborn child didn’t survive. As a pro-lifer, Pat can certainly appreciate that touch.

For crowd control, the IDF uses rubber bullets. The Palestinians go in for bombs packed with flesh-shredding nails, laced with rat poison. As a result, between September 2000 (the start of the latest Intifada) and February 18, 2003, only 38 percent of Palestinian fatalities were noncombatants, compared to 77 percent of Israel’s dead.

Still, Pat gripes: “Sharon declared Arafat a ‘terrorist,’ i.e., a man with whom no Israeli can negotiate, though Arafat had negotiated with four of Sharon’s predecessors and shared a Nobel Peace Prize with two of them, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres.”

Shared a Nobel Peace Prize? Oh, you mean like North Vietnamese Foreign Minister Le Duc Tho , who coped his with Henry Kissinger for negotiating the Paris Peace Accords – which led directly to the demise of South Vietnam, a string of tropical gulags and a million Vietnamese Boat People. If Pat has his way, Israel will follow South Vietnam in suicide through negotiations.

I liked Buchanan better when he didn’t sound so – French.

FYI, Sharon isn’t the only one who thinks Arafat is a terrorist – so do Bush, Cheney, Powell, Condoleezza Rice and everyone else except the gutless peace-at-any-price Europeans, and Pat Buchanan.

When it comes to Israel, Pat manages to pack more myths and misconceptions into a paragraph than anyone else I know. To wit:

Under the Sharon Plan, Israel will annex all five major settlements on the occupied West Bank. The Palestinian right of return is forfeit. Israel’s security wall will snake in and out of the West Bank. Jerusalem will not be shared with a Palestinian state.”

1) Occupied West Bank – Was this land (Biblical Israel) ever part of an independent Palestinian state? Who was the last Palestinian king or prime minister, Pat?

2) Right of Return – Even after the Palestinians get their state (and Israel gets indefensible borders), Buchanan still wants to see Israel flooded with 6 million refugees – those who left in 1948 and their descendants. If he had any intellectual honesty, he’d admit that this is a prescription for the end of Israel.

3) Security Wall – How inconsiderate of the Israelis to make it harder for suicide bombers to reach their targets! Buchanan has long advocated stationing US troops along our southern border, to prevent the infiltration of illegal aliens. If we have a right to keep out those seeking jobs (and we do), why doesn’t Israel have a right to block the entry of those seeking to blow things up? Ever hear of a Mexican suicide bomber?

4) Jerusalem will not be shared – Why stop at Jerusalem, Pat? Why not also give the Nobel laureate and his peace marchers a slice of Tel Aviv and Haifa, while you’re at it? Or, in fairness, why not give the Sephardic Jews driven from the Arab world in 1948, and their progeny, parts of Cairo, Baghdad and Tehran?

Still, Buchanan raves: “The Sharon Plan is not a peace plan. It is a unilateral solution to be imposed by Israel that no Arab nation will accept. A Palestinian leader who signs on to this surrender of land and rights would be signing his death warrant.” To surrender something, you have to be entitled to it in the first place, no?

Guess what, Pat? Even if Israel gave the Palestinians everything you believe to be theirs by right, it still wouldn’t buy peace – any more than surrender of the Sudentenland bought peace with Nazi Germany.

More than a decade after Oslo, the PLO charter still calls for the annihilation of Israel, as it did when Arafat was accepting his Nobel Peace Prize.

Even when he was pretending to be Israel’s partner in peace, Arafat was telling Arab audiences: We’ll take whatever the Jews are dumb enough to give us, and use it for a base to liberate the rest of Palestine. He even has a name of it – the Plan of Phases.

Without Judea and Samaria (AKA, the West Bank), Israel would be 9 miles wide at its narrow waist. Its eastern border would go from 40 miles to over 200 miles in length – impossible even for the Israeli Army to police. Arab tank columns, in a race to the sea, could cut the nation in half in hours. Controlling the high ground, Palestinians could rain mortar rounds and rockets on an area containing 80 percent of Israel’s population.

Don’t misunderstand me. The Sharon Plan is atrocious. Once the Palestinians have their state, they can begin importing heavy armaments and training commando units to act as an advance column for the rest of the Arab world when the next Middle East war comes – as come it will.

But the fact that Buchanan finds Sharon’s unilateral submission paltry and insufficient, and an insult to the noble Arafat and his heroic people, shows that Pat is either totally detached from reality or has an implacable, blinding hatred of the Jewish state that defies rational explanation. I think it’s a little of both.

Buchanan has constructed a worldview in which all of our troubles with Islam come down to a nation the size of Connecticut, devoid of resources.

I wonder if he ever asks himself why Moslems are killing Hindus in the Kashmir – because Sharon won’t share Jerusalem with Arafat? Or, why Moslems are murdering Christians in Indonesia, oppressing Christians in Egypt and committing genocide in the Sudan (a fact now even acknowledged by hard-core leftist Danny Glover)? Was the foregoing sparked by Sharon’s provocation on the Temple Mount?

Why is Saudi Arabia financing the building of militant mosques all over the United States, while signs in Riyadh proclaim “An Islamic World”? Perhaps the phenomenon is due to Israel’s security fence. Why are Kosovar Moslems burning down Orthodox churches, razing convents and slaughtering Serbs whenever they can lay their hands on them? Could this be a reaction to Neoconservative control of US foreign policy?

Like the Oxford students in the 1930s, who signed petitions vowing they’d never fight for king and country, like the America-Firsters under Charles Lindbergh (who Buchanan reveres), Pat is blind to any reality that threatens to intrude on his cozy, isolationist worldview.

Where The Right Went Wrong is dedicated to Ronald Reagan.
Would you care to know what a real conservative – the greatest conservative of the 20th. century – thought of the Jewish state?

In October 1980, Reagan called for “an undivided Jerusalem” under Israeli sovereignty. In the same speech, he declared, “I believe in the right of settlements in the West Bank.”

In April 1978, Reagan observed, “The present (Carter) administration is dead wrong when it says Israel’s West Bank settlements are ‘illegal.’”

In September 1980, the Gipper explained: “The touchstone of our relationship with Israel is that a secure, strong Israel is in America’s self-interest. Israel’s a major strategic asset to America. Israel is not a client but a very reliable friend.” That view did not change with the end of the Cold War.

In office, Reagan was forced to modify his position on what are called settlements. But he never changed in his opposition to a Palestinian state (“The United States will not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.”), or his rejection of negotiations with Arafat and his PLO (who our 40th president consistently branded terrorists).

The man who won the Cold War envisioned Palestinians living in post-1967 Israel exercising a fair degree of autonomy, in some sort of loose federation with Jordan.

In his book, “Broken Covenant,” former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Moshe Arens disclosed, “Meeting President Reagan was like meeting an old friend, and he had a strong feeling of friendship and admiration for Israel that was always apparent in word as well as in deed.”

In light of the foregoing, who has betrayed the Reagan legacy – the neo-conservatives or Patrick J. Buchanan?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Israel
KEYWORDS: americafirst; appeasement; buchanan; buchannaite; donaldfeder; donfeder; goawaypatgoaway; isolationists; israel; mullahpat; patbuchanan; patbuchananhatesjews; patrickbuchanan; pitchforkpat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 321-340 next last
To: Darksheare; Hollywoodghost

Hollywoodghost



"Many of Isreal's problems are self inflicted."





Bloody.

Another one.

The Israelis are surrounded by enemies who will stop at nothing to kill them all and have only defended themselves. If anything, *I* say they have pulled their punches too often and too soon.

But I do not live there, and do not know.

Here is a question for the philosophical:

the Israelis have made the desert bloom and flourish.

What would the Palestinians do with that land if they WERE to get it?



101 posted on 08/31/2004 10:13:52 AM PDT by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno-World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Bella_Bru

Bella_Bru wrote:

Are you a Mosad plant?

No, but I am the President of the Sisterhood branch of La Kosher Nostra.





ROFLMAO!


102 posted on 08/31/2004 10:15:10 AM PDT by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno-World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

Absolutely right. Feder is a blunt, no-nonsense traditional conservative. Looks like he decided to give PJB a taste of that "cold steel" of his today. I really wish Buchanan would repent of his anti-Semitism. It's gotten to the point where he's taking up leftist agruments to hurl at the "Jewish Conspiracy."

Don Feder is about as far from a leftist as one can get. Maybe this slap on side of the head will wake Buchanan from this craziness he's fallen into.


103 posted on 08/31/2004 10:19:41 AM PDT by Bogolyubski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tiamat; Hollywoodghost

The arabs are jealous because while the land languished all those centuries during the Jewish exile and scattering, the arabs did NOTHING with the land and deemed it worthless.
The land only became important to the arabs when it became a nation again and became worth something.
(The arabs didn't drain the swamps/salt marshes and didn't irrigate anything, they trashed the place instead as they do with everything they own. It was the Jews who reclaimed the land from languishing overgrazed scrub desert.)

Jealousy and penis envy is not becoming in a people, especially a people who during centuries of illegitimate control through Islamic conquest didn't do anything worthwile there.
(And DO take note that there were Jews living there throughout the entire time, never once was there EVER an arabic seperate nation named 'Palistine'. The Romans called it Philistia, the modern Palis do not have ANY ties whatsoever with the ancient Philistines.)


104 posted on 08/31/2004 10:20:35 AM PDT by Darksheare (Don't greet customers at the drivethrough with: "We are the Borg, resistance is futile!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

Thanks!

( I think!)

but hey.... i just now found out who "Eschoir" is.......

I'm behind the times!

:-)


105 posted on 08/31/2004 10:21:35 AM PDT by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno-World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: tiamat

LOL!
It's been awhile since he's been spotted I hear tell.
Perhaps he's hiding in his spiderhole still?


106 posted on 08/31/2004 10:27:36 AM PDT by Darksheare (Don't greet customers at the drivethrough with: "We are the Borg, resistance is futile!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

Saw somebody posting on LibertyPost.org under that handle just this morning.

Yes, I check out them, AND the DUmmies on a semi regular basis, just to see what they are telling one another!

But i always wash my hands afterwards!

:-)


107 posted on 08/31/2004 10:30:15 AM PDT by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno-World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

Yep!

But the Israelis have made the desert flourish.


They can actually grow wine-grapes again.


108 posted on 08/31/2004 10:33:04 AM PDT by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno-World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: tiamat

LOL!
Wonder if he's still as venomous as he used to be, or if the intervening years have mellowed him at all.
(Not likely!)


109 posted on 08/31/2004 10:39:24 AM PDT by Darksheare (Don't greet customers at the drivethrough with: "We are the Borg, resistance is futile!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

AS of this morning, he seemed to be ranting.


110 posted on 08/31/2004 10:44:01 AM PDT by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno-World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: tiamat

LOL!
He hasn't mellowed at all then!
Wonder if he's gonna retread again so we can crush him again.

(Just as Smocker said "you people" implying that everyone he disagreed with was a Jew and thus was 'discredited', the esteemed Harvard Man did the same.)


111 posted on 08/31/2004 10:54:45 AM PDT by Darksheare (Don't greet customers at the drivethrough with: "We are the Borg, resistance is futile!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

Dunno.

Mostly they sit over there in the "Biker Bar" and fling poo because they have been banned here.

the name "biker Bar" amuses me, though... i've only known a few bikers and those things at LP really don't see to measure up....I think they are compensating for something....


112 posted on 08/31/2004 10:59:49 AM PDT by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno-World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Alouette; Darksheare; tiamat

Alouette, is the graphic of the Skunks many screenames still floating around?


113 posted on 08/31/2004 11:00:18 AM PDT by SJackson (Pat Buchanan, “The Skunk at the Garden Party”, Michael Medved on Pat at the Republican Convention)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: tiamat

LOL!!


114 posted on 08/31/2004 11:03:22 AM PDT by Darksheare (Don't greet customers at the drivethrough with: "We are the Borg, resistance is futile!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: SJackson; Alouette; tiamat

If it is, it'll be educational.
If it still exists, and you find it, ping me please.


115 posted on 08/31/2004 11:04:32 AM PDT by Darksheare (Don't greet customers at the drivethrough with: "We are the Borg, resistance is futile!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Smocker
Pat Buchanan is a patriotic American, who does not tie his own love of country to a misguided defense of Israel and it's polices at any cost, including our blind and misguided defense of the thug now running Israel.
1. I don't question Pat's patriotism, only his decisions, beliefs, and delusions.
2. Our support for Israel is hardly blind. We have forced Israel into a suicidal "Peace Process".
3. Thugs? Israel does not target civilians. You are either blind or obfuscating.

One day his words will prove to have been prophetic, and knee jerk writers on the subject who can't seem to write rationally about the issue will be proved wrong.
So Bucfhananism is a faith to you?

116 posted on 08/31/2004 11:04:45 AM PDT by rmlew (Peaceniks and isolationists are objectively pro-Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

Check out post 61..
..and don't be drinking anything when you do.
Not that it is funny, the post isn't.
But Narcissus had an echo at that post.


117 posted on 08/31/2004 11:07:42 AM PDT by Darksheare (Don't greet customers at the drivethrough with: "We are the Borg, resistance is futile!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Smocker
But you see, you people can engage in name calling and nasty comments, but you havent been able to defend the nazi like behaviour of the thug in Israel by the name of Sharon
Nazi-like? Where are the mass graves and millions killed? Where is the genocidal targeting of civilains?
You have no concept of that term.

You are the one name calling.

118 posted on 08/31/2004 11:08:35 AM PDT by rmlew (Peaceniks and isolationists are objectively pro-Terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: rmlew; Darksheare; Smocker

Awful quiet, ain't he?


119 posted on 08/31/2004 11:51:44 AM PDT by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno-World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: tiamat

Banned and/or suspended.


120 posted on 08/31/2004 11:53:27 AM PDT by Bella_Bru (It's for the children = It takes a village)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 321-340 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson