Posted on 08/01/2006 11:22:56 AM PDT by SJackson
Pat Buchanan, not satisfied merely looking like a Herblock depiction of a bigot, a man who never allows an opportunity to slam Israel slip through his fingers, has been on a rampage because Israel has finally gone after the murderous thugs and sadists of Hezbollah.
The fact that the terrorists don’t wear uniforms means that every time the Israelis kill one of them, Buchanan and his ilk get to insist that Israel is targeting civilians. Buchanan’s concern for civilians isn’t nearly so evident when it’s Jews who are targeted by Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO’s suicide bombers.
One of the sillier things Israel has done in recent years was to fall for the land for peace con game. They surrendered territory and any number of settlements as a gesture of good will. Good will gestures made to terrorists and tyrants are the height of folly and cowardice, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s the Arabs or Adolf Hitler. Offer your hand to the tiger and don’t expect him to stop nibbling when he gets to your wrist.
Because Israel plays such a prominent role in the news, and because it’s managed, against all odds, to survive for 58 years, one can easily over-estimate its actual place in the world. The fact of the matter is that unless you were at the top of your geography class, you’d be hard-pressed to find it on your globe. To give you a clear idea of what Israel is up against, keep in mind that there are 22 countries in the Arab League. The League encompasses 5,200,000 square miles; Israel was 8,000 square miles before giving up the aforementioned turf. What’s more, there are 312 million people living in those 22 countries. Israel’s population is six million, more than a million of whom are Arabs.
So far as Buchanan and his friends are concerned, it would seem that the only thing that’s required to make Israel the jewel of the Middle East is for those five million Jews to disappear.
You have to wonder what it is about those 8,000 square miles that the Arabs covet. It’s not as if Israel sits on huge oil deposits. Why aren’t five million square miles enough? I mean, if you had five million dollars, would you cry yourself to sleep every night because you didn’t have $5,008,000?
Let’s face it -- before the Jews built universities, hospitals and concert halls, and planted trees and crops, the place was nothing but a desert.
So many people are happy to trumpet “No blood for oil.” How is it that we never hear them, or Mr. Buchanan, telling the Arabs, “No blood for sand”?
About the Writer: Burt Prelutsky is a humorist, movie reviewer, writer for television series and movies, and author of the new book, "Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco." His website is at http://burtprelutsky.com. Burt receives e-mail at BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.
Please direct me to where I said Catholics are not Christian?
When you realize I did no such thing, please return to this post to read further.
x
x
x
x
x
I don't ascribe to the belief that because someone belongs to a Church that they are Christian. Kerry is supposedly a Christian. So is Ted Kennedy. They are techically Catholics, correct?
Evangelical, protestant, Catholic...whatever. Simply marking attendance in church doesn't make one a Christian. It may qualify you for a gold star on the attendance sheet, but that's about it.
I don't generally go about saying that person is a Christian, and that person is not. But in the case of the Clinton's, Kerry, Teddy and yes, Pat Buchanon, I've made an exception. I don't believe any of them are Christians..no matter what church they claim affiliation with. If I'm wrong, I'm sure God will take it up with me.
Furthermore, I didn't even know Pat was a member of the Catholic Church. So how you made the leap to anti-catholism from a simple statement rejecting his spiritual conversion to Christianity I'll never know.
This is could have come out of the mouth of Frank Lautenberg, Howard Dean, John Kerry, or John Murtha.
IOW, it's the mantra of Democrats who think only those who have served have any right to occupy a position that sends other men into battle.
And, of course, your buddy Buchanan (who never served due to a boil on his butt) points out constantly that his pantheon of Jewish neo-cons weren't in the service, either.
This is his cover article for the American Conservative on the eve of the Iraq War: http://www.amconmag.com/2003/03_24_03/cover.html
In it, you will find a succinct definition of neoconservatism, and a listing of Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, and James Q. Wilson as prominent neocons, and a definition of neocon journals as including National Review and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, neither of which are predominantly Jewish.
You will also find criticism of the foreign policy positions of Bill Bennett, Tom Donnelly, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and Laurent Murawiec, a former La Rouchie turned neocon.
Buchanan defines neoconservatism as an ideological movement, not an ethnicity.
You again, padre?
It is interesting how the term "neo-con" is spun. Kristol calls himself a neoconservative, and has used the word as often as he has "hegemony", if that's possible. I recommend a long and depressing dogpile.com search using the two words, "Balkan" and "neoconservative." You'll find a lot of Kristol's academic papers: the stuff he got grants to write.
So Kristol can write about neoconservatism, but you're not allowed to say the word "neoconservative" on pain of being called an antisemite. And there are types anxious to remind you of your speech restrictions.
LOL--
When Buchannan mentions the existence of "powerful Jewish organizations", he's smeared as an anti-semite. It's a funny old world, isn't it?
I'm afraid he does.
>>>>>>So Kristol can write about neoconservatism, but you're not allowed to say the word "neoconservative" on pain of being called an antisemite. And there are types anxious to remind you of your speech restrictions.
You are exactly right!
And thanks for the reminder about the neocons' shameful record on the Balkans. (Buchanan was foursquare against the US war on Serbia, as you probably recall).
Go Pat Go, Go as far away as possible.
That's why he spends the first half of the article quoting nothing but Jewish pundits.
Including the editors of Commentary (published by the American Jewish Committee) whose masthead proclaims them "the home of neo-conservatism".
Biden, Albright, McCain--all needed the "cover" provided by the "intellectual" wing of the neocons in order to muscle Willie Jeff into the fight. I guess I'll find Bennett in there, too? Disappointing.
If you look over the whole ghastly business (and now having the Albanian Muslims to deal with, much more powerful than before)--it's like we entered that conflict with the general purpose of showing the Muslims how nice we could be to them.
Now we get the spectacle of 800-yr-old Eastern Orthodox churches being burned, one by one, until there will be none left in the Balkans.
But no one ever holds the neos accountable...They call me paleo here at times, I don't much care, but I'm really for a post-neo conservatism.
As for Pat, he only has the currency they give him--he'd be a complete nobody without his angry opposition. I regard him as an irrelevancy. I want new, young, non-neo pundits who write with dash and vigor.
I also find it very telling how much the neos hate Ann Coulter.
Write them and ask them. Perhaps they do.
Yes, including Mickey Kaus of Slate, who agrees with Buchanan and disagrees with the other pundits (all of whom are quoted as complaining that criticism of them equates to anti-Semitism, which is a convenient shield for a pundit to have, you must admit).
And Buchanan goes on to criticize all the gentiles I mention, plus writes that America has a moral obligation to Israel. But you wouldn't want to worry about anything that complicates the "Buchanan hates all Jews" thesis, not would you?
So do I. Unfortunately, the neos are very successful in freezing out the opposition on the right. Which is why National Review is largely indistinguashable from the Weekly Standard in its editorial positions.
Excellent observation.
There is the Human Events, and David Horowitz, while passionately pro-Israel, is not so insular in his publication, frontpagemag.com. For all that he agrees with neos much of the time, he really does not seem to be one. The neos certainly don't seem to support David H very much at all!!
David Frum is nominally pro-choice--imagine that in Bill Buckley's magazine!
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.