Regards, Ivan
Anti-semitism sneaks into the anti-war camp
Sneaks?
It was there from day one.
There was a time when the Left was reflexively pro-Israel. I know, it seems that could never have been the case, but I assure you, in the Fifties and early Sixties, it was. Back then, to oppose Israel in anything was labeled anti-Semitic by the Left. This state of affairs came to an end with the burgeoning of the military and intelligence relationships between Washington and Tel Aviv.
With the Gulf War of 1991, we reached the antipodes of the previous state: anyone who opposed Israel in anything was labeled anti-Semitic by the Right. A number of major conservative commentators, Pat Buchanan, Charley Reese, and Joseph Sobran prominent among them, found themselves ejected from magazines where they'd been ensconced for many years because they'd concluded that Israel's interests clashed with America's interests in that conflict.
Why can't we discuss certain matters with a proper regard for the intermediate possibilities? It is possible that a man might oppose an initiative that would favor Israel without being anti-Semitic, or for that matter, without being anti-Israel. There's no guarantee that the interests of Israel and America will always run in harmony -- that's why they're two separate nations, after all -- in which case, would you really want to be called anti-Semitic for preferring to promote America's interests?
Religion, ancestry, and public policy make a volatile mix. That's one reason why, when discussing public policy, it's best to avoid the other matters and to focus as narrowly as possible on objectively verifiable facts and general moral and Constitutional principles. Anyone who calls you anti-Semitic, or any other defamatory name, in the course of such a discussion is then quite clearly attempting to stop discussion. What else could he intend, by diverging from facts and principles to attack your motives and you as a person?
This applies with equal force to any other issue where religion, ethnicity, race, hair color, shoe size, or any other non-player in political decisionmaking is introduced.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Why not?
There you go. If you're a conservative, your a poorly educated boob, if your a liberal you're an intellectual. Pretty much sums up the way the left handles all debate. Here's a fun exercise, lets list all the repbulican presidents in the last fifty years and see how the left characterized them:
And so it is with great irony I notice this leftist complaining about namecalling:
"I am sick and tired of Jewish people always smearing those that merely disagree with their views as evil."
The answer is also self-evident: anti-Israel fanatics are anti-Semites.
Yeah, like Jordan.
How clueless these people are. One of the most blatantly obvious facts of middle eastern politics in the last decade has been the Israeli electorate's fervent desire to end their governance of the disputed Palestinian territories. The arabs just won't let 'em do it (not if it means peace, security, indeed continued existence, for Israel). Yet these alledged "peace" activists are overwhelmingly PRO-WAR when it comes to the Palestinian intifada, and ignore or actively excuse the arab instrasigence which undercut the best opportunity in the last fifty years for a just and peaceful resolution of the Palestine dispute.
The simple fact is the "peace" movement in the West is pro-war, provided only that aggression is conducted by thuggish anti-Western autocrats, or by brutal and violent insurgencies attempting to topple civil or modernizing governments. No, not all "peaceniks" hold such views, but such views are almost univerisally tolerated in the "peace" movement. They aren't even a source of controversy. Nearly ever major rally includes hard-left, pro-thug groups like Ramsey Clark's International Action Center (a creature of the Stalinist World Workers Party) among its official sponsers. I've never even heard of an effort to exclude such odious orgs and elements. Until I do the "peace" movement warrants zero credibility in my book.
Matthews blamed the US for not doing more to calm the people of the Middle-East. By this he meant that we shouldn't always be pro-Israel and we shouldn't be pro the leadsership of the Middle-East Countries. We should rather help topple their Governments in order to support the average citizen. To me he just wants us to help support the Terrorists who would then be in charge in the Middle-East. He made his points very heatedly to show his depth of feeling on this issue.
I really think that is what he wants and he cannot see that this would just make the Terrorists stronger as they try to make Islam the one true World Religion and Islamic law the World's Judicial System.
So much for you Mr. Chris Matthews.
I find it amusing that Leftists claim that the embargo on Iraq is "harmful, and killing the chilluns' ", while screaming for economic sanctions against Israel!
Funny, that the Pali-scum are NEVER worthy of ANY sanctions...
I do believe the true god of the left is Janus!
And that's the truth.
My visiting father-in-law -- born in India of missionary parents, a pacifist in WWII -- saw a documentary on Ann Frank yesterday. My wife asked him what he thought, and he said "Those people probably got what they deserved."
I nearly fell over. This is the "Greatest Generation"? My own flesh and blood? I'm so ashamed. I don't even know how to begin thinking about this.
I do know, however, how the Jews who have supported the democrats all these decades should begin thinking about it. The democrats have moved on to what they perceive as a bigger block of voters. Just as democrats were soft on Stalin, they are now soft on Islam.