Hucksters, Hooligans and Huckabee
Gosh, I’m sure happy now that the netroots and the Democrats successfully sunk the Fox News presidential debate a few months back.
I thought it was a really dumb idea to do so at the time. But now, much like Mitt Romney, I’ve changed my mind.
In retrospect, there’s no way the crumb-bums at Fox could have carried off any such debate with, um, the dignity, the gravitas, and the respect for the viewers demonstrated by the venerable CNN in its handling of Wednesday’s Boob YouTube GOP debate.
I mean, if Fox had organized this you can just imagine what would have happened. We would have seen videos of questions from gun freaks tossing loaded weapons around, and from those demanding to know if the Bible was the literal and revealed Word of God, how long women should be jailed for having abortions, what are the most effective forms of human torture, and — last not but least– how much does each candidate love the Confederate Flag!
Oops, say what? That’s what you saw on CNN? Sorry… Oh well.
To be honest, I didn’t catch the entire “debate.” And I if were just about any of those guys up on stage, I’d have to hope that not too many others saw it either. I understand fully they are competing for the loyalty of the Republican base, but they seem so out of synch with the national mood that it’s almost painful.
Who can believe that there could by more than 1/4 of the electorate, if that, who today cares to hear you answer what your personal gun collection is comprised of, of how literal you think the Bible is and and whether you’d ban abortion on a federal or just a state level? I don’t know nor do I care very much who “won” the debate — but you’ve got to figure that whoever the nominee winds up being he must have at least temporarily lost 2-3% of the general election voters who had mistakenly or otherwise tuned in.
The most excruciating moments I caught? I think top prize goes to military cultist Duncan Hunter who argued that gays in the armed forces would offend the cultural sensibilities of the “mostly conservative” young people who enlist. What a hooligan. I suppose serving young negroes Cokes at the Woolworth counter in 1950 would have also been culturally offensive to a lot of folks in Mississippi – but that wouldn’t have made it legal, justifiable or humane. The other worst moments? Anytime Mitt Romney was on camera. A full-time cynical huckster who can barely keep track of his own rampant opportunism. Or maybe it was the time visitin’ with Good Old Uncle Fred Thompson who — apparently– doesn’t know much about, well, anything.
UPDATE:Â Micah Sifry tells us why the YouTube debate format sucks.
————— + —————-
Meanwhile, comes news that Mike “The Revealed Word of God” Huckabee is now leading the GOP pack in Iowa. Absolutely no surprise to me, thank you. I predicted a meteoric rise for him back in mid-summer when I saw him out at the Iowa Straw Poll. And it’s not just that Huckabee is bona fide social conservative that makes him appealing to the Republican base. He has definite cross-over appeal, projecting a Compassionate Conservatism that GW Bush talked about but never demonstrated.
Save your energy and don’t even think about slamming me for being soft on Huckabee. I’m merely recognizing and trying to explain his appeal. He radiates a core decency that seems to be lacking from every other of his rivals and it’s starting to pay off for him big time.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Huckabee also has only supported the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from “greater Israel.”
November 29th, 2007 at 1:06 am
Palestinians have been ethnic cleansing from day one with their disgusting terrorist tactics on innocent civilians, usually reaching its peaks just before and following any attempts at civilizing them with peace agreements.
And your use of ‘ethnic cleansing’ to describe a democratic nations attempt at removing rabid-with-hate nutcase terrorists from their midst proves just how warped and rotted your young and pliable mind has been made by ‘educated’ idiots passing themselves off as having the reason to ‘profess’ anything but radical leftwing political guano.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Yeah – I hate to admit it because Huckabee is one of maybe two GOP contenders* I’d allow in my house, but he’s a total nutcase on Israel/Palestine (“carve a Palestinian state out of Egypt or Saudi Arabia”). Of course he’s a dedicated, up-front nutcase on so many things…maybe that’s part of his charm.
*Ron Paul, also a nutcase, is the other, of course.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:18 am
“Palestinians have been ethnic cleansing from day one”
Read Israeli historian Bennie Morris on “ethnic cleansing” done by the Israelis “from day one”. Also look into the ideology of the early Zionist Jabotinksy (an acolyte of Mussolini) because his vision of Israel, unfortunately, is becoming the dominant reality – primarily because he didn’t underestimate or dismiss the counter-aspirations of Palestinian nationalism as less fervent or expansive than that of the Jews. His prescription, of course, was that they would need to be crushed.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:31 am
“Ethnic cleansing”? That’s putting it a little strongly. And it doesn’t square with the sentiment expressed (however fuzzily) here:
http://www.nysun.com/article/60443?page_no=2
In any case, a Palestinian state outside Israel isn’t “ethnic cleansing”, unless Israel were to decide to kick all Arabs out, telling them, “you’ve got a homeland, get out of ours.” If that were at all likely, Israel would already have evicted its not-insignificant Arab population to the West Bank and Gaza.
[I've got an idea: how about giving the Palestinians Kuwait? They would practically have had it anyway if Saddam, after the Gulf War I invasion, had obeyed UN resolutions and suddenly vacated that territory. Which is probably why he didn't, come to think of it -- leaving behind a Palestinian state, especially with all that oil, would have gotten *everybody* mad at him.]
Anyway, I’m as down with Huckabee as I could be with any rightwing fruitcake who I’d never vote for. While much of the GOP field mostly mumbles about how global warming isn’t such a big deal, nothing to give up our lifestyle for, Huckabee says that doing something about it is actually a *moral* imperative. Well, duh.
His positions (some admirable, some execrably stupid) aside, I have to admit he’s got some Reagan mojo, even (given his relative youth) some Clinton mojo. He’s coherent, charismatic, and maybe the funniest presidential candidate since Morris Udall. And here I was thinking this race would be dreary and dull ….
November 29th, 2007 at 8:35 am
It would have been nice if CNN had concentrated on questions from those likely to vote in the Republican primaries rather than questions from Democratic plants, as revealed in this post.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:23 am
I would suggest Ilan Pappe (who michael balter is also a fan of) over morris, they have a bone of contention over whether Israel’s cleansing of 48 was intentional or “in the fog of war.” Regardless, what Huckabee is suggesting – it is linked at Angry Arab – is that there not only should not be a Palestinain state, but that Palestinians should be settled in another Arab country. Ethnic cleansing is exactly that. When Croatians kicked out Serbs from Krajina, the object was that “there already was Serbia.” When Serbs kicked out Bosnians, it was “there already is a Bosnia.” Thsi is precisely what the facts are.
Jim R has no clue of the history of the region, and I’d prefer dumbass goys like him shut the fuck up
November 29th, 2007 at 9:30 am
I am a longtime member of the Council of Concerned Jewish Canadians and other Jewish and non-Jewish Anti-Occupation and Anti-Zionist groups. My “young mind” is 31 – I’m back in school after 10 years in various private sector and freelance positions. I know to which I speak, having spent time in both ISrael and Palestine.
So if my last statement to Jim R, aboud dumbass goys seems harsh, I mean it that way. Nothing pisses me off more than when I, as a Jew, are lectured abotu Israel by people whose ilk were Anti-Semitic not 15 years ago (Pat Robertson’s Anti-Jewish, Anti-Masonic New World Order) and will continue to be Anti-Semitic even as they “support ISrael” – and like in John Carpenter’s Mouth of Madness or Bob Marley’s Redemption Spong, they have to “fulfill the book”. My Israeli friends and family who are broadly in sympathy with my position squarely blame the right wing in both the Untied States and Israel for this policy (one reason I don’t totally buy Mearshiemer/Walt is that as Chomsky puts it, it is in American Imperial interests ot keep Israel and Palestine at odds)
So the only Israel they support – the evangelical Anti-Semites like Jim R or Huckabee (who I agree seems a decent fellow, and I’d love to play some music with him – he has a beautiful bass) is one that is constantly at war with itsn eighbours, which then provokes horrifying responses, justifying the constant war with its neighbours, etc.
Jim R probably supported Yigal Amir.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Welcome back Woody. It is so interesting isn’t it, how the intolerant stupid and close minded conservatives are so willing to expose themselves to opposing networks, political opinions, equal time (FOX political programs), and political competition and debate. While, those claiming the tolerance, intellect, and ‘enlightenment’ are so shy when it comes to exposing themselves to competition on ‘their’ venues/turf.
This strange behavior of course is so starkly exposed in our bastions of intellect and ‘enlightenment’, our gov’t subsidized and funded Universities. The intimidation is frightening. Not to conservative speakers shouted down in the one minority hall offered to conservative students for their point of view, but by the clearly intimidated and frightened radical leftwing student robots sent out to suppress all other views.
Sound familiar? Look at the prelude and post behaviors of past communist and socialist revolutions. Ok, I am intimidated and somewhat frightened for the future of the greatest nation, but not a perfect nation, on god’s green earth.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Too be more concise, wherever there is free and open competition of ideas in a real marketplace, ie, not publicly funded or subsidize but where ideas have to earn their keep, conservative ideas win everytime.
Left ideologues survive only in closed, secretive, in-competitive(incompetent) big gov’t controlled and funded venues where the weirdness only becomes evident in the uncontrolled and intolerant behaviors of our innocent, when expose to anything other than what they are programmed to think in uncompetitive controlled environments.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Keep it topical, JC, it’s not relevant either that you’re Jewish or that JR is a dumbass. No one with glancing commitment to liberal values, like secularism, democracy, human rights, or racial equality, could support Zionism on its merits. That’s why its advocates always take the discussion off topic. They need to avoid the merits of the issue at all costs. Don’t play that game.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:23 am
What a laugh watching jc and Jim R “debate” wingnuttery. Jim the right wing welfare queens like Ann Coulter and Michele Malkin survive thru the kindness of patrons like Coors and Scaife and their bulk buys of the excriable books these “authors” produce.
Which is why I am getting such a kick out of these poor dears suing Regnery for not paying enough in royalties!
Woody, that plant asked a legitimate qurstion so how was it a plant. Frankly CNN was disgraceful in making that an issue rather than taking the angry old white men to task for their lame answers.
Hey, of course the guy was a shill and a plant. A career officer and a Colonel? Couldn’t possibly be a Republican with that background!
November 29th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Glad you’re Kreskin Marc but it should have been obvious that Huckabee had potential. He is likable, his weight loss is a dream story for a country that made “The Biggest Loser” a TV hit and he posits outrageous positions without foaming at the mouth and combines them with some shockingly sensible ideas – raising taxes to balance budgets, arts education, open to talking about health care.
I am doubtful that he can win for the simple reason that hje lacks money and the crazy primary season is so compact he won’t have time to cash in good showing early on to compete on Super-Duper Tuesday. But he will be a strong VP candidate.
But there is the little matter of Wayne Dumond – his own private “Willie Horton” waiting for him and I suspect you’ll hear a lot about that in the next few weeks from Romney.
(Dumond is a convicted rapist pardoned by Huckabee after he became a rightie cause celebe – sort of a wingnut Mumia. His victim was a Clinto cousin and the mouth breathers claimed he was framed by the old rapist-in-chief for vengence. Against the advice of the prison authorities Mike sprung him. Wayne then went to Missouri where he raped and murdered another woman.)
November 29th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Final comment: the real loser is the man Kos calls a “Dead Man Debating” – Rudy Guiliani. That story that ran on POLITIC about his taxpayer paid lovenes is sinking him. The finaal straw to go with so much more. Did you see that FOX News went big on it. That sound you hear is Rupert throwing him under the bus. He is sinking in NH and will probably now circle the drain tin SC. And he’s a non-factor in Iowa.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
mr x is right…so I will refrain.
Oh – and the secret to the totally succesful Annapolis conference is the attendance of Senegal, Slovenia and Malta.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Jim R- should the US privatize public libraries? State universities?
November 29th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
After watching Huckabee response to the retired General (and, of course, “I’m shocked” that CNN let queers ask questions of these great men – which wouldn’t have been the case if they’d with the GOP base !), I like him much less. He wasn’t as bad as Great White Hunter or as disingenuous as that Ken Doll who once governed Gomhorrah – and of course his answer was utterly predictable given the “perfect storm” of his crackpot fundamentalism and GOPer political ambition – but he reminded me of those “chaming” southerners who amiably defended segregation (before they were forced to turn the whole ugly business into “nostalgia” for “better days”.)
jcummings asks “should the US privatize public libraries” – how about giving all those kids who pass a means test a free Kindle and and an allotment of Amazon download coupons. We could turn those all of those Stalinist public library buildings into retail and food malls – Gap, Apple Store, McDonalds, Subway, Panda Express, etc. or perhaps live/work lofts for budding entrepeneurs. I’m sure the Cato Institute is currently working on this…
November 29th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
That should have been “if they’d stuck with the GOP base !”
November 29th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
rlc, a question to the Republican candidates is not a “legitimate question” if it’s asked by a potential competitor and intended to inflict harm rather than obtain information. Further, there were multiple questions of that type, and each one squeezed out truly legitimate questions from conservatives.
My point above was that there will be a time and place for the presidential nominees to address issues of all voters. However, the Republican debate is intended to address issues of Republicans who will vote in the Republican primaries–not Democrats.
That guy asking the Republicans about queers in the military is like me asking Hillary Clinton what she’s going to do to reduce the size of government.
Okay, that’s it. I’m not going to let this get into another back and forth boring exchange.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
“That guy asking the Republicans about queers in the military is like me asking Hillary Clinton what she’s going to do to reduce the size of government.”
Yeah, that would be really crazy, given that the Clintons presided over the biggest increase in the federal government since Nixon. Oh…wait a minute. Clinton oversaw the biggest DECREASE in the size of federal government – bigger than Reagan. I meant to say George W. Bush presided over the biggest increase in the size of government since Nixon.
National Review – Nov. 6, ’06: “Only two presidents, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, have successfully tamed the tendency toward bureaucratic bloating. During Reagan’s tenure, the number of federal employees decreased by 29,000–a 2 percent drop. During Clinton’s reign, the number of federal jobs plunged by 200,000–a stunning 13 percent slash.
“All the others have presided over a steady expansion in the size of government. President George W. Bush has seen the number of government employees surge by a whopping 79,000. This is the highest increase of any president since 1953, except Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. And in Bush’s remaining years, he may yet surpass Nixon for the silver medal.”
November 29th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
“queers in the military”
The queerest man in the military is Lt. General William Boykin: Speaking in June 2002 at First Baptist Church of Broken Arrow, Okla., he described an aerial photo he had taken over the city of Mogadishu during the 1993 conflict in Somalia. Noting strange black marks in the sky, the general claimed they were evidence of a demonic presence over the city.
“Ladies and gentleman, this is your enemy,” he said. “It is the principalities of darkness. It is a demonic presence in that city that God revealed to me as the enemy.”
Boykin has said that radical Islamists hate the United States “because we’re a Christian nation;” has described the U.S. Army as “a Christian army;” and has said that President Bush was appointed by God “for such a time as this.”
November 29th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
That’s a queer duck if I ever heard of one. (My Bubbie and Zaidie use that term)
November 29th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
#reg Says:
I’m sure the Cato Institute is currently working on this…
In Canada, the Fraser Insititue (our Cato, but more hawkish) openly endorses privatizing public libraries.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
>and has said that President Bush was appointed by God “for such a time as this.â€
That Jehovah-what a joker!
November 29th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Sorry Reg but you’ve got bigger problems. I mean after that front page “Expose” in the WaPo about how Obama is “plagued” by rumors that he’s a closet Muslim I think he has some ‘splaining to do! I mean the POST wouldn’t print it if there wasn’t something there? Would they?
November 29th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
The claim that Clinton reduced the size of government only addresses the number of federal workers employed, ignores private contractors hired to replace them, ignores that it was the military that was gutted, and is a poor measure of the reach of the government and the number of laws and regulations that extend the bureaucracy into the lives of ordinary citizens. But, unless Hillary Clinton is going to make claims for everything associated with her husband (other than giving him a BJ, which is unlikely), then what he did has nothing to do with her…and, your misleading rebuttal has nothing to do with the topic.
Please don’t respond, as what you say only supports what Ronald Reagan said…”It isn’t that Liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
November 29th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
“other than giving him a BJ, which is unlikely”
Why, were you the one who gave him one?
Why are you so obsessed to this day with Clinton’s private life? Why does it seem that every Republican, past and present, seem to have this homoerotic obsession with Bill Clinton’s private life? Are Rev. Haggard and Sen. Craig the rule rather than the exception with you guys? Give up this man-crush on Bill Clinton!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
…and by the way, lest I be accused of defending Clinton, read the previous thread…I couldn’t care less about his sex life, as interesting as it is to you.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
So the National Review – which I quoted – falls into the zone of “liberals who know so much that isn’t so” that their “nemesis” Ronald Reagan decried. I’ll try to use more conservative sources next time, because they’re the only ones who can be trusted. Interestingly, you used a “liberal” Brookings Institution publication by an NYU professor. Clearly he “knows much that isn’t so” and is suspect. Perhaps, in order to find more reliable sources to the right of National Review, I should search the Storm Front website for data on this.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
reg, it’s not the sources…it’s the use of intentionally limited data to fashion a false conclusion. You don’t obtain all the necessary numbers or properly interpret information. I believe that my earlier analysis made the correct observations…and, pointed out that you have thrown out a red herring.
Gutting the military is not the same as gutting the bureaucracy that stifles business and interferes in the lives of individuals.
In your eyes, though, I guess all of your talk about Bill Clinton somehow connects and justifies CNN loading up the Republican debate with questions that were mainly of interest to Democrats.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
So National Review is shilling for Bill Clinton, intentionally cooking the data. I see…
November 29th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
I like that: “Gutting the Military.” From a support of Bush and Cheney. Too, too droll!
November 29th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
And BTW Woody what questions would be of interest to Republicans only?
You mean no one in the GOP cares about illegal immigration?
The issue of waterboarding as torture?
Our Iraq policy?
Taxes?
I must live in a bizzaro world cause I hear Mitt, Rudy and John talking about those all the time. Guess they’re closet Dems!
November 29th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
rlc – regarding the fine investigative journalism at WaPo, I knew there must be a reason I got such a warm reception from the mosque in our neighborhood when I showed up with leaflets and a sign-up sheet (no kidding!) Well, at least Obama didn’t have any business deals with the guys who helped the mastermind behind both World Trade Center attacks escape the FBI. (Guess who did…)
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0748,barrett,78478,6.html
November 29th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
JC writes: “… what Huckabee is suggesting – it is linked at Angry Arab – is that there not only should not be a Palestinain state, but that Palestinians should be settled in another Arab country. Ethnic cleansing is exactly that.”
I can’t find the words you’re talking about, jc. “Linked at Angry Arab” isn’t much of a clue. Here’s what I *do* find, when I look for what Huckabee has said on this subject.
“It was always easy to me to understand why the Jews, having been displaced for thousands of years, would feel a divine right to return to the land promised to their forefathers and previously taken from them. But Palestinians are still human beings who deserve to be treated respectfully since they personally have not done wrong and now are being forced from what has been their home.”
[Cited as being on p.137 of his book, From Hope to Higher Ground, published in January 2007.]
Yes, he is on record suggesting that Egypt or Saudi Arabia provide a state to the Palestinians, given their high land area compared to Israel:
“When asked about a Palestinian state, Gov. Huckabee stated that he supports creating a Palestinian state, but believes that it should be formed outside of Israel. He named Egypt and Saudi Arabia as possible alternatives, noting that the Arabs have far more land than the Israelis and that it would only be fair for other Arab nations to give the Palestinians land for a state, rather than carving it out of the tiny Israeli state.”
However, advocating an independent homeland carved out of another country is not the same as advocating that all potential citizens of that state be forcibly removed to that homeland. As far as I can tell, “ethnic cleansing” doesn’t even entail the existence of a homeland for the besieged minority. It’s simply forcible removal.
“Ethnic cleansing refers to various policies or practices aimed at the displacement of an ethnic group from a particular territory in order to create a supposedly ethnically “pure” society.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
“…the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups.”
[Britannica online]
So if you want to accuse Huckabee of advocating the “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians from Israel, you’ll have to find where he said they should all be removed from any territory Israel claims as its own.
I may be yet another “dumbass goy”, jc, but at least I know how to look things up. Try it sometime. It might come in handy, now that you’re in academia.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
But Reg, 9/11 changed everything!
November 29th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
From the very source Woody cites:
—-
“Simply put, the “illusion of smallness†is the natural outcome from a political system facing a citizenry with conflicting ideas about government. After all, Americans want both “government that looks smaller†and government that “delivers at least as much†(p. 48). Light surmises that “under great pressure to deliver the goods without bulking up, government has little choice but to create shadows†(p. 53). Nearly all parties in government benefit from the tactic. Presidents benefit from a shadow workforce that helps them maintain control over government. Members of Congress benefit through awarding contracts and pork-barrel projects to special interests and constituents who, in turn, contribute to their campaigns. Both political parties benefit in that Republicans can claim to be keeping the bureaucracy off the backs of business and Democrats can deflect charges of being the party of “big government.†Civil servants may benefit because bureaucrats who keep their jobs gain power, and even federal employee unions have accepted personnel reductions in exchange for greater influence over federal workforce policy.
—-
Gee, it would seem that engineering the appearance of making government look smaller is in the interest of both parties. Clinton got a tsunami of applause in Congress for declaring that “the era of Big Government is over.” Of course that would be a crowd-pleaser for Republican pols, too — they like their pork piquantly seasoned with limited-government rhetoric, and there’s nothing like the irony of having a Democrat president to supply a nice tangy sauce for the cutlet. I suppose if Clinton had been fully honest, the line would have been “the era of Big Government is over, but the Era of Juicy Government Contracts has never been brighter.”
As for “gutting the military”, I don’t remember much outcry over that — at the time, I think people were calling it the Peace Dividend, and fighting over how to spend it.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Yeah, it sure did. Now we’ve got a cross-dressing serial adulterer who’s had gay roomates, business deals with guys who shielded the main WTC terrorist, employs his good friend – the child-molesting priest, had the NYPD provide limousine service for his secret squeeze, was the genius who demanded the emergency command and control center be put in the basement of the WTC AFTER the 1st attack – resulting in unnecessary deaths of 1st responders, had an enormous hole blown in his city and claims it gives him “national security credentials”, getting the endorsement of the crazy preacher who claimed 9/11 was part of God’s plan and now he’s running ahead of everybody else in the GOP primary races.
Works for me…
November 29th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
(that was a response to rlc’s “9/11 changed everything)
November 29th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
MT – Woody also appears to be arguing that members of the military are counted as “federal employees.” This, of course, is nonsense. The figures count only civil service employees, discounting both members of the armed forces and, as Paul Light points out, contractual employees. To quote Woody’s source: “Civilian employment at non-Defense agencies fell by nearly 100,000 full-time-equivalent jobs during Clinton’s first term, with particularly deep cuts coming at the General Services Administration, the departments of Housing and Urban Development and Interior, and OPM.”
November 29th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Turner, your hair splitting is maddening. the implication of “Carving” a Palestinian state out of Egypt, etc. is like “carving”, say, a Danish state out of Norway. The only way it would be a Danish state is if Danes – either by force or otherwise, most likely the former – would settle there.
So the idea of a Palestinain state outside of Palestine is tantamount to suggesting ethnic cleansing. In an interview, linked at Angry Arab nad on his own website, with Wolf Blitzer, he’s explicit about this point, and he’s following the Netanyahu/Likud talking points which also involve “transfer.” These policies “solving the Palestine problem” by carving out a territory outside Palestine are by all standards beyond the pale, and to suggest otherwise and split hairs over definitions of ethnic cleanisng, when any intelligent perosn knows that Israel has been constantly ethnically cleansing Palestinians for sixty years – is obscurantist. The entire idea is like Stalin’s “birobidjan” experiment of moving the Jews to Kamchatka.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
…the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups.â€
Tell me that isn’t happening daily.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
“…dumbass goy.”
I’m not talking to you JC. You’ve hurt my feelings and I want time to pout. Btw, what is a ‘goy’? I know it’s got to be something bad….or is it just another misspelling for ‘boy’.
It is yeoman’s work trying to keep you guys in line. It’s like trying to march turkeys. But since you are gods’ creations too(pathetic), it is my spiritual duty to save your sorry political souls.
It’s obviously a thankless job, but I know my rewards will come in the sweet by and by. (does the sign of the cross to frighten some, and piss off the rest)
Good night and good luck.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
gentile
November 30th, 2007 at 3:19 am
“Turner, your hair splitting is maddening. the implication of “Carving†a Palestinian state out of Egypt, etc. is like “carvingâ€, say, a Danish state out of Norway.”
Kinda dumb, considering that the Danes have *all* of Greenland, and thus all the resources that will be exposed there by deglaciation.
Huckabee said that both Saudi Arabia and Egypt are candidates because they have a wealth of land. The *effective* (human-habitable) area of Norway is not very large.
Just to name two points where your analogy falls to pieces.
“The only way it would be a Danish state is if Danes – either by force or otherwise, most likely the former – would settle there.”
Given how many other places Palestinians have settled in the Middle East (Kuwait, pre-’91, being a particular good source of cushy gigs), I don’t see why quite a few *rational* Palestinians wouldn’t choose to live where they would actually be sovereign and maybe enjoy some of the benefits of the region’s oil wealth. Although, depending on the nature of that sovereignty, many might instead opt for Israeli citizenship. Certainly Hamas’ behavior in Gaza leaves room for doubt on that point.
“So the idea of a Palestinain state outside of Palestine is tantamount to suggesting ethnic cleansing.”
So I guess the idea of a Jewish state, outside the places where Jews were living at the time, is also tantamount to ethnic cleansing? I guess if you’re Hitler, who was a fan of the idea. But not necessarily for anyone else.
Anyway, you’re moving the goal posts faster than I can keep up — first, a Palestinian state outside Palestine IS “ethnic cleansing”, plain and simple. Now, it’s “tantamount” to that.
“In an interview, linked at Angry Arab nad on his own website, with Wolf Blitzer, he’s explicit about this point.”
Searched at Angry Arab, on “Huckabee”. Two posts, neither linking an interview with Wolf Blitzer. Googled around and found this:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/25/le.01.html
… and what do I find? No more than that Huckabee’s not signed up for any two-state solution that leaves Israel in “a position of ultimate vulnerability.” Wow, by that measure, 98% of the political classes in America support ethnic cleansing of Israel to make it a pure Jewish state.
Well, then — what could leave Israel in a position of “ultimate vulnerability” more than running all Arabs off its turf at the same time that its neighbors develop nuclear weapons capability? Israel is about 25% Arab, and I doubt that number is going to change much, except in the upward direction.
“any intelligent perosn knows that Israel has been constantly ethnically cleansing Palestinians for sixty years ”
Why, you’d think they’d be done by now! How hard could it be? They should take lessons from the Serbs
But no, the Israeli right wing’s main fear is of an eventual Arab *majority* within their borders (exclusive of Gaza and the West Bank), for some reason. Gosh, could it be that they worry about such a demographic prospect precisely *because* “ethnic cleansing” of Israel — forcible removal of all Arabs — is what’s *really* beyond the pale, even for them?
November 30th, 2007 at 6:51 am
“Why, you’d think they’d be done by now!”
Hah!! Point and match to Michael Turner. Not bad for a “dumbass goy”.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:03 am
reg, what you’re whinning about has nothing to do with the topic.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:27 am
As I said, an intelligent person would know to what I speak. You’re deliberately reading your own contary views into things.
Daily Palestinians are disposessed, slowly. This is not even trivial.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:29 am
And your sophism on Denmark, etc. misses my point. Palestine is the Palestinian homeland. Why should they move out of their country? What kidn of audacity is that?
Hamas’s behaviour? I’m no fan of their social policies, but they are the legitimate leaders, and in the case of Gaza, they were fighting the CIA backed thugs of Dahlan inc. So a little context is neccessary.
Your talk on “Rational” Palestinians is head-so-far-up-ass its nearly racist.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:31 am
And yes, a Jewish state outside of our home in Central and East Europe (I am Anti-Zionist) was a result of Anti-Semties like Balfour. The old joke among lefty Jews arond the turn of the century, in regards to hwo Anti-Semites are the best friends of Zionists. Still true today. Zionists achieved the European Anti-Semitic dream.
Me, I prefer to think of myself as East Prussian.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Turner and MarkC are actualy to the right of Olmert on this issue!!!
November 30th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
I come to this thread too late to engage in the debate(s) ongoing. however, I did want to note one paradox arising in the Republican debate. Huckabee did seem to win over the audience in the dispute over awarding merit scholarships to children of illegals, and there were certainly times that it seemed that he and McCain were the only remaining contestants claiming this as a home planet….But Repub pollster showed on Fox that his response graphs showed that Babbitt Romney and Thompson the Already Hibernating Bear were the clear winners among both his “conservatives” and “moderates.” [The distinction between the two? Probably the mods want to return to the 1950s, and the cons to the 1590s.]
If this is so, perfect. The nutbag right will have prevailed, and the Republicans will run a ticket that would be fortunate to lose the vote by a margin less than 3-2.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
The pollster I refer to is Frank Luntz.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
“Daily Palestinians are disposessed, slowly. This is not even trivial.”
They got the right to vote for Hamas if they wanted to, but they are “dispossessed”?
“Possessed,” maybe.
“And your sophism on Denmark, etc. misses my point. Palestine is the Palestinian homeland. Why should they move out of their country?”
I never said they should. If some of them want to stay in Palestine, I think they have a right to — so long as they don’t support terror attacks against other current residents of the region. If some of them would settle in their own truly sovereign nation outside Palestine, they could do that, too. It’s not either-or. Except for people who require that it be.
As for where I stand with respect to Olmert, et al.: I’d prefer a One-State Solution, and Israel extending full civil rights and responsibilities to Palestinians, becoming a true democracy instead of a “Jewish State.” But when you’ve got a significant Palestinian contingent that still talks about pushing the jews into the mediterranean, wiping Israel off the map, and those people can win elections, well … I’ll be the first to admit that One State is at best a couple generations away. Maybe it’ll take Arab dictatorships selling the Palestinians out a couple more times before they see the light: they are more likely to get better treatment and a better life with the Israelis than by becoming subjects of practically any other nation in the region.
“Your talk on “Rational†Palestinians is head-so-far-up-ass its nearly racist.”
Would saying “rational Americans” be similarly tantamount to racism?
“Zionists achieved the European Anti-Semitic dream.”
I thought the ultimate European Anti-Semitic dream was extermination. After all, if you don’t want jews around, giving them a homeland is only a leaky compromise — some of them might return from there someday. And a homeland doesn’t really solve the overarching problem of the International Jewish Banking Conspiracy, does it? If you don’t crack that nut, jews will be eating gentile babies until Judgment Day …. no, it’s true! I read it in a book that, in one edition, is still published in a relatively moderate muslim country (Malaysia) that dutifully censors its press to prevent scurrilous and defamatory materials from reaching its public, so that they aren’t misled by propaganda. So it’s been properly vetted, you see.
(Just in case you needed some context.)
November 30th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
They got the right to vote for Hamas and then have the CIA, Mossad and their own satrap leaders used against them.
Otherwise you really don’t know what you are talking about. And the implications of the last thing you say are just disgusting. In point of fact, it is well knwon that the backers of Zionism in the early days – non Jewish – were Anti-Semites- Churhill, Wilson, Balfour. They wanted the Jews out of Europe.
It is also well knwon that some Zionists, seeing enemies in common, collaborated with Nazis.
I can’t believe I have to tell you this. You seem pretty well educated, but on this issue you’re talking out of your ass.
At the risk of sounding cliched, go read Edward Said.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
As for where I stand with respect to Olmert, et al.: I’d prefer a One-State Solution, and Israel extending full civil rights and responsibilities to Palestinians, becoming a true democracy instead of a “Jewish State.â€
So Am I. And cite me a single Palestinian – any Palestinian of any faction – who talks about Jews being kicked out of Palestine let aloen thrown into the sea. Cite me anyone – Palestinian, and from Palestinian movements, I add, not Al Q’aida or some such. No one wants that.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
And don’t pretend you didn’t know what I meant by your concept of “rational” people from one country would move to another country because they can’t have tehir own, so maybe the next best thing is to move a whole people. That’s racist.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
It’s not either-or. Except for people who require that it be.
It is either/or. The very notion – the very formation of such an idea is beyond the pale and not even worth debating. It is like torture. We’re seeign the re-manifestation of discredited concepts. Your idea is no less disgusting than Abu Ghraib.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
“the implications of the last thing you say are just disgusting. ”
The last thing I said? It was “(Just in case you needed some context)”.
To spell it out: the chorus of indignation about the Zionist Entity is loudest when it’s coming from nations that tolerate, and even to some extent promulgate, some of the most hideous anti-Semitic rhetoric to be found in the world today. Why isn’t mere *political* criticism of Israel enough for them? There’s an abundant case for that, after all. My first introduction to that case was Chomsky’s “The Fateful Triangle”, still probably a good starting point. Well, the reason is pretty simple: Because any such *reasoned* criticism from the chorus would eventually only underscore an incredible hypocrisy.
Israel — human rights *violator*! (Oops — can’t emphasize that too much, cuz we’re even worse.)
Israel — conducts massacres! (Um, except that ours have been much worse. Can’t beat that drum too loudly either.)
So what to do? Ah, keep the *racism* alive. Keep the jews-control-the-world *conspiracy theories* alive. Our subjects know already that we’re an oppressive government. But at least we can get them thinking we’re trying to protect our beloved subjects from those ravening, amoral, baby-eating JEWS.
OK, I don’t know why I’m announcing the following here, when I could just disappear unnoticed. I come here mainly to indulge a slightly sick predilection for shooting fish in a barrel, and the far Left and far Right usually provide me with plenty of fat carp to blast away at. However, I’m starting to worry that I’m losing my brain’s edge, even for practical matters like running my business, the software projects I’m working on, even retirement planning.
So just in case any of you more reasonable types here see me posting: gently remind me that I’m supposed to be working on more consequential things.
Bye.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
You’re accusiing me of Anti-Semitism?
Go fuck yourself.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
I am opposed to even discussing the idea of a Paelstinian state outside of Palestine, and I’m unreasonable, while you’re willing to discuss whether or not subject populations deserve human rights and you’re the reasonable one.
I’m surprised, MT, truly. So reasonable on the Balkans, against odds, yet unreasonable here.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:06 am
“If some of them want to stay in Palestine, I think they have a right to — so long as they don’t support terror attacks against other current residents of the region. If some of them would settle in their own truly sovereign nation outside Palestine, they could do that, too. It’s not either-or. Except for people who require that it be.
As for where I stand with respect to Olmert, et al.: I’d prefer a One-State Solution, and Israel extending full civil rights and responsibilities to Palestinians, becoming a true democracy instead of a “Jewish State.†But when you’ve got a significant Palestinian contingent that still talks about pushing the jews into the mediterranean, wiping Israel off the map, and those people can win elections, well”
I think that Michael Turner’s attitude is part of the problem. Let me suggest that we think about the implications of what he is saying. He suggests that rights, for Palestinians, something innate or inalienable. They are, instead, a reward for good behavior, or for getting a good press. For not suporting Hamas. It’s hard to get more patronizing than that. would he extend his logic to Israeli citizens. Palestinians are subject to far worse acts of violence, sabotage, maiming than Israelis and that violence is inflicted upon them by an illegal occupying force. Would Turner suggests that as long as Israelis continue to support goverments that carry out these polirices than it is okay to deny them their basic rights? Let me say too that his tone is nothing more than sinister. He speaks about palestinians “transfering” to other Arab states so casually, as if his doesn’t know the implications of what he is saying. That the idea of cleanising Arabs from their lands has been part of the Zionist project (both in ideology and practice) since the birth of the Israeli state. That this idea finds wide support within Israel. As for the issue of ethinic cleansing I’m pretty sure Turner will agree with Benny Morris and others that an ethnic cleansing occured in 1948. My own opinion os that the polices that we seen from every succesive Israeli government can be defined by the term employed by Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling, politicide. That is the gradual but systemic attempt to cause the anniliation of the Palestinian people as an independent political and social entity. For Michael Turner to speak about Palestianians as being “possesed” and pushing Israelis into the sea at a time when Gaza is being starved and suffocated is fucking intolereble. My man cummings is right when he tells Turner to fuck himself
December 1st, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I’m not right to be rude.
I’d be better off not even arguing with such people. What shocks me is that this argument is not coming from AIPAC or someone with some kind of emotional tie to Israel. Its coming from a relatively progressive guy who lives in Japan, probably somewhat cosmopolitan, liberal-minded.
For the life of me, I don’t understand – even with the demonization and racism of global media – how any rational person could make the argument he makes. It is like defending torture.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:36 pm
I may be yet another “dumbass goyâ€, jc, but at least I know how to look things up.
Admit it Turner — 15 years ago you were an anti-Semite.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Love to quote myself:
No one with glancing commitment to liberal values, like secularism, democracy, human rights, or racial equality, could support Zionism on its merits. That’s why its advocates always take the discussion off topic. They need to avoid the merits of the issue at all costs
thanks, MT, for showing me right
December 1st, 2007 at 7:38 pm
I want to make clear that I harbour no anti-gentile sentiment.
My point in using the perjorative phrase with those Gentiles who reproach me, a Jew, for not supporting Israel. This is what we Jews call chutzpah. Norman Finkelstein, among others, in his great essay on political correctness and Germany contained in Counterpunch’s wildly uneven anthology on Anti-Semitism, hints at a not so buried Anti-Semitism underlying non-evangelical “support for Israel” philo-semitism. I’ve met big-name politicians who seem quite Anti-semitic, and assuage that with “support for Israel.” And the Jewish establishment – witness the award to Berlusconi and Israel selling weapons to Croatia- doesn’t give a shit about real Anti-Semitism, they just care about “New Anti-Semitism” ie Anti-zionism.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:58 pm
I think the Christian Zionists are more troubling because they’re not actually anti-Semites and don’t (at this point) hide an anti-Jeewish agenda. They’re no longer licking their chops in anticipation of the conversion of the Jews. They’re unabashedly philo-Semitic and have worked out an ideology that lets them stay that way (mainly by making Muslims the new bogeymen). As a Jew repelled by their POV, I’d feel more comfortable if they were simple anti-Semites (like their many of their evangelical forbears).
December 1st, 2007 at 8:18 pm
It is a matter of degree.
I argue however that Christian Zionists are Anti-Semites, and their Philo-Semitism and support for Israel in the abstract doesn’t stop their emotional response to the spectre of Barbara Streisand or some such.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Please don’t drag Barbara into this.
Actually, I’d guess that many neoconnish Jews would share this ‘emotional response’.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I’m no fan of hers, but she is a signifier for that old pop. front lefty/entertainment industry Jewish character oppsoed by reactionaries from time immemorial, including Jewish reactionaries. Read Paul Buhle on Jews and American popular culture.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:54 am
Well, I haven’t gotten a life yet, so I’ll respond.
With the exception of a few nods in the direction of the roots of Zionist thinking, history seems to begin only in 1948 for jcummings and Ahmed.
A closer look at pre-’48 Palestine reveals some pretty interesting context: that the evolution of the more terroristic Zionist factions was in a rather harrowing context: Arabs allied with Nazi Germany, terroristic violence against jewish settlers being common, and a general background of global anti-semitism with relatively few bright spots of pity.
Now let’s look at those few pre-’48 nods. Did the Zionists want a Jewish state? By definition. Did they want it to be a democracy? It seems so. Doesn’t the combination mean having a large Jewish majority? Obviously.
However, does the requirement of a solid Jewish majority in this case make it racist in and of itself? Well, look at it this way: if the overwhelming majority of people in the world hate and despise you (or at least care rather little about your fate) just for being jewish, and having your own country seems to be a possible solution, why would you create a country in which you’re *still* a minority, if you wanted it to be a democracy? Isn’t that just asking for what might only become a somewhat more *compact* corner of hell?
Mr x, quoting himself, says: “No one with glancing commitment to liberal values, like secularism, democracy, human rights, or racial equality, could support Zionism on its merits.”
Which is why I don’t support it on its merits. Zionism was and is fundamentally reactionary, no matter how socially progressive — even radical — some of its manifestations have been. But you don’t have to support it on its merits to forgive it in its context: what it was a reaction against.
Evoke context, however, and you get pinned with this, also from Mr x, immediately following:
“That’s why its advocates always take the discussion off topic. They need to avoid the merits of the issue at all costs.”
Ah, and forgiveness is no different from advocacy, the next illogical leap I can expect from you here. Gee, I’ll be careful to remember that the next time I argue against the death penalty for a murderer who endured a heavily abusive childhood — it automatically makes me an advocate of murder! Context has nothing to do with it!
The Zionist leadership of 1948 was unquestionably morally guilty of a terrible crime: faced with implacable enemies, from whom they could expect little mercy, and from whom nobody was likely to rescue them, they created the perception of being every bit as ruthless and uncaring as that enemy, and even backed up that frightening propaganda with some relatively small-scale massacres and ethnic cleansings, to help confirm the suspicion that much larger ones might be in the offing. Lucky for them, Palestinians took the bait — and ran. That’s what comes of believing your own hateful hype, I guess. As I understand the history, there were those in the independence movement who said they understood why it was necessary, but just couldn’t take part it in it, and others who felt that their hardest problem was convincing their soldiers that it was necessary, even while admitting it was patently vile and wrong. I’d like to see some quotes from Arab sponsors of terror attacks against the jews in Palestine before Israel’s founding, saying that it was a sin against Allah, but that we can only hope that Allah would forgive, considering that the murders of innocents committed would have a good result in the end.
I don’t really understand what else Israel’s founders could have done, under the circumstances. Packed everybody off to Uganda? That’s a nice little corner of the world, isn’t it? Yep, I’m sure they would have been greatly loved there, too.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:38 am
‘I’m no fan of hers, but she is a signifier for that old pop. front lefty/entertainment …’
I was just kidding, you over-serious Canadian.
And I know what she stands for w/o repairing to Paul Buhle.
Turner, you’re much too reasonable to find a place in this (or any conceivable) blogosphere.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:12 am
There’s nothing reasonable about changing the subject in/re one’s entertaining the idea of war crimes by talking about pre-48 Palestine.
I will remind him as well that much of the intelligentsia of the Zionist movement, Hannah Arrendt, Martin Buber, Judah Magnes, were opposed to creating a “Jewish State.” and wanted a binational state.
Over and out.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:14 am
“arabs allied with Nazi Germany” is a myth. Some Palestinian factions did ally with the Nazis, true, but most fought on the allied side against the Nazis. This is further disproven by Zionist terrorist actiosn against Brits, and Brits sidign with Arabs in the 48 war.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:15 am
Nothing else you say is that unreasonable except you still haven’t understood the context of your intial point – defending Huckabee’s idea.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:18 am
MT Palestinians took the bait and ran.
This is disproven for at least twenty years and isn’t even taught to Israeli high schoolers any more. Palestinians didn’t run. They were kicked out.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:54 am
“Over and out”
If only jc……..if only. How’s that homework going.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:04 am
jc again: ““arabs allied with Nazi Germany†is a myth. Some Palestinian factions did ally with the Nazis, true…”
“Arabs” becomes only “Palestinians”. See how the context sharply narrows again?
Syria:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Brunner
Eichmann’s right-hand man.
“In his 1980s interview by the German magazine Bunte, Brunner declared that his sole regret was not having murdered more Jews. In a 1987 telephone interview to the Chicago Sun Times, he stated: “The Jews deserved to die. I have no regrets. If I had the chance I would do it again…”
Syria staunchly resisted attempts to extradite him.
Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_Ali
“During the 1930s, Gaylani was strongly influenced by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini ….”
[About whom, see more below.]
“… who had been exiled from the British Mandate of Palestine for his nationalist activities and found support in his campaign against Jewish immigration to the country with the Nazi regime in Germany.
“Gailani assured Germany that his country’s natural resources would be made available to the Axis in return for German recognition of the Arab states’ right to independence and political unity, as well as the right to “deal with” the Jews living in Arab lands. Gaylani, in his third and final term as prime minister, presided over the two months of mob action against Iraqi Jews that would later lead to the Farhud, the mass anti-Jewish riot in June 1941 that sparked the exodus of Iraq’s Jewish community.”
Lebanon (and Iraq)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni
A particularly scary dude, and hardly a fringe figure: he instigated the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939, and before that, sponsored a translation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion into Arabic.
A sample from this human snake:
“In his memoirs after the war, Husayni noted that “Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: ‘The Jews are yours’.’
I’m sure the list could be extended — the above was the result of only *minutes* of searching. Sympathy with the Nazis, collaboration with them before and during WW II, and harboring Nazi war criminals and muslim leaders promoting extermination of the jews … all rife in Arab lands. Israel is supposed to *trust* these people?
No, for jc and Ahmed, it all really starts in 1948, and it’s mostly limited to what’s gone on within the fluctuating borders of Israel and the territories it has occupied. When it comes to undeniable crimes committed against the Palestinians, their attention to detail is microscopic. When it comes to the wider context of long-term, overall threats to Jews, in Israel, and before it became Israel, their attention is selective and myopic, and any attempt to widen it brings accusations of being irrelevant and distracting.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:41 am
We’re not talking about people from outside of Palestine. Your case seems to be that Syrians and Palestinians and Iraqis are the same people. Thsi is like saying that Poles and Ukrainians are the same people. Bullshit.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:42 am
As I said as well, your views are discredited and not even taught in Israeli high schools anymore.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:11 am
And even if I grant that the material you quote is salient half a century ago, it still doesn’t justify your acceptanceo f the idea of transferring “these people.” Half a century ago many Americans sided with the Nazis. Should we continue to not trust “these people.” What about Germans? “These people”.
You still have not brought yourself back to the issue at hand, which is your acceptance of a Palestinian state outside of Palestine and your denying the PAlestinian people the bare essence of human dignity. Past is prologue, and narratives change. What matters is now, and you are repeating the talking points of people who aren’t even respected in Israel anymore, in the service of suggesting a war crime.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Actually – back to Turner one more time – the Zionists were split from the very beginning between Palestine as safe haven for Jews (supported by much of the Palestinian left, if grudgingly) and Palestine as Jewish state. The former group lost out.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Did’ya have to MT? I had him doing something productive, damn it.
December 4th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Productive like producing analyses on the inherent flaws in Althusser’s thinking? Or are we talking about the political economy of global organized crime?
December 4th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Again, I’ll point out that the claim that the Palestinians are Nazis is a ploy to distract attention from the merits of the issue, used by people who know that their actual positions are incompatible with the liberal values of those they are addressing.
Re Palestinian state outside historical Palestine, since the desirable areas of Saudi and Egypt are densely poulated already, we would be creating a new refugee problem. Where would the Saudis and Egyptians who were displaced go? Should we give them England or France?
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:17 am
free christian sheet music…
Uhhh. Very Interesting….
May 26th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Very nice post ! thanks a lot for this one. Have a nice day