Why The Jewish Community Should Support Bush
Perhaps you are not an observant Jew, as I am not. Perhaps you do not even identify with the cultural or ethnic traditions of Judaism. Certainly, I do not. However, when the anti-Semites come to destroy the Jews, whether they are Nazis or Muslim extremists, both you and I will be in danger. Where will we be able to take refuge?
According to Matt Brooks, Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, who spoke at an event at the Makor Center in New York City on Tuesday night, if you care about Israel, Republican is the way to go. Specifically, it is imperative that we, as a Jewish community support Bush, as he is the unequivocal pro-Israel presidential candidate.
Mr. Brooks deduced that there is a thread of anti-Semitism weaving its way through the Democratic Party. To support his point, he cited numerous comments recently made by several Democratic politicians including Fritz Hollings and Jim Moran, among others. He pointed out that those in Democratic leadership, such as Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi remained conspicuously silent in response to blatant anti-Israeli comments and anti-Semitic innuendos made by those in their own Party. In many cases, Mr. Brooks astutely pointed out, the demonization of Israel is nothing more than a cover for anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism is rising globally at a rate faster than it ever has, since World War II. Jews are leaving Europe. Synagogues are being burned. The Jewish community is at risk. In Israel, innocent Jews including women and children are being murdered daily by homicide bombers and other terrorists just because they are Jewish. Muslim extremists who take to terror, whether they be Palestinians in Israel, Al Qaeda in the United States, the Taliban in Afghanistan or other terrorist groups in Madrid or Iraq, do NOT want peace. They want the destruction of Israel and the termination of the freedom granted to all citizens of both the United States and Israel. According to Mr. Brooks, President Bush understands that a country cannot negotiate for peace without a partner who wants the same. It is ludicrous to ask Israel to relinquish land while terrorist acts and violence are still being committed against it. Palestinians do not want to recognize Israel as a legitimate State. Bush set forth a simple requirement for the Palestinians as a pre-requisite for peace negotiations: end the terrorism and elect a leader who wants peace. The Palestinians complain of their treatment by Israel. Yet, they themselves hold the key to change. Prime Minister Sharon has said that Bush is the most pro-Israel President the United States has ever seen.
Kerry, on the other hand, does not get it. He has stated that, were he to be elected President, he would bring in Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to advise him on his foreign policies. He has indicated that he would go back to treating terrorism like a crime. He and others in the Democratic Party do not seem to understand the severity of the threat ñ not only to Israel and the United States, but to the values of freedom and democracy. The magnitude of creating a democracy in Iraq is minimized. The reverberations throughout the Middle East, such as the voluntary relinquishment of nuclear programs by Libya, are glossed over. President Reagan said something to the effect that every step toward freedom of man is a step toward peace, but Kerry does not appear to understand that, or does he just not care?
According to Matt Brooks, who accompanied both Bush and Sharon on a trip to Israel in 1998, prior to them obtaining their current positions as state leaders, Bush is not moved to support Israel by pure politics. He is moved by his spiritual beliefs, and because his trip to Israel changed him on a deep personal level. Bush is trying to do what is morally right. Mr. Brooks believes that history will look upon Bushís actions in Iraq as a statement of moral conviction and courage. He explained that that the war on Iraq will effect generations to come by placing democracy in a region of the world where democracy is unfamiliar.
Mr. Brooks also informed the audience that many local parties in the United States are currently passing anti-Israel resolutions. It is time that we wake up. As Americans and as Jews, many of us have become too complacent. We have taken our freedoms for granted. Yet, there are a large number of people out there who believe that the United States is ìthe Great Satanî. They are willing to give unlimited amounts of funding and shed unlimited amounts of blood in order to obliterate our great and tolerant democracies, both in the United States and in Israel. September 11th was our wake-up call. But the democrats are still sleeping. Are you?
44 Responses to “Why The Jewish Community Should Support Bush”
Hello, my name is Matt Margolis, the founder of Blogs For Bush, one of the most successful and popular blogs in 2004, during the presidential campaign.
Blogs For Bush was launched in November 2003 and ended in November 2007. This site is no longer active, but is being kept online as a reference for those interested in the 2004 campaign, and for bloggers wishing to start their own grassroots blog.
Deborah,
Excellent piece, and very timely.
For a variety of cultural, religious and economic reasons, the Jews of the world were for two millenia the despised minorty – the easy scapegoat for whomever wished to deflect attention from real problems. Only in the United States – and only imperfectly at first – have Jews been able to be Jews and have peace. We had thought that after the Holocaust that this was all laid to rest – the the sheer monstrosity of 6 million murdered would forever end the idea that the Jews are some sort of evil to be opposed. We were wrong – for all the statements of “never again”, it is getting close to “again” once more.
The Jews of the world are once again the easy scapegoat for everyone who wishes them to be so. For Europeans and American leftists, the Jews are the reason why the Moslems attack Americans and Europeans – for the Islamo-fascists, the Jews are the reason they claim for their attacks…
cont’d…
Make no mistake about it – the European and American left will abandon Israel in order that they may secure what they will call peace with Islamo-fascism. Of course, in order to abandon Israel – a fellow democracy – Israel (and its largely Jewish citizenry) must be made odious. This is done by exaggerating every failure of Israel, and ignoring every deliberate outrage of Israel’s armed enemies.
Israel is powerful – but we must face the fact that it is not powerful enough to withstand a full-scale assault by a unified Arab world. It would be destroyed, even if it inflicts untold punishment upon its destroyers as it dies. Another Holocaust – offered up for the sake of “peace”; a fool’s peace, because once done with Israel the Islamo-fascists will come for everyone else.
Israel is the front line of civilization against Islamo-fascist barbarism; its our redoubt – abandon it, and we surrender our own best defense – as well as demoralise ourselves.
cont’d …
It should not be that the fate of Israel – and by extension all of the civilized world – is dependent solely upon the actions of one nation, the United States. It should be that a united democratic world should stand shoulder to shoulder with democratic Isreal – offering the hand of peace and assistence to Israel’s enemies, but firm in defense of Isreal if those enemies do not sincerely seek peace.
It should also not be that the support of the United States for Israel should be dependent solely upon the success of one of America’s two major political parties – but so it is; so far gone down the road of hating has the American left gone, that the election of the Democratic party to the Presidency would shortly lead to the destruction of Israel.
If they will not fight for democracy in Iraq then we may rest assured they will not fight for democracy in Israel…and when push comes to shove, they would leave Israel to its fate.
Deleted – Off topic, bogus e mail address
Having been raised Jewish and having relatives in Israel, I have to disagree with the premise that Democrats are bad for Israel. Jimmy Carter, who is criticized here, was instrumental in bringing about peace between Israel and its most dangerous neighbor. It is true that Clinton’s peace plan, like those of his predecessors, failed, but then Bush pointedly ignored the growing violence in the West Bank until after 9/11.
While I would agree with the Sharon government that as long as Arafat is leading the Palestinians there is no chance for a peace which he neither desires nor has the means to deliver, to assume that there will never be any change is pessimistic in the extreme. Democrats have a track record of actually grabbing rare opportunities and taking the time needed to make progress on the peace issue (Camp David, Oslo) while simultaneously making clear that the U.S. unequivocably supports Israel.
Eli,
Carter merely took credit for what Sadat and Begin had already done – and Oslo has been an unmitigated disaster in all respects.
There is no such thing as a “peace process”; there is either a desire for peace – in which case peace is made – or there isn’t – in which case war continues.
Sharon wants peace – once upon a time he was an advocate of a greater Isreal, but this is no more; all he wants is that Jewish children can live and grow up without worrying that someone will set a bomb off. The only piece that is missing is the death of the Islamo-fascists – once that is accomplished, peace can be made. The problem is that the left in general (which ultimately controls the Democratic Party) doesn’t see it this was – and thus has found all sorts of flaws in Israel which merit its abandonment.
As a Jew, I believe Clinton and the Dems are really bad for Israel, and i wouldn’t be touting the oslo accords either.
Also, adding some historical perspective (much of which my mom was at the center of and watched happen):
The reasons why the Jewish vote is so heavily Democratic are 1) Mayor LaGuardia (a Republican) drove them away from his party when he did everything he could to disenfranchise Jews. This included the first implementation of ‘affirmative action,’ in which he separated those taking the exam for city jobs in New York into Jews and everyone else (with strict quotas) following complaints that the Jews were outscoring everyone else on the test and taking all the city jobs. 2) FDR. Although not perfect (his failure on the St. Louis and not bombing Auschwitz), he was lightyears ahead of the appeasement minded Republican isolationists of the 1930’s on opposing Nazism. 3) Harry Truman and his support for Israel in 1948. 4) The civil rights movement. My mom went to Tennessee at this time, and many Jews saw in the civil rights struggle a mirror of their own history.
Mark:
You are correct that Sadat and Begin began the process (and it is they who shared the Nobel prize– Carter’s came 24 years later and was more of a ‘lifetime achievement’ type award, and frankly timed to embarrass Bush, which in my mind also demeans Carter who if nothing else has earned the title Advocate of Peace); However, there have been many opportunities where people have tried to begin (like Prince Bandar just a couple of years ago), and Carter made sure the train stayed on the track. Not an easy accomplishment.
As to Oslo, while the process has broken down, there is no question that progress was made– even the nominal recognition of Israel by the Palestinians and recognition by both sides that there will eventually be two separate states (in contrast to the official position taken by both sides before that previously) is progress. Making it a reality is another matter, and that is where we find ourselves today, but I do consider the Oslo accord to be progress.
I on the contrary consider it a crock, ditto for Camp David (under Clinton).
Eli,
There were lots of valid reasons for Jewish Americans to vote Democratic in the past – just as, once upon a time, there were reasons for conservative Catholics such as myself to vote Democratic – but that has all ended now; just as a pro-life Catholic is not wanted in the Democratic Party so, too, is a firm defender of the State of Israel and/or an observant Jew not wanted by the Democrats.
We’re inconvenient, you see – we have these rigid beliefs which are not amenable to being tossed away just to get a shabby Nobel Prize.
Edward Yee:
Bill Clinton tried hard to get a mideast peace resolution. And Oslo, for the reasons I mentioned, qualifies as a success on at least one level– the level of official recognition and getting on the same page as to what general shape the future will take (as far away as it now seems to be, at least it has a definition).
Mark:
Tell that to my county party chair, who is a pro-life Catholic. For that matter, I consider myself to have been pro-life on the day it mattered– when my (then) fifteen year old announced she was pregnant two years ago, and she and I agreed she shouldn’t have an abortion. Didn’t agree on much before or since, but on that we agreed. As to the Jewish vote, it is true that the ’solid bloc’ was crafted largely in the 1920-1960’s, but in order to convince Jews to switch, Republicans have to actually make the case that they are better (as Mr. Brooks seems to be trying to), not simply that they have ‘caught up.’ Most Jews, like most blacks, are skept
It fairly clear that conservatives are more pro-Israel than liberals… look at the liberal groups out there now.. ANSWER, specifically… it supports palestinian terrorism, they hate israel and want it destroyed.. i’ve encountered many ANSWER people at protests, and they really believe israel is part of the great satan and all that crap…
Matt:
Sure, there are some anti-Semites who support the Palestinians. We as liberals don’t allow them to define liberalism any more than you, as a conservative, would allow Pat Buchanan’s brand of anti-Semitism to define conservatism. Most liberals oppose any form of racism or bigotry, including anti-Semitism. This does not mean always supporting the positions taken by the government of Israel, however. That distinction seems to be difficult for conservatives to understand, given that anyone who speaks against the positions taken by the US government is similarly castigated as ‘un-American.’
Supporting the right of the state of Israel to exist and defend itself (which most liberals do) does not obligate one to support the policies of the Sharon government (which many liberals do not).
I’d like to see more liberals speaking out against groups like ANSWER.. just like I’d like to see more muslims speak out against radical islam.
Matt is Jewish? First newspapers, then TV, and now blogs! Their reach is wide and far!!!11
/Anti-Semite
There are many Jews that ARE Republicans! Click my url link to come to the jewish_gop community at Live Journal! Join!
http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=jewish_gop
And, there is an official Jewish Republican organization called the Republican Jewish Coalition and they’re great too!
Here’s their website:
http://www.njchq.org/
Love,
Ruth
Eli,
But most liberals don’t recognise Israel’s right to defend itself…every time Israel blows a terrorist (deservedly) all to Hell, the liberal world is sharp and immediate in its denunciations of Israel’s action. The plain fact of the matter is that the liberals haven’t woken up the way we of the conservative stripe had – you can’t make peace with terrorists, you can only kill them…as it stands, the entire Palestinian side is led by out and out terrorists, thus there is nothing to talk to them about and only killing is the order of the day. Liberals dispute this.
Eli,
See if your county Party Chair could secure a major nomination…look what you people did to poor Lieberman back in 2000…forced him to crawl through the liberal gutter just to get the Donk VP nomination; too bad about Lieberman (should have told you all to get stuffed and declined the VP nomination) – but thats the way it is; pro-life people need not apply.
Nothing against Eli but why is it when the left tries to represent an anti-Semite from the right they always trot out the same old name–Pat Buchanan? If it didn’t happen so much I would think its a joke. He left the Republican party years ago and has little if any respect amongst conservatives. The outright anti-Semetic rhetoric that comes from the left frequently are those with direct influence on public policy. Senator Hollings and that Congressman from either Maryland or Virgina (can’t remember his name) Another question I’d like to pose is what exactly do the leftist politicians mean when they refer to the Neo-cons? When asked all I hear are the names Wolfowitz, Pearle, Fife, and Krauthammer. What do all of these people have in common? Their Jewish. Interesting.
The Chosen People Should Choose Bush
Deborah over at Blogs For Bush has a great write up about why Jews should vote for Bush.
I expect at some point Kerry will be pushing his “Jewish heritage” again during the campaign… I would guess around the High Holidays (Rosh Hashana, Yom Kipp…
Mark:
When attacked, no one argues that Israel has the right to defend itself.
As to the question of strategy, the problem is (and this is replicated in our approach to the war on terror throughout the mideast), it is a little like discovering you have a cancer and only treating the immediate cancer. This has to be done, but if you make no lifestyle changes, then you are likely to have another cancer in a year or two. We (and the Israelis) go after terrorists, but do nothing to change the political and economic conditions that breed terrorism. A few Americans have done the right thing (such as the Coca-Cola company, whose bottling plant in Ramallah is the largest employer in the West Bank and which pays its employees enough to raise a family on), but overall, the policy is only to operate on the cancer that is terrorism and do nothing to improve the way people live, who then become ripe picking for terrorists.
Jimmy Carter. Now there’s a real international statesman. 444 days of captivity for US Embassy personnel taken hostage in Iran (a blatant act of war) and Carter’s response: First a failed mission with no follow-up and then a lecture to we Americans on our attitude (remember his “malaise” speech?). He takes undeserved credit for the agreement between Israel and Egypt, which by the way got Sadat murdered by the same terrorists that we are forced to fight today. Egypt now funnels weapons to Palestinian terrorists thru tunnels in the Gaza strip. When Israel tries to stop this illicit weapons traffic, liberals call Sharon and Israel murderers and terrorists. Carter also brokered the deal that got North Korea to agree to abandon its nuclear weapons ambition. That worked real well too, didn’t it? Then Carter gets a Nobel prize – not for anything he did (hint: he didn’t do anything) but just to spite President Bush because the committee was made up of anti-war, anti-Bush Zeropeans.
The liberals bend over backwards to excuse radical Islamic terrorists – demanding all kinds of restrictions and rights for terrorists, while accusing Israel and its people of being some kind of monsters for trying to defend themselves. They also enforce their newspeak on the media, which now calls suicide bombers “militants”, “freedom fighters”, and “patriots.” Their definition of tolerance seems only to work with whatever group happens to be swearing death to America and the destruction of the Jewish State (code word: Zionist Entity). If I were Jewish, the liberals would scare me to death.
Eli,
All the bottling company in Ramallah really does is provide grafting opportunities for Arafat’s corrupt thugs…we can’t work with them, get to that understanding and you’ll understand why the President is doing what he’s doing…only a complete clearing of the Arab/Moslem decks will give us a chance of ending terrorism…you nearly get to it when you speak of the political conditions which breed terrorism…but you fail to take the next step to understanding that the entirety of the leadership of the Palestinians is evil and bent on evil. Kill them, then we’ll have peace…and, also, Israel is attacked, daily…anything it does is in response to attacks, ergo the complaints about its actions are absurd.
Okay, I’ve always wondered, and I wonder if any of you know the answer.
Why Jews?
Seriously, I’ve seen and felt a lot hate in the world but I’ve never understood the general hate and animosity toward the Jews. What the frack did they ever do to condem the entire religion? HUH?
Gozer,
To big a question to really answer – but, to nutshell it a bit, the Jews were always the Outsiders…in pagan times and Christian times, in all lands and places, the Jews were (and are) a breed apart. Stateless for two millenia, they still retained across continents a national identity – the outsider is always and ever an easy scapegoat. There are always knaves to vend, and fools to swallow, all manner of calumny against a segment of the population – there always have been just enough people who wish to lay blame for themselves on others.
Eli,
In your first post you wrote:
“he was lightyears ahead of the appeasement minded Republican isolationists of the 1930’s on opposing Nazism.” Hate to break it to you but the Isolasionists were the Democrats. The Appeaser: Kennedy and Chamberlin, 2 Liberals. Take a look at Churchill a conservative. He was warning against the NAZIs in the 1930s. Arafat is a terrorist, always has been, always will be. He was offered 95% of what he wanted, including Jerusalem, and he turned it down (The Peace Accords under Clinton). That’s a sign right there he doesn’t want to negotiate. How many Resolutions coming out of the UN condemn Israel (over 50 by my last count), how many condemn the Terrorists? not even 1/2 as many, yet you have someone like Kerry who wants to give the UN more authority. What president has met and negotiated with Arafat more than anyone else: Clinton. Bush refuses to even meet with the PLO. Seems to me Bush is more on the Side of Israel, than the Dems.
Eli,
you wrote:
We (and the Israelis) go after terrorists, but do nothing to change the political and economic conditions that breed terrorism.
Isn’t that what we’re doing in Iraq, something you have said repeatedly you are against?
Secondly:
Take a look at the positions of the Democrats: Redistribution of Wealth, Gov. Control Of Private industry (via Regulations and Taxes), National Health Care, etc. These are the policies of Communism-How many Jews were murdered under that system? Yet that’s what the Dems advocate. Those policies are also very similar (espescially with a complicit media and this politically Correct speak) to another form of Government: National Socialism…Gee what party went by that name? I wonder. The Democratic party is no longer the party of John Kennedy, or Truman. It’s a far left party. Yet you’ll keep voting Dem no matter who they nominate. To simply vote Dem because Truman was a Dem is a sign of Blind Loyalty, and I hope you know where that leads.
A few days ago I submitted an article to Blogs for Bush asserting that Jews who vote Democratic are selling their own people down the river. Now this article says all that and more, and I will freely admit that it says it better. Historical note: neither party behaved creditably towards Jews before and during World War II – only a limited number of Jewish refugees found a safe haven in the United States.
Who all remembers George Kennedy’s line in “The Delta Force” from 1986? He played a Catholic priest who offers himself as a hostage to the terrorists, his line went something like “If you take one of them you have to TAKE US ALL! Jesus Christ Himself was a Jew!”
How ominous…and yet how hopeful…that line rings true today.
Macker,
I can’t speak for anyone else, but on the morning of 9/11, I realised that I was a Jew, too. Anyone who stands against these beasts as Israel has for 50 years becomes de-facto a bit Jewish. I’m ashamed that in the past I was critical of some of the measures Israel took to defend itself – when dealing with inhuman barbarians, no measure is really too extreme, as I understood as the WTC collapsed into a heap of rubble.
Eli,
With all due respect, you are stuck in the past, perhaps because of your mother’s experiences. However, to cite incidences that occurred in the 1930’s to support the idea that Jews should vote Democrat is ridiculous. Things have changed. The Democrats USED to support individualism, now they support group rights and it is the Republicans that support individual rights. And, if the Republicans USED to be isolationist before WWII, who do you think is isolationist now? Let’s update ourselves to the year 2004, please.
As far as ANSWER goes, don’t think you can pick and choose which of their positions you can align yourself with. If you really read all their material, you will find that it is a VERY pro-Palestinian organization. It is a tactic they have, to say, “if you are against the war in Iraq, even if you don’t agree with us on other issues [undoubtedly referring to Israel], then support us anyway.” But PLEASE don’t buy into it. Be careful what organizations you side with. It’s like joining the Nazi’s because they have nice teaparties.
Nazis? TEA-drinkers? And here I always thought they got their kicks doing Beer Hall Putsches!
no messianic Republican is gonna be on the wrong side of the Israeli fence when the final accounting comes due.
the seed of Ishmael was expelled from the House of Abraham.
we will never allow Israel to be defeated.
Eli,
I hate to say it, but you appear to be rather misguided and/or naive. Re: your analogy that we must treat the causes of cancer rather than the symptoms, I agree. However, it is a complete falsehood that the causes are poverty. The 9/11 hijackers as well as Osama were well-to do. The causes are a theological ideology of hatred of Jews. Have you ever seen the children’s books they use in Palestinian schools? Teaching them at age 5 that Jews are from the devil and they should hope for the death of all jews and aspire to be maryrs when they grow up. THAT is the cause. Get the facts. Second, when Israel agreed to give up 95% of it’s so-called occupied territory, the Palestinians STILL couldn’t and wouldn’t and didn’t stop the violence. Israel allows Muslims to worship freely, unlike Arab states that do not allow Jews freedom of religion. The ONLY reason Israel has taken extra land, and insulated Palestinians is for self-protection. You are confusing cause with effect.
OriginalOrrin wrote:
Neither will God.
Deborah:
You are correct in your assertion that, as you put it, ANSWER has a tactic to say, “if you are against us on the war against Iraq, then agree with us on other issues.”
However, this is also the tactic that the Bush administration has used in saying that those who agree with them in taking action against al-Qaeda should therefore support the war against Iraq. In fact, the war against Iraq has actually helped al-Qaeda (by giving them a break, a prime source of recruits and an arena to shoot at American troops).
As to the background of the terrorists, you are right that most of the 9/11 hijackers as well as Osama himself were well-educated and from relative affluence. However, this is not the profile of most al-Qaeda recruits. Most of them are educated in madrasas which are mostly attractive to the poor because of their lower costs and more consistent availability than public institutions (see QRS-2, last paragraph)
cj (7:44 PM last night)
Also Rumsfeld, Cheney, Grover Norquist, Condi Rice,… I think that when listening to liberals, some conservatives only hear what they want to hear.
Litning (10:36)
Chamberlain, like Churchill, was a member of the Conservative Party. And, yes Churchill was right (and no, I wouldn’t defend Lloyd George or the rest of the Labor leaders in England at the time, and yes, Churchill was right– but that was England, and for that matter, Churchill himself wrote in his History of the Second World War (which I have read through twice) that Roosevelt was way ahead of the rest of America and took great political risks (lend lease, renewal of conscription, taking over security in the western hemisphere) before the war to oppose Hitler. Further, while there were a few liberal isolationists (notably Burton Wheeler) in Congress, most of them, led by Gerald Nye (R-ND) were Republicans, as were the primary voices for the America First Committee outside Washington– Gen. Robert E. Wood, (also head of Sears Roebuck) and Charles Lindbergh.
Litning (10:46):
What I have said, is that 1) it was a big mistake for us to have invaded Iraq (and something this serious needs more than an ‘oops, we goofed on our intelligence’ answer– a complete housecleaning would be better), and 2) not that we shouldn’t work (now that we are there) to rebuild Iraq, but rather that the Democratic alternative, in which $20 billion of the funds used for this should be a loan (to the country sitting on the third largest oil reserves in the world) makes more sense and so on this vote, Kerry was right and Bush was wrong. I have NOT said that we should either cut and run, or not do the best job we can.
I HAVE said that until we involve Muslim countries (Egypt and Turkey being examples of regional powers we should work to include), the Islamicists have a winning hand by pointing to our coalition (America with a few other western countries) as an example of western domination. I think that someone who starts with no baggage here (Kerry) could.
Also, to all:
I have conceded that the present Palestinian leadership offers no chance for peace (choosing between Arafat and Hamas is like choosing between a horse thief and a hungry mountain lion as a place to tie up your pony.) and that in this reality Israel has a right to defend itself. John Kerry does too– click on ‘Working for Peace in the Middle East and Security for Israel under ‘priorities’
That said, we can still work to alleviate the conditions of Palestinians (and Mark, my view of the Coke plant is not only at odds with yours, but it would come as a shock to both Coke stockholders and Republicans if your premise is correct that the plant in Ramallah exists just so we can funnel some kind of laundered money to Arafat– I see the plant in Ramallah as a great example of what we can do in this regard– create good jobs at good (local) wages) and be ready next time there IS an opportunity to make progress towards peace, to jump on it.
Those of you with an apocalyptic Biblical view– you are entitled to your view but I am not going to argue with you.
Eli:
Your probably not going back this far to read this post but if you do please read the article that Sen. Hollings wrote in I believe the Washington comPost a couple of weeks ago. None of those names you mentioned were mentioned by the Senator but all the names I produced were. Hard to admit your party is full of anti-Semites eh?
CJ:
I haven’t read the article by Sen. Hollings (who, BTW, is retiring), but all of the names I mentioned are typically brought up in discussions of neo-cons (certainly more often than Charles Krauthammer, for crying out loud). It is possible that Sen. Hollings may be an anti-Semite, but if he is, then why didn’t it ever pop up in his many years of service?
As to congressman Moran, he is facing a stiff challenge IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. I agree, he is an anti-Semite, and with any luck he will lose. Just like with Gary Condit– Democrats won’t stand behind a Democrat who deserves to be gone, incumbent or not. And if he does survive the primary, then that is one of the very few times I would vote Republican (which I have on about a half dozen times in my life when the Democrat was clearly unqualified for the position).
Eli,
1)You misquoted me. 2) You misquoted ANSWER. 3) You misquoted Bush. 4) get copies of the Palestinian books for 5 year olds, indoctrinating them in the honor of bloodshed 5) Being poor does not cause you to be a murderous terrorist. Being poor does not cause you to be immoral. Being moral does not come within the confines of a particular tax bracket. Hey, there are moral poor people you know! 5) Do you believe in personal responsibility at all? Do you believe that people have NO alternatives of how to handle situations? Look what happenned to the Jews in WWII. Did we become terrorists? 6)I hope you never have to run from a terrorist attack as I did on 9/11. But if you do, and have the misfortune of not making it out, I hope your murderers will be held to account. I hope people won’t try to be nice to them, appease them, and make excuses for them. 7)If you want to vote democrat, go ahead. If you want to support pro-Palestinian organizations instead of Pro-Israel organizations, be my guest. Vote for Kerry if you insist. If you want to hold a gun to your own head, there’s nothing I can do to stop you. I do not have time to review all the errors in your comment. I probably will not respond if you choose to comment further. DO NOT interpret this as agreement or concession with any of your positions. Rather, I am very busy and suspect this dialogue could continue endlessly to no conclusion and no avail. I encourage you to get additional sources of information and reflect on your underlying beliefs. I hope you are not so condescending as to think that people can’t act morally unless they have money. Or that there is no free will at all. I’m sure you mean well. I hope it doesn’t take something really bad happenning to you before you realize that your philosophy of victimization and non-responsibility has severe ramifications in real life. When the terrorists come, the choice is life or death, not Hollywood coctail party discussions. I choose life. I hope you’ll do the same….though there’s no evidence of it so far.