Skip to main content

View Diary: Roemer on board of Right Wing think tank (201 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  asdf (3.20)
    One can be pro-Isreal and liberal at the same time.  There's a lot of us on the liberal side of the spectrum that think the PLO are full of shit one step removed from terrorists.
    •  I agree. (4.00)
      Israel and the PLO are not a litmus test for liberalism.  

      When the revolution comes, Republicans will be a good source of protein.

      by Delaware Dem on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:00:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (4.00)
        Thanks - although I was probably a little harsh in my language.   But I agree, the Israel-Palestine issue should not be a litmus test for liberalism.  (Esp. considering the magnifying glass focus and criticism that Israel recieves compared the umpteen number of truly despotic regimes around the world - its funny, but I never see the Left organizing protest marches to oppose all the U.S. foreign aid and support that goes to prop up a truly despotic regime like Mubarak's Egypt)
        •  Actually (4.00)
          I really don't think it's possible to support the policies of the Likud party and still call oneself a liberal.

          Then again, I don't think it's possible to support the policies of the Likud party and still call oneself "pro-Israel", either...I don't think most "pro-Israel" americans give a rip about the future of the people in that country. They're quite content to see hardworking Israelis ruined by those fundamentalist nutjobs in the settlements, without nary a peep of protest.

          (And last I checked, "other people are worse" isn't a legitimate excuse for doing nasty things. If so, anything short of genocide will be morally acceptable. Let's raise the bar a bit higher, eh?)

        •  Protests.... (none)
          Last time I checked Egypt wasn't getting any F-16's from the US.
        •  Without Aid, Where Is Egypt? (none)
          What happens to Egypt if aid to Mubarak is withdrawn?

          (tap, tap, tap ... drip, drip, drip ...)

          oof ... another fundie islamic theocracy, this time on israel's border ... yum ...

          vote early - vote often

          by wystler on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 11:03:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  why does USA give aid to Egypt? (none)
            And isn't aid to Egypt a bribe to keep the peace between Egypt and Israel anyway? This aid is really a further subsidy of Israel's unwillingness to make a just and lasting peace with its neighbors.
            •  Ditto for Jordan. n/t (none)
            •  Such a Simple and Succinct Question (none)
              An attempt to answer your question, Carl, could fill the Library at Alexandria. Though I know I'm not sharing anything you don't already know ...

              US policy toward Israel tends to be driven by two

              • the Jewish vote in the US;
              • the natural resources of the Persian Gulf.

              The current indigenous players are too numerous to mention individually, but the breakdown is:

              1. Zionists (Israeli Jews)
              2. Displaced/disposesed Arabs (Palestinians)
              3. Militarist Secular Arabs
              4. Islamic Theocrats
              5. Arab Royalists (intially propped up thru tribal connections by Brits)
              6. Arab Democrats (small club)

              All of the above have numerous representative groups, most of whom each have disparate interest. And there are a few who purport to be Islamic theocrats, but really are militaristic secularists.

              On the outside, all petroleum-importing nations have a direct or indirect economic interest in the region.

              And, no, Carl, it's not so much a bribe as it is cash to enable Mubarak to manage to govern. Without the aid, he'd be overthrown by a popular revolution that would likely be as radical, if not more so, than that of Iran in the early 1980s.

              vote early - vote often

              by wystler on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 11:32:41 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  the jewish vote in the US and oil? (none)
                do you know what a tiny percentage of votes the Us jewish population makes up?  and israel is one of the few middle east countries that doesn't have any oil, so how does supporting israel help the US vis-a-vis the enormous natural resources of the arab countries?
                •  2 complex 4u? (none)
                  do you know what a tiny percentage of votes the Us jewish population makes up?

                  big enough group to swing florida.

                  and israel is one of the few middle east countries that doesn't have any oil

                  (i can't comprehend this needs explanation, but ... nah, i'll let somebody else ... i''ve had enough of politics 101)

                  vote early - vote often

                  by wystler on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 12:36:39 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  um, excuse me? (none)
              So it's Israel that won't make peace with its neighbors?  Are you living on the same planet as I am?  Do you realize how many times Israel has, over the course of its short history as a nation, tried to make peace with its neighbors?  Do you realize that the reason there is no peace between Israel and its neighbors is because the arab countries, after they attacked Israel, would only sign armistice agreements, and refused to sign peace agreements?  Israel gave up the land of a country that attacked it (i.e. Egypt) in order to have peace. So I don't really understand what you mean.  I think you should blame the arab, anti-israel fanatics for the absence of peace agreements, and not israel.
        •  your talking points are Right Wing BS (none)
          So now you're using Right Wing talking points.

          Did you support invading Iraq?

      •  what's it mean to be a liberal? (none)
        If you support denying Palestinians human rights and annexing their land to give it to Israeli settlers, how's this square with being a liberal?
      •  It depends on the meaning of pro-isreal (none)
        Because, it is not like Likud is the only party in Israel (and I don't think what they are doing is in anyway good for Isael).

        So, saying someone is "pro-isreal" does not really mean much. So, the real issue is does she support the policies of Sharon or not.

        Most of the US "liberals" are to the far right of Isreali liberals ... I wonder why this is so ?

        •  the world according to Israel-hawks (4.00)
          Here's the logic of the Israel hawks.

          supporting Israel's right to exist = supporting Israeli policy, including taking land from Palestinians

          If you don't support taking land by force and all that goes with it, you don't really support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. And that makes you an anti-semite.

          As policy and philosophy this is incompatible with my understanding of liberalism.

    •  A lot (4.00)
      of 'terrorist' organizations have successfully morphed into active political parties that have distanced themselves from their previous violence - the ANC, for instance.

      However, there are many more on the trash heap of history who did not.  Time will tell with the PLO.

      Big Media is hated by the GOP because they sometimes tell the truth. We should hate Big Media for the other 97 percent of the time when they don't.

      by Ugluks Flea on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:09:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. Google "Stern Gang" Irgun, (none)
        "Yitzhak Shamir" and "Menachim Begin", for another good example of terrorist organizations/leaders morphing into respectable political entities/states.

        Just for kicks, also google "Deir Yassin".

      •  More on Terrorism in Palestine (none)

        Gee, these tactics are much like those of the terrorists in Iraq today.

        Do you think the Iraqi terrorists are taking a lesson from history, and will end up like those earlier terrorists in Palestine?

    •  liberal Israel hawks? (none)
      Of the liberals that support the Israel-hawk position, what percentage fall into one of the following categories?

      • they're Jewish
      • they are elected officials (or Democratic functionaries) and therefore afraid of AIPAC
      • former elected officials tyring to be consistent with past positions
      • media people that have to be concerned about offending Israel-hawk bosses or Jewish audiences

      I just don't think there are many liberals left that think Israel is pursuing peace in good faith.
      •  sore spot (4.00)
        this is on example of where the liberal side of things rubs against the grain of mainstream politics and exhibits an untypical groupthink. i, myself, am a very liberal on most issues, but i take a centrist position on isreal/palestine.

        this is a highly polarizing issue, and i find it unsettling that people often blindly deify arafat, a corrupt and duplicitous career terrorist (yes, i used the "t" word on a liberal blog). agreed, hard right stances such as those by netanyahu were ultimately inflamatory and counterproductive. but this whole thing where sharon went to temple mount and "caused" the current war? am i the only one who didn't see this as an excuse for hamas et al., and the rest of the fanatically right-wing fundamentalist "islam" forces and age-old antisemitism to go apeshit? don't forget it's the sworn position of these forces to exterminate all jews everywhere. have you ever heard even the rightest right of zionism advocate such brazen genocide? i haven't.

        i personally believe the jewish state has a right to survive. while their foreign policy has left a lot to be desired, at least their aggression is done, however sloppily, in the interest of national security, which in and of itself puts him FAR to the left of the neocon cabal running our country.

        countries such as france, germany, etc., support the palestitinian cause, but are concealing rampant antisemitism that occurs in these european cultures (which I have seen firsthand many occasions).

        liberals can be a little too optimistic about human nature; too quick to always point out the party with lesser power as necessarily the victim. by that metric EVERY other country in the world is a victim right now because of american policy. while, sadly, this is becomnig closer to the truth, other first-world countries still have some autotonomy, thankfully. while it's EASY to understand how american foreign policy is giving terrorists recruiting posters, we should be careful on this blog not to praise, directly or indirectly, terrorism in the middle east, regardless of how justified the anger on that side might be. i don't think michael moore talking about terrorism as a just uprising against us is going to help our cause, as much as i praise F9/11. liberals too easily forget that jews have been and continue to be the most persecuted people for thousands of years. think this is different not just because isreal gets US aid? that's their only lifeline, and i shudder when otherwise reasonable progressives suggest cutting ties with isreal. with the way our policies have united arab countries against us, i wouldnt be surprised if the war of 1968 went a little different this time.

        •  yes, thank you (none)
          i'm really so sick of people who don't know much about much attacking israel, "sharon=bad" "israel=colonizers" palestinians=victims" - the situation in israel is so much more complicated than this. I could go on and on, but I don't have the energy to get into it.  But I would advise people to stay away from black and white thinking on the israel-palestine issue.  And consider this (just one example of how complicated the situation is):  If Israel hadn't conquered territories in 1967, or if it had given the conquered territories right back, would we now be discussing an agreement of a return of the territories for peace, or would arabs still be trying to get israel out of haifa and tel aviv?
          •  carl really took issue with this post (none)
            in fact, i was so peeved that he went and used stereotyping to insinuate there must be wrong with anyone who's liberal and supports israel in any fashion. i posted a diary on this today based on this post, a very lively debate indeed, but carl crashed the party, sent troll ratings inappropriately all over the place, and twisted people's words in a dileberate attempt to egg them on.
            •  too much kool-aid (none)
              carl and wystler have been drinking too much anti-israel kool-aid, their comments don't make too much sense, so it's not that interesting to get into it with them.  oh well.  glad there also some voices of sanity here on this issue, such as yours.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site