MoJo Debates Israel

As I've said before, there's been a vacuum surrounding Israel and Palestine this campaign season. Moderators have broached the issue only twice in the last 13 debates. And the most recent question, posed by Wendell Goler last week at the Fox News debate in South Carolina, was pretty weak. As Goler wound up—"Mayor Giuliani, President Bush is in the Middle East ... laying the groundwork for a Palestinian state"—there was, briefly, a glimmer of hope. Then he tossed this doozy of a softball: "I wonder, sir, how you would keep a Palestinian state from becoming a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism." One of several surreal assumptions behind the question seemed to be, "The Palestinians are prostrate, mightn't it be better if they're kept that way?" And that to the candidate with the Likudnik A-team advising him. Oh, well.

Since the debates have been so deficient in this area, I asked five well-informed Middle East observers what they would ask the candidates on the issue, if they could ask anything. The only ground rule was to keep it brief; no other boundaries. Here are their responses:

From Juan Cole of Informed Comment: Has Israeli colonization of the West Bank proceeded to the point where a two-state solution has become impractical? And, if so, isn't there now a choice between an Apartheid state or a one-state solution?

From Matthew Duss of TAPPED: Recognizing that Israel's settlements in the occupied territories are considered illegal under international law, and recognizing that their relentless expansion, which has continued over the last decade despite repeated Israeli assurances to the contrary, is both a source of Palestinian suffering and a major instigator of extremism and violence, as well as being deeply prejudicial to final status negotiations, are you prepared to take a firm stand against the settlements, and to carry through with real consequences if Israel does not cease settlement expansion?

From Trita Parsi, author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States: Since 1993, the United States has pursued a policy of seeking peace between Israel and Palestine by isolating Iran. As former Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk said, the two were symbiotic. Peace was necessary to isolate Iran, isolating Iran was necessary for peace. Fifteen years later, we can conclude that this strategy was an utter failure. Yet, the Bush Administration is following a similar path, seeking to create an alliance of Israel and Sunni Arab dictatorships to isolate Iran under the guise of peacemaking. In your administration, how would you approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? By repeating the Bush/Clinton policy or by pursuing a holistic approach aimed at giving all regional actors a stake in the outcome and process of peacemaking?

From Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss: Why is it that our last two presidents only made a major push on Israel/Palestine at the end of their 8-year terms, when they had nothing politically to lose? Doesn't this show that this is the big enchilada in foreign affairs and that our politics around this issue are unhealthy? What will you do differently, before your 8 years are up?

From Stephen Zunes of Foreign Policy in Focus: For Senator Clinton. During the 2006 war in Lebanon, you co-sponsored a resolution condemning Hezbollah for its alleged use of "human shields." Since then, detailed on-the-ground studies by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, while highly critical of Hezbollah's responsibility for civilian deaths in Israel, have challenged the claims by the Bush administration that Hezbollah's alleged use of "human shields" contributed to the high numbers of civilian deaths from Israeli bombardment in Lebanon. Similarly, the reports of these credible human rights organizations have placed responsibility for the vast majority of the 800 Lebanese civilian deaths on the government of Israel. Are you willing to acknowledge that Israel was culpable for most of the Lebanese civilian deaths? And, as president, would you belittle the findings of human rights groups in order to support violations of international humanitarian law by U.S. allies?

I'll be sending these along to the next few debate moderators. Have a good question for the candidates on Israel? Put proposals in the comments.—Justin Elliott

I do not usually go out looking for liberal tripe (is there any other?) But one of the feeds on the right hand side of the APRPEH blog is a Google news about Israel feed. Most of the time the main stories of the day appear there originating from various news services around the world. In terms of Israel news, it doesn't really make too much of a difference which news service you read. While the product of bias can be expressed through endless variation, begging indulgence in the mixing of metaphor, when it comes to pigs in a poke, a squeal is still a squeal. Characterizing the comments of these "well-informed Middle East observers" as anything other than an exercise in anti-Jew reflux would be to unfairly attribute a benefit of the doubt to the undeserving. But then again it is "Mother Jones". I do not usually go out looking for liberal tripe (is there any other?) But one of the feeds on the right hand side of the APRPEH blog is a Google news about Israel feed. Most of the time the main stories of the day appear there originating from various news services around the world. In terms of Israel news, it doesn't really make too much of a difference which news service you read. While the product of bias can be expressed through endless variation, begging indulgence in the mixing of metaphor, when it comes to pigs in a poke, a squeal is still a squeal. Characterizing the comments of these "well-informed Middle East observers" as anything other than an exercise in anti-Jew reflux would be to unfairly attribute a benefit of the doubt to the undeserving. But then again it is "Mother Jones".

Briefly skimming the surface of the comments for the basic assumptions of the questions, objectivity requires an honest assessment of credibility. None can be found. Israel's legal right to all of Yosh (setting aside the strongest case for not only developing Yosh but for retaining sole authority in Yosh; that is, G-d deeded assignment of this land to the Jews) is not only more credible than that posed by the Arabians it is justified by history and precedent. Using the terminology of "colonization" and "apartheid" muddy the waters of reason with emotional appeals relying on sound bites. All states set their boundaries, by fighting if necessary, and determine who is a citizen and who is not entitled to remain within those borders. If this is what the so-called “well informed observer” above means, than guilty as charged. Since Israel is by right, owner of Yosh, then these decisions justifiably are as legal for Israel to make as is for any state. Further, the idea that Israel is the reason for arabian extremism somehow causing barbarians living in and around Israel to act barbaric must be measured against the actions of those arabians who do not live in and around Israel. And not only in comparison to the nearness to Israel but also to the lengths of years for which arabian barbarism has existed. If Israel is to blame for the attacks of islamic facism and arabian terrorism, what was the cause for this behavior prior to Israel's re-establishment or prior to Jews even returning to the land in large numbers in the late 1800s? Such a line of reasoning and questioning is based solely on blame the Jew illogic. Briefly skimming the surface of the comments for the basic assumptions of the questions, objectivity requires an honest assessment of credibility. None can be found. Israel's legal right to all of Yosh (setting aside the strongest case for not only developing Yosh but for retaining sole authority in Yosh; that is, G-d deeded assignment of this land to the Jews) is not only more credible than that posed by the Arabians it is justified by history and precedent. Using the terminology of "colonization" and "apartheid" muddy the waters of reason with emotional appeals relying on sound bites. All states set their boundaries, by fighting if necessary, and determine who is a citizen and who is not entitled to remain within those borders. If this is what the so-called “well informed observer” above means, than guilty as charged. Since Israel is by right, owner of Yosh, then these decisions justifiably are as legal for Israel to make as is for any state. Further, the idea that Israel is the reason for arabian extremism somehow causing barbarians living in and around Israel to act barbaric must be measured against the actions of those arabians who do not live in and around Israel. And not only in comparison to the nearness to Israel but also to the lengths of years for which arabian barbarism has existed. If Israel is to blame for the attacks of islamic facism and arabian terrorism, what was the cause for this behavior prior to Israel's re-establishment or prior to Jews even returning to the land in large numbers in the late 1800s? Such a line of reasoning and questioning is based solely on blame the Jew illogic. MORE HERE

Thanks for the flag. I've been very out of sorts lately. I'm still recovering from some "home improvement" that had things in chaos here last week, and I'm so down and disgusted about so many things right now. My man Duncan Hunter has dropped out of the race, which means that to me Fred is the next choice. But I've also been to the web site of The Jewish Press and still can't get over the "yellow-dog Democrats" who act as if Hillary Clinton is a perfectly legitimate candidate from a Jewish point of view (which, leaving aside the fact that her philosophy is at variance with the Universal Noachide Laws, doesn't even make sense so far as Israel is concerned!). I don't understand this. My folks have been Republicans since the Civil War. I thought the Union was right in that conflict. Why do so many Jews who claim to sympathize with the Union have an almost inborn sense of identification with the other party? And why do Jews, whose tradition knows nothing of an unnatural separation of religion from the rest of life, insist on this enlightenment philosophy in the United States and use it to justify supporting people who oppose Universal Noachide morality? (Of course, nowadays some conservatives sound just like this when it comes to moslems. I'm waiting for some conservative to advocate abortion clinics in Indonesia.)

The Mother Jones article is also indicative of something else that has me down in the mouth. I don't know if the old gal herself was an atheist materialist or not. But the fact is, today's Left claims as its own all the "strugglers" in the causes of yesterday, because they, like the perverts of today, are the "antithesis" in the Hegelian drama of history. So naturally it makes no difference if Mother Jones herself would have been horrified by sodomy; her poor coal-mining hillbillies were "the gays of their day." I'm just waiting for some magazine in the future to call itself The Tennessee Valley Authority as it campaigns for the "right" to commit bestiality.

Did you know that the people who are trying to invent a "right" of "gay marriage" (for the first time in human history) are claiming that us bad old reactionaries are trying to "outlaw" it? How in the name of all that is reasonable can you outlaw something that doesn't exist??? The Left always insists that pushing ever farther into perversion is moderation while "standing still" and refusing to "change with the times" is a sign or "dangerous radicalism!"

I'm a simple person and there is a great deal I don't understand. I believe in G-d--and not just any "gxd," but HaShem explicitly and exclusively. Why do so many Jews (even Orthodox Jews, unfortunately) seem to be pulling in the other direction? Why do Orthodox Jews celebrate Judaism's totalitarian claim on all life while at the same time ridiculously invoking the "separation of religion and state" and the "gorgeous mosaic of cultures" (from which Bible-thumping rednecks alone are totally excluded)??? Why do "religious" Jewish publications deal with Israel in purely secular terms? Caramba.

Thank you for invoking G-d on your blog. There's only one reason to support Israel, and it is all sufficient: that it is G-d's will. This is also the only reason to be against homosexuality, infanticide, or even theft and murder. I notice no one on the left is advocating the legalization of undeniable murder yet, though I'm sure that will come. After all, the law against murder has the very same source and justification as all those "oppressive" and "outdated" old sexual taboos.

Sorry. I realize I'm rambling here. Shame on Mother Jones, on Ms., and on every other such publication (though what can you expect from people who don't acknowledge the G-d of Israel?).

May G-d redeem Israel and all mankind soon, speedily, and in our days!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.