Posted on 03/13/2003 5:01:11 AM PST by SJackson
Every few days I become re-amazed, saddened and fearful at the solid and valuable institutions that are being damaged and perhaps destroyed by the march to war that started on September 11, 2001. As a supporter of the president, and a grim but determined endorser of war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, I recognize that mine is one of the many hands holding up the chisel against those institutions. But I wonder whether we will be able to build new structures half as serviceable and enduring as those we may be in the process of destroying.
Of course, I have in mind the United Nations, NATO and our amicable relations with much of Europe, particularly France and Germany. Flawed as those organizations and traditions may be, if they have served their time and must be discarded, we will have to replace them with something, or risk returning to a lonely, every-country-for-itself law of the jungle. The United Nations may be a farce, but it nonetheless embodies the hope of the ages of a brotherhood of nations sharing a common, peaceful vision.
Once, European Christendom offered that vision. Then the League of Nations, and after its failure the U.N. assumed the role. If the U.N has come to the end of its utility, so be it. But there must be another iteration of the grand old dream.
People rightly cling to a hope of something better than dog eat dog. And if the so-called realists can see only the U.N.'s material flaws and not the dreams that built the edifice, they are no realists at all, but mere fools. The stubborn resistance of most Europeans, and less but still numerous Americans, to support war without a U.N. endorsement is testament to the strength of that vision -- even when its focus is on the derelict tenement of the United Nations.
And there is one other tradition being overturned: the inadmissibility in polite company of questioning the patriotism of Jews. This last tradition, born as the world saw the unspeakable business of the gas chambers and ovens of Auschwitz and Dachau, has for a half a century kept at bay the ancient, always-lurking wolf of anti-Semitism. The taboo, the absolute ban, against questioning Jewish loyalty doubtlessly sheltered a few individuals who fit the definition. After all, most people hold some special feelings for their mother country.
(My family, which emigrated from England, when applying for American citizenship in the 1950s hesitated before affirming that we were prepared to bear arms against England if America and England were at war with each other.)
And for a few of each ethnicity those special feelings may cross over to dual loyalty. I'm sure it is true for a few Anglo-Americans, Irish-Americans, Polish-Americans, Jewish-Americans and fill-in-the-blank Americans.
However, because of the terrible history and ubiquity of anti-Semitism, the Western world spontaneously established the taboo against talking about such things after the Nazi-inflicted holocaust shocked humanity to its core. But now, as the specter of a war of civilizations hovers over the impending war against Iraq (even as we pray ... and have reason to expect -- that the Iraqi war will not precipitate such a cataclysm), the taboo is being violated: first, on the edges of polite society; then whispered in more respectable domains; and finally, on Feb. 23, on "Meet the Press," stated out loud by its host and NBC Vice President and Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert. He asked Richard Perle, a leading advocate of the president's policy: "Can you assure American viewers ... that we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?"
If such a respectable citadel of the establishment as Russert's "Meet the Press" can air such a question, we could expect worse, and soon. And we got it this week.
First congressman Jim Moran suggested a successful Jewish plot to manipulate public opinion for the war, and then, my old friend Pat Buchanan published a withering, 5,000-word analysis of the evolution of thought of Richard Perle and other supporters of the president's Iraq policy, the peroration of which was the tasteless question and answer: "Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam? Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud."
As a student of history Pat couldn't help but be applying to Israel the old Nazi slogan: Ein Volke, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer (one people, one government, one leader.) Nothing good can come of this. Does mankind need yet another lesson of where this path leads? The idea that President Bush, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are risking so many American lives if they didn't honestly believe it was for American security interests (or because they have all been mentally manipulated by a few Jewish staffers) is not only beneath contempt, but is ludicrous on its face.
I wish my old friend Pat, even now, would refocus his powerful mental energies at the argument and not at the religion or patriotism of some of the arguers. While I disagree with his argument about the consequences of the war, events may yet prove him right. But no event can make right the manner by which he makes his argument. Tim Russert should never have asked that question.
I will, reluctantly, help hold up the chisel against a dysfunctional United Nations. But when it comes to questioning the motives of Jewish-Americans (or other Americans), count me out.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
you sound like a true disciple of your Fuhrer.
So do a lot of people responding on this thread.
Not one of them is conservative.
And Buchanan isn't really rightist. He has a lot more in common with leftist anti-capitalists than conservatives.
I can’t see where you got that from the article.
taxed2death: Jews fail to realize that sometimes what's good for America may not be good for Israel. So be it.
Pat and Rep. Moran would agree with you. Can you offer anything to support that statement?
Sorry, but I've been paying dues to the Libertarian Party for 15 years, and I've long advocated libertarian principles on FR, foreign non-intervension, open immigration, legalized drugs, and all.
Yes, that includes the LP's non-discriminatory immigration policy. So unlike a lot of FReepers, I have no problem with "little dark people."
Now, instead of tossing slurs like a leftist, do you care the address what you find illogical about my post? If one is responsible for murder by not intervening in a genocide or famine, then is not the entire world guilty of murder? Did not the entire world stay out of Rawanda? Does not the entire world "owe a debt" to Rwanda?
Foreign non-intervension does not equal committing the act.
I can’t see where you got that from the article.
You're right. I was addressing Peach's statement, and erroneously attributed Peach's statement to the article.
I'm sure that Russert would ask the same question to GWB or Cheney, as to whether the war is for oil and self enrichment. If not, then you might be right. ;>)
A more legitimate use of that line of questioning would be to ask Rep. Moran if his self admitted despicable remarks were in part motivated by contributions from Muslim charities that have funneled money to terrorist groups.
Read more carefully before you jump down someone's throat please.
Bump!
And it is not limited to Jews, but Christians as well.
Not to get off topic, but...
Fewer, Tony, FEWER!
Sheesh! I dropped out of college forty years ago, but that stuff irritates me no end.
As an aside, I'd agree with you, we can't civilize the world, nor be held responsible for the actions of tyrants we failed to depose.
I do think it's a legitimate cause for us to act though, particularly when coupled with other threats. I think Sadaam's treatment of his own people is a relevant element when coupled with the threat to us, as was Hitler's treatment of the Jews, particularly to England and France, and the Russian's treatment of Eastern Europe in our decision to engage in the cold war.
Rwanda was never a threat, we bear no guilt there (Belgium might), at the same time depending on the cost, a case for humanitarian involvement could be made, even it it simply simply meant arming the Tutsis.
Yes, like "their pals the paleocons," the LP welcomes immigrants: black, brown, or white, Jew, Christian, or Muslim. Very racist. Very anti-semitic.
Those tens and hundreds of billions of dollars that overburdened Americans have had to pay to Israel and Egypt over the last 30 years came about as terms of the camp david so called peace accord between Israel and Egypt.
That accord was horrible for Americans because it cost us tax payers hundreds of billions. The accord was also detrimental to Israel. The money from America is welfare money that goes to government state run companies which stifles the development of private free enterprise in Israel. Israel gave up the oil rich Sinai. They could have been a net exporter of oil.. But their prime minister, Menachem Begin, pissed in his pants and caved to America's first black president, Jimmy Carter...
Thankfully, WC Fields look-a-like Bill Clinton failed to convince Arafat to make 'peace' with Barak two years ago. Clinton's so called peace plan was to include Syria. Clinton promised Syria hundreds of billions in American aid if they made 'peace' with Israel...
America needs to stay out of the middle east. The only role we should have in the middle east is two fold. One role is to to feriociouly retaliate against any nation who launchs terrorist attacks against us. The second role is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. We don't need to invade Iraq. We don't need to rebuild or nation build muslim countries. All we need to do is knock out Irans nuke plants. It could be done in one day and save the American tax payer hundreds of billions. If we don't want to do it then we should let Israel do it.
We need to enact a crash course to become energy independant by drilling for oil, burning clean coal, using nuclear power, using shale oil, and conservation too.. Whatever it takes to become energy independant.
America must withdraw from the United Nations..
America must end all foreign aid
America must end all immigration
America must deport all illegal immigrants and legal immigrants whose residency or student visas have expired
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.