I Am A Man of Constant Sores

Barack Obama, trying to stitch back together his reputation with Jewish voters, gives a hearty interview to Jeffrey Goldberg. They talk about Israel and the settlements.

BO: Look, my interest is in solving this problem not only for Israel but for the United States.

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy.

Republicans respond:

It is truly disappointing that Senator Obama called Israel a ‘constant wound,’ ‘constant sore,’ and that it ‘infect[s] all of our foreign policy.’

Warbloggers respond (it's at Little Green Footballs, so I won't link it):

Obama: Israel is a "Constant Sore."

Look: You have to be a liar, idiot, or both to think Obama was referring to Israel with that. How can a country be "constant"? A struggle can be constant, as can a conflict, or a "problem." That's the antecendent of Obama's "constant sore" comment. If the Republican strategy to turn Jewish voters against Obama is to prey on their lack of basic reading skills, well, good luck.

The irony is that Obama provides plenty of grist for honest skeptics, and David Frum goes over them here:

Notice what is embedded here:

(1) a condescending assumption that the so-called hawkish position on the Arab-Israeli dispute is "blind" and adopted by US politicians only because they seek political safety - there's no acknowledgement that the dovish position was ever tried or that it in fact produced a terrible war in 2000-2003;

(2) the attitude, common on the Democratic left, that real friendship to Israel consists in compelling Israeli governments to do things that most Israelis regard as dangerous;

(3) acceptance of the red herring that it is "settlements" that are the source of the Arab-Israeli dispute;

(4) enormous and unexplained confidence that he can solve a problem through his personal intervention.

Comments

Neil | May 13, 2008, 11:04am | #

LOL gaffe machine Obama continues!!

How can he be prepared to be President when he keeps screwing up in these interviews and small settings? It seems the only thing hes good at is prepared speeches.

joe | May 13, 2008, 11:05am | #

Jewish voters, both in American and in Israel, agree with Obama by large margins.

Even Ariel Sharon, the father of the settlement movement, adopted this position towards the end of his career.

Guy Montag | May 13, 2008, 11:06am | #

Quick, someone please quote Ms. Rand on Israel and Taiwan!

That said, I prefer the David Frum quotes to any of that other stuff in this post.

Sen. Obama is coming across as another President Carter. He won't say he wants all the Jews to be pushed into the sea, but it does not sound like he would mind if they just marched in on their own.

Neil | May 13, 2008, 11:08am | #

Your right guy, another Carter and possible closet anti-semite. No wonder Hamas likes him so much.

I'm sure Joe can correct us though and tell us what a friend of Israel he really is and how this won't kill him with the Jewish vote.

Neil | May 13, 2008, 11:09am | #

Joe wait until McCain choses Eric Cantor as his Vice President.

vanya | May 13, 2008, 11:11am | #

But Carter did more than any other American President to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East. The Egypt-Israeli peace treaty is one of the few substantive and lasting accomplishments of the last 40 years.

Neil | May 13, 2008, 11:11am | #

Vanya:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Tell another one!

joe | May 13, 2008, 11:17am | #

Neil,

Obama leads McCain by 30 points among Jewish voters. This is probably becasue the overwhelming majority of American Jews agree with his opinion about the settlements.

As does a large majority of Israeli voters. As did Ariel Sharon when he was Prime Minister.

This isn't an effort to woo Jewish voters by the Republicans. This is a classic bank-shot pander, attempmting to make Obama look bad to right-wingers like you and Guy. It has as much to do with winning Jewish votes as putting African-American country commissioners in front of the cameras at the RNC convention in 2000 had to do with winning African-American votes.

God, you're naive.

jon | May 13, 2008, 11:17am | #

Again, Obama will sound smart but a bit careless at first, get attacked rabidly, and then clarify things in a way that makes him sound even smarter. And, at the same time, he makes those who didn't like him not like him even more. But unlike a certain Republican senator, he doesn't get much credit for being willing to talk off the cuff. Of course, unlike that Republican, he's much more likely to be right.

joe | May 13, 2008, 11:20am | #

Jimmy Carter's Obama-esque foreign policy removed the greatest threat to Israel's existence that it has ever faced - the danger of an invasion by Egypt, the strongest military power Israel has ever faced.

That deal involved removing settlements, too, and Israel hasn't faced a serious military threat since then.

Ayn_Randian | May 13, 2008, 11:20am | #

Neil - I recently saw Iron Man over the weekend. Even though it was formulaic, I thought it was fun and RD Jr. really makes that movie.

What did you think?

Neil | May 13, 2008, 11:21am | #

LOL Joe Kerry won Jews by much more than 30%. He won them 75-25.

Only 30% ahead for a Democrat? We could be looking at the Reagan elections where the Republican gets 38% of the Jewish vote!

Obama: Hard on Israel, soft on terror, endorsed by Hamas.

Neil | May 13, 2008, 11:23am | #

Ayn_Randian, RD Jr. really shined I agree. Nothing to get you thinking, just a good summer popcorn movie.

Mike Laursen | May 13, 2008, 11:25am | #

a condescending assumption that the so-called hawkish position on the Arab-Israeli dispute is "blind" and adopted by US politicians only because they seek political safety

What's the animal that represents staying out of it these foreign quagmires completely? Let's try being that animal.

joe | May 13, 2008, 11:25am | #

Well, looks like we've got our prediction from Reverend Wrong.

Since Obama's head-to-heads vs. McCain are taking off, just everyone with a head on their shoulders realized they would as soon as the primary ended, it is almost certain that his head-to-heads among different slices of the electorate are doing the same. It will probably go up even more than the national average, given that Jewish voters (almost all of whom are Democrats) favored Hillary Clinton.

That's a 30 point lead in early April. It will probably move back up to the mid-40s to 50 within a month. The Repubicans tried the same stunts against Kerry, calling him soft on Israel and sort on terror. As you point out, Neil, he won them by 50 points.

Episiarch | May 13, 2008, 11:27am | #

Neil, doesn't it make you want to watch Less Than Zero?

Abdul | May 13, 2008, 11:27am | #

Obama later mollified irritated Jewish voters, telling them: "C'mon, your people are too clever to think that I was referring to Israel as a 'sore.' You've always been so clever at shifty schemes and pulling the wool over people's eyes, I can't believe you'd fall for such a transparent goyish ploy."

Neil | May 13, 2008, 11:28am | #

I'm not worried about polls.

Remember: Dukakis +14 this time in 1988. How'd he look in November?

Chris Potter | May 13, 2008, 11:29am | #

Look: You have to be a liar, idiot, or both to think Obama was referring to Israel with that.

If you look at what he said literally, the "it" can only refer to "Israel". Now, I don't think that's what he meant either, but that's a gigantic gaffe for a supposedly silver-tongued politician to make. Dangling pronouns are extremely dangerous when discussing sensitive topics; you're better off avoiding he, she, and especially it (maybe even "you").

Mark Borok | May 13, 2008, 11:30am | #

I read Obama's interview and think, wow, that's the most straightforward and honest (or honest-seeming) response I've ever heard from a politician on a controversial topic. Then I read Frum's article and he calls Obama's answers evasive.

Frum: "Here's the first question:

GOLDBERG: I’m curious to hear you talk about the Zionist idea. Do you believe that it has justice on its side?

Now, how long do you think it takes Obama to deliver a "yes" or "no" to that question? I count five long paragraphs - interrupted by two follow-up questions - before we get to "yes.""

Actually, it takes half a sentence. Obama's answer: "I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea". Apparently Frum prefers a simplistic, thoughtless answer to a complex, thought-out one. Perhaps he wanted Obama to state unequivocally that Israel is always and in every case just, making it the only state in history of which that can be said?

Frum had one good point, his first one. As for the second, my impression is that the majority of Israelis are unhappy with the settler movement, although that attitude shifts back and forth in response to Palestinian actions. I can't find anywhere Obama's stating that settlements are the source of the Arab-Israeli dispute, only that they are not a good idea. And as for point 4, do we really expect or want a presidential candidate not to have confidence in his or her ability to solve a problem?

Neil | May 13, 2008, 11:31am | #

Chris thanks for pointing out that Obama seems to be a big pile of failure in these small settings.

When McCain makes gaffes, its not a big deal because everyone (including Hillary Clinton) knows hes prepared to be President thanks to his long record of public service.

When Obama does this, it seriously questions his ability to lead and his readiness for office. Obama won't have a big prepared speech when he sits down with foreign heads of state.

joe | May 13, 2008, 11:31am | #

Neil | May 13, 2008, 11:28am | #

I'm not worried about polls.

That's funny, because you quote them every time you find one that tells you what you want to hear.

Come to think of it, you haven't been doing that lately..

I wonder why.

Tonio | May 13, 2008, 11:33am | #

Sen. Obama is coming across as another President Carter.

The same President Carter who broke the long stalemate between Israel and Egypt and brokered the Camp David Accords? This is bad, why?

He won't say he wants all the Jews to be pushed into the sea, but it does not sound like he would mind if they just marched in on their own.

Maybe he doesn't say that because it's not what he thinks? Or would that be to simple and realistic?

Also, there's a huge difference between wishing/hoping for the Arab-Israeli conflict to resolve, and wishing that the Israeli Jews to disappear. The former is a realistic, pro-everyone position; the latter is an overwrought, paranoid fantasy of the sort often employed by hardcore Israel supporters who view any compromise as tantamount to complete surrender.

joe | May 13, 2008, 11:33am | #

Chris Potter,

"It" refers to "this constant problem."

What was "this constant problem" that the interviewer and Obama were talking about, Israel itself or the settlement issue?

Not a gaffe, a really lame bit of spin. No one who isn't already bending over backwards to convince themselves Obama is anti-Israel is going to be fooled by it.

Neil | May 13, 2008, 11:34am | #

Yeah Joe I'm real scared when Obama is +1 in Rasmussen tracking and +4 in Gallup.

Only the liberal left-leaning, unweighted polls like CBS/NYT And ABC/WaPo have him up outside the margin of error.

Neil | May 13, 2008, 11:35am | #

Hows he doing in OH, PA, MI, and FL Joe? LOL ask Al Gore how much the popular vote matters.

Brian24 | May 13, 2008, 11:37am | #

I don't think Frum RTFA.

(1) a condescending assumption that the so-called hawkish position on the Arab-Israeli dispute is "blind" and adopted by US politicians only because they seek political safety - there's no acknowledgement that the dovish position was ever tried or that it in fact produced a terrible war in 2000-2003;

Obama says he won't blindly accept the hawkish position, and (correctly) states that that would be the safer position politically. I'm sorry Frum is so sensitive, but this does not imply that hawks hold THEIR position "blindly," nor that they only hold it because of that political safety.

(2) the attitude, common on the Democratic left, that real friendship to Israel consists in compelling Israeli governments to do things that most Israelis regard as dangerous;

He actually says real friendship to Israel involves telling them to stop building settlements. He doesn't even say anything about dismantling existing ones.

(3) acceptance of the red herring that it is "settlements" that are the source of the Arab-Israeli dispute;

Jeez, he says building settlements is "unhelpful" to the peace process. That's not the same thing as claiming they're the source of the dispute (frankly, I've never even heard that particular "red herring" before, though I suppose some idiot has probably said it).

(4) enormous and unexplained confidence that he can solve a problem through his personal intervention.

Can't argue with that. Though that really just makes him another person running for president.

Chris Potter | May 13, 2008, 11:37am | #

Obama will sound smart but a bit careless at first, get attacked rabidly, and then clarify things in a way that makes him sound even smarter.

Dude, it's not in his best interest to compare this well-intentioned sloppiness to his two-faced treatment of rural Pennsylvanians a few weeks ago. He revealed his true colors in that incident, and his statement afterwards was more a revision (cutting out his blatant accusations of bigotry and xenophobia) than a clarification.

joe | May 13, 2008, 11:38am | #

JG: If you become President, will you denounce settlements publicly?

BO: What I will say is what I’ve said previously. Settlements at this juncture are not helpful. Look, my interest is in solving this problem not only for Israel but for the United States.

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable.

The only question is whether the misrepresentation of Obama's statement about settlements, presenting it as if he was talking about Israel as a whole, is small enough that it will be forgotten, or large enough to cause a backlash against the Republicans.

David Weigel | May 13, 2008, 11:39am | #

Neil - I think there's a strong argument to be made that McCain is peaking right now, as Obama wastes more of his resources finishing off Clinton. McCain, remember, lucked out again and again in the primaries and got through them without much of a political and fundraising machine. Obama's going into the fall with the most powerful fundraising and organizing armies in politics since at least Reagan '84, soon to be augmented by all those Hillary-endorsing unions.

I don't know many political pros who pay attention to current state polls.

joe | May 13, 2008, 11:40am | #

Obama is now winning Pennsylvania by 5 points.

Looks like Pennsylvanians disagree with you, Chris.

Chris Potter | May 13, 2008, 11:41am | #

If this incident were like that one, he would have gone to a synagogue and made public speeches about how Israel was the greatest country in the world and can do no wrong, and then gone to a closed-door fundraiser in a mosque and said Jews were money-grubbing Arab-hating materialists.

Neil | May 13, 2008, 11:41am | #

Dave W., just remember: Dukakis +14 in 1988.

Dukakis +14. Lets see how well Obama stands up through the stuff the swift boaters will throw at him before we declare that McCain has "peaked".

Episiarch | May 13, 2008, 11:41am | #

Neil, would you say that Downey's best performance was as Derek in Back to School?

Neil | May 13, 2008, 11:42am | #

Actually Episiarch I'd say by far his best performance was in Charlie Chaplin.

shecky | May 13, 2008, 11:43am | #

Finally, proof positive that Obama bin Laden hates the Joo. If only the sheeple were smart enough to read.

joe | May 13, 2008, 11:43am | #

State polls, heck most polls, about the general election matchups are useful mainly to refute points, rather than to make them. We're too far out for those polls to be useful evidence for what will happen, but they can give us snapshots about the dynamics of the race right now, and how current stories are effecting people's opinions right now.

McCain's peak is actually over. He was tied with or leading both Democrats up until about a week and half ago, and now they're pulling away.

Chris Potter | May 13, 2008, 11:44am | #

joe,

Then Pennsylvanians are wrong by 5 points. When a battered wife says it's not her husband's fault when he hits her because she forgot to put butter on his sandwich, does that mean it really isn't his fault?

PC | May 13, 2008, 11:45am | #

Weigel is trying to cover up for Obama when he let a little truth fall out. Yes our relationship with Israel is a "sore" or a "wound." Subsidizing someone to constantly spy on you is bad policy. Also influencing our elections from without is bad for this country. The Bible is fiction. The only claim that Israel has to the land is that they took it from the Arabs and have enough guns to secure it. Their bad choice of real estate should not be our problem. If they can keep the land, fine, but it should not be at our expense. Neutrality is the only sensible policy with regards to Israel and the Palestinians.

Episiarch | May 13, 2008, 11:45am | #

But what about The Pick-Up Artist? Or Weird Science? Highly underrated performances of subtlety and depth.

Fluffy | May 13, 2008, 11:45am | #

If Frum thinks that a US President can't impose a settlement on Israel if he chooses, he's a fool.

If I was President, I would inform the Israelis that they are exchanging East Jerusalem and the ENTIRE West Bank and Gaza for the Palestinians giving up the right of return, and that's it. Period. If they refuse, we would:

1. Immediately end all aid.
2. Immediately reveal all intelligence we have available about Israel to the world at large, including any information we have about Israeli intelligence assets.
3. Immediately announce that it will be the policy of the United States to "massively retaliate", on the Eisenhower model, against ANY power in the Middle East that employs nuclear weapons, regardless of the circumstances of such use.

The strategic damage that would be done to Israel by these three [particularly #3, which would take their nuclear deterrent out of their hands] would be so massive that they would have no choice but to comply.

joe | May 13, 2008, 11:46am | #

I think they can make up their minds all by themselves, Chris, without you having to chew their food them.

Episiarch | May 13, 2008, 11:47am | #

I'm voting for Fluffy.

Neil | May 13, 2008, 11:49am | #

Joe how can you say its too early and then declare McCain has peaked? He could very well rebound this summer after some swift boating of Obama.

Lost_In_Translation | May 13, 2008, 11:49am | #

They all look the same to me. Maybe its the anti-semite in me, but why do I have to spend money on Israel anyway. Can't we let them solve their own problems?

Our involvement probably prolongs the deadly stalemate that exists between Israel and Palestine. Let there be a final resolution one way or another.

BakedPenguin | May 13, 2008, 11:50am | #

Fluffy - while I agree, the chances of an American president doing anything like that in our lifetime are pretty remote.

joe | May 13, 2008, 11:51am | #

Fluffy,

A just settlement would have to involve some trading of already-settled land, especially near Jerusalem, for land inside Israel proper. This also has the advantage of allowing the construction of a contiguous Palestine, with at least a ribbon or meeting of points linking Gaza with the West Bank.

The maps aren't the real problem, as tricky as the maps can be. The real problem that sunk Wye River was that Arafat, like the people the Republicans are trying to appeal to with this misrepresentation, didn't want a just settlement. He wanted ongoing war, because being on a war footing benefitted him politically.

If an American president laid down the law as you recommend, I think a great many Israelis would be secretly happy, as long as the underlying deal was a good one. It would get them what the large majority of Israelis want, while allowing them to blame the big, mean United States for the concessions.

Lost_In_Translation | May 13, 2008, 11:51am | #

He could very well rebound this summer after some swift boating of Obama.


...also known as the dead guy bounce.

stuartl | May 13, 2008, 11:52am | #

Obama leads McCain by 30 points among Jewish voters. This is probably becasue the overwhelming majority of American Jews agree with his opinion about the settlements.

joe, this statement is pretty damn insulting. Do you think it possible that US Jewish voters might make their decisions based on US issues? Has it occurred to you that not all US Jews care solely about Israel?

joe | May 13, 2008, 11:52am | #

Neil,

Joe how can you say its too early and then declare McCain has peaked?

Actually, I was going to write another paragraph about how he could have another peak at some later point in the race, but omitted it for brevity. I was just commenting on the state of the race to date. McCain actually took the lead for a few weeks there, and now, that peak is over. That's what I was trying to say.

Lost_In_Translation | May 13, 2008, 11:56am | #

joe, this statement is pretty damn insulting. Do you think it possible that US Jewish voters might make their decisions based on US issues? Has it occurred to you that not all US Jews care solely about Israel?

I'd warrant there are more Christians that care about Israel than Jews in the US, which is why the GOP (not a traditional jewish stronghold) carries on so much about protecting and supporting Israel, to appease the religious right.

joe | May 13, 2008, 11:57am | #

He could very well rebound this summer after some swift boating of Obama.

Wow, you can't think of a single affirmative argument McCain could make that would cause a rebound?

stuartl,

I was responding to a comment that Obama's position would sink him among Jewish voters, saying that it would not, because most of them are not opposed to his position. You are correct, his big lead (like every Democrat's big lead) comes mainly from his other positions. I could have choses better wording. He isn't leading BECAUSE OF his position on Israeli security; it's just that his position on Israeli security is not causing the Jewish voting bloc to oppose him.

BakedPenguin | May 13, 2008, 11:58am | #

There's a substantial minority in both Israel and Palestine that is completely irrational and simply wants to kill the other. They don't want peace, just death. There's nothing we can do to change their minds; the only worthwhile option is to get out of the way.

Neil | May 13, 2008, 11:59am | #

Like you're going to make any specific affirmative statements about Obama's record. You can't, because he doesn't have a record.

Fluffy | May 13, 2008, 11:59am | #

Joe,

I know what you are saying about the map lines, but the good thing about the '48 borders is that they're already a known quantity. Once you open the door to the possibility of different borders, you create the likelihood of endless haggling over what those borders should be.

Rhywun | May 13, 2008, 12:00pm | #

I can't get past the usage of "honest" and "David Frum" in the same sentence.

Let there be a final resolution one way or another.

I'm not touching that one.

Ayn_Randian | May 13, 2008, 12:01pm | #

I would inform the Israelis that they are exchanging East Jerusalem and the ENTIRE West Bank and Gaza for the Palestinians giving up the right of return, and that's it. Period. If they refuse, we would

This, of course, presumes that the Palestinians would take such a deal.

And why would you force Israel to give up Gaza and the West Bank? Blame Egypt and Jordan for causing (if not actually starting) the Six-Days War.

joe | May 13, 2008, 12:04pm | #

Fluffy,

Yes, that is a point in the '48 (or '67) borders' favor. However, there are some big drawbacks. Like, all of those people who've lived in their homes for decades - not trailers for a few months, towns and neighborhoods - needing to be moved. People HATE that. Gets 'em all up in arms. Ever read any Kelo threads? And, no, ruminations about root causes don't make those feelings go away.

Like I said, I don't think the haggling is the real problem. If both sides want a solution, a just solution can be worked out. Rather, "endless" haggling is a consequence of not really wanting a solution.

Fluffy | May 13, 2008, 12:04pm | #

Here's a couple of statements about Obama's record:

He didn't vote for the war.

He didn't vote for the Patriot Act.

I realize that you might consider these negative statements and not affirmative statements, but we're at an odd point in American political history, where the failures of the last 7 years have largely tainted both the party in power and the opposition party, because the opposition party leadership largely went along with the party in power's bad ideas.

I think you could compare our situation to that of, say, France in 1946, where all the politicians with "records" were discredited by their association with the late Republic, or with the Vichy regime, and the only available credible leadership were the persons with little or no national political history. De Gaulle had almost no domestic political experience at all, and that was one of the most important attributes he possessed.

Pig Mannix | May 13, 2008, 12:04pm | #

@PC

The only claim that Israel has to the land is that they took it from the Arabs and have enough guns to secure it.

Substitute "Indians" for "Arabs" and that's pretty much how we came by ours. When has the world ever worked any differently?

Their bad choice of real estate should not be our problem. If they can keep the land, fine, but it should not be at our expense. Neutrality is the only sensible policy with regards to Israel and the Palestinians.

Agreed. I find it interesting that many people who feel that way about federal funding for rebuilding New Orleans seem to think Israel is entitled to a blank check for the same bad choice.

Neil | May 13, 2008, 12:05pm | #

Fluffy he wasn't a Senator when those laws were passed, so thats a cop out. Who knows what he would've done in the Senate?

joe | May 13, 2008, 12:05pm | #

Ayn Randian,

Blame?

How many more years of warfare should Israel endure to make a point about who's right, if they have the chance to make peace?

mantooth | May 13, 2008, 12:05pm | #

"When McCain makes gaffes, its not a big deal because everyone (including Hillary Clinton) knows hes prepared to be President thanks to his long record of public service."

As long as he has Joe Lieberman to whisper the correct answer in his ear, that is.

Reinmoose | May 13, 2008, 12:07pm | #

L_I_T
It's probably more about not supporting the Muslims, who are our friends if they want us to help them and our enemies if they don't.

Fluffy | May 13, 2008, 12:07pm | #

Fluffy he wasn't a Senator when those laws were passed, so thats a cop out. Who knows what he would've done in the Senate?

Nobody. That's the point.

Ayn_Randian | May 13, 2008, 12:08pm | #

Fluffy, I have to take serious issue with your entire "if were President plan":

For one, I don't see it as the American President's business to dictate to Israel how it conducts its affairs.

1. Immediately end all aid.

OK. No controversey with me.

2. Immediately reveal all intelligence we have available about Israel to the world at large, including any information we have about Israeli intelligence assets.

That's an act of war, and completely unjustified.

3. Immediately announce that it will be the policy of the United States to "massively retaliate", on the Eisenhower model, against ANY power in the Middle East that employs nuclear weapons, regardless of the circumstances of such use.

What? You're just against certain countries using nuclear weapons, regardless of the context? "ME Nuke Use = Bad"...secondly, what the hell business is it of ours if the ME does go nuclear?

joe | May 13, 2008, 12:08pm | #

When John McCain makes a gaffe and admits that he wants us to occupy Iraq for centuries, everyone knows that he means it, because we have his long record of public service, such as his advocacy for that invasion and occupation as far back as the late 1990s.

Ayn_Randian | May 13, 2008, 12:09pm | #

How many more years of warfare should Israel endure to make a point about who's right, if they have the chance to make peace?

joe, I'm not saying one way or the other. I was more addressing Fluffy's plan of strong-arming/warmongering with Israel to give up land that it won in a defensive war.

Lost_In_Translation | May 13, 2008, 12:10pm | #

I'm not touching that one.

What's a matter Rhywun, can't stomach a little atrocity ridden slaughterfest with ethnic based genocide on the side?

Some people just won't get along and if the decision is between me getting the crap kicked out of me so they both can live, I'll opt with letting one die so I don't have to get my nose rearranged. Maybe they won't kill each other in any case. maybe they'll realize that they both want to live more than they want the other to die and then we all get the best resolution. But I,as a taxpayer, am sick of seeing my money go to fund this low level conflict that needs to end.

Fluffy | May 13, 2008, 12:10pm | #

This, of course, presumes that the Palestinians would take such a deal.

They'd never get a better one, and they know it.

And why would you force Israel to give up Gaza and the West Bank?

To never have to hear about it again.

Brian24 | May 13, 2008, 12:10pm | #

"When McCain makes gaffes, its not a big deal because everyone (including Hillary Clinton) knows hes prepared to be President thanks to his long record of public service."

So now McCain's record in the Senate is a point in his favor? News to me.

Chris Potter | May 13, 2008, 12:10pm | #

I think they can make up their minds all by themselves, Chris, without you having to chew their food them.

Oh, please. I take it you've never thought that a majority was wrong when they answered a poll?

Neil | May 13, 2008, 12:12pm | #

It is Brian.

This is a dangerous world. Not the time to trust it to a man with a paper-thin record.

Fluffy | May 13, 2008, 12:13pm | #

I was more addressing Fluffy's plan of strong-arming/warmongering with Israel to give up land that it won in a defensive war.

A defensive war? Put the crack pipe down.

Mark Borok | May 13, 2008, 12:14pm | #

"Like you're going to make any specific affirmative statements about Obama's record. You can't, because he doesn't have a record."

Which is exactly what makes swiftboating him so difficult.

Episiarch | May 13, 2008, 12:16pm | #

And why would you force Israel to give up Gaza and the West Bank?

To never have to hear about it again.

This is why I would vote for Fluffy. The "right" thing to do would be to get the fuck out of the ME, get our money out, our support (for anyone) out, and our fingers out. But that will never happen as long as the conflict continues. Everyone and their brother will be trying to get us back in every fucking day.

The only way we no longer have to hear about this bullshit is forcing a solution the hard way. I can say this because Fluffy will never be president and this "solution" will never happen, so I'm really only creating a wish list.

Brian24 | May 13, 2008, 12:16pm | #

neil,

Au contraire. It is a dangerous world. Let's not give control to one of the guys who helped make it that way.

vanya | May 13, 2008, 12:17pm | #

"The only claim that Israel has to the land is that they took it from the Arabs and have enough guns to secure it."

Substitute "Indians" for "Arabs" and that's pretty much how we came by ours. When has the world ever worked any differently?

Substitute "Slavs" for "Arabs" and "Germany" for "Israel." Or "Chinese" for "Arabs" and "Japan" for "Israel". I think the world started working differently in 1939 when we decided that new world powers like Germany and Japan couldn't do to the Slavs or Chinese what the old powers like England, France and Spain did to the indigenous people in the Americas or Africa. The rules changed but apparently Israel got a grandfather clause to play by the old ones.

joe | May 13, 2008, 12:18pm | #

Uh, yeah, lord knows I haven't made any affirmative statements about Obama's record.

Videotaping confessions? Earmark transparency? Securing Russian nukes? Timelines in Iraq? What?

It is a dangerous world, Neil, and has become much moreso over the past few years, due to the blunders that John McCain wishes to continue and extend.

Chris Potter | May 13, 2008, 12:20pm | #

This is a dangerous world. Not the time to trust it to a man with a paper-thin record.

Which one are you talking about? McCain has as much executive experience as Obama (ie, zero).

Just because he was a POW doesn't turn him into some great tested military leader.

jtuf | May 13, 2008, 12:21pm | #

Obama said in the Atlantic article,

One of the things that is frustrating about the recent conversations on Israel is the loss of what I think is the natural affinity between the African-American community and the Jewish community, one that was deeply understood by Jewish and black leaders in the early civil-rights movement but has been estranged for a whole host of reasons that you and I don’t need to elaborate.

I think Hamas anticipated this side affect. It only costed Hamas a few minutes of air time to create a rift among Americans.

joe | May 13, 2008, 12:21pm | #

Oh, please. I take it you've never thought that a majority was wrong when they answered a poll?

I find it distasteful for people to try to whip others into a frenzy over identity-politics; particularly so when they do so over an issue that the members of that group don't care about.

vanya | May 13, 2008, 12:22pm | #

Frum complains that Obama seems to have "enormous and unexplained confidence that he can solve a problem through his personal intervention."

Of course, if you buy the right-wing evangelical explanation that Obama is actually the antichrist, then that actually makes a lot of sense. Has anyone ever noticed that "Barack Obama" is an anagram for "aka a car bomb"? That should get some nuts thinking.

In other news, "Axl Rose" is an anagram for "Oral Sex", and "Torchwood"...

joe | May 13, 2008, 12:25pm | #

Barack Obama has an enormous amount of confidence in his ability to talk people into things.

I don't think he's wholly incorrect about that. Did I mention he got the Chicogo Police Department to support a bill that required them to videotape the interrogations of murder suspects?

It's too bad he's so unpersuasive. I'll bet he had a great deal of difficulty getting laid in college.

Ayn_Randian | May 13, 2008, 12:26pm | #

To never have to hear about it again.

Again, not our business.

Forcing a "compromise" in this mess is only going to make both sides dissatisfied with the United States, and, yet again, demonstrate to the world that we meddle in affairs in which we have no business meddling.

TallDave | May 13, 2008, 12:26pm | #

Yeah, that was a very silly and disingenuous interpetration. He's clearly referring to the conflict, not to Israel.

Of course, there are only two possible solutions: Arab governments accept Israel's right to exist, or the Arab states destroy Israel. It is not in our power to accomplish the former, and the latter is morally unacceptable.

Episiarch | May 13, 2008, 12:27pm | #

I'll bet he had a great deal of difficulty getting laid in college.

joe, don't project your problems onto Obama.

Chris Potter | May 13, 2008, 12:27pm | #

joe,

I'm not trying to whip anyone into a frenzy, I'm just concerned about whether I myself can trust him. If Obama could lie to Pennsylvanians, he is capable of lying to me as well.

Guy Montag | May 13, 2008, 12:28pm | #

When John McCain makes a gaffe and admits that he wants us to occupy Iraq for centuries . . .

BAHAHAHA!!! How long before this is exaggerated into millenia or "until the heat-death of the universe"?

TallDave | May 13, 2008, 12:28pm | #

Interestingly, Obama is now claiming he never said he would agree to meet unconditionally with Iran's leadership, which is of course a shameless baldfaced lie, but more importantly a promising indication that he's tacking rightward.

I look forward to more concessions to reality in the months ahead.

Chris Potter | May 13, 2008, 12:29pm | #

Barack Obama has an enormous amount of confidence in his ability to talk people into things.

So do unscrupulous mortgage lenders, but I don't see you urging us to support them for public office.

Episiarch | May 13, 2008, 12:29pm | #

Forcing a "compromise" in this mess is only going to make both sides dissatisfied with the United States, and, yet again, demonstrate to the world that we meddle in affairs in which we have no business meddling.

Dude, chill. Fluffy wasn't truly serious, he was merely expressing his annoyance with having to hear about Israel day after day after tedious, mind-numbing day.

joe | May 13, 2008, 12:31pm | #

Actually, Guy, since McCain himself said, "a thousand years, ten thousand years," I'm afraid we'll have to be into geological time before the term "exaggeration" applies.

Colin | May 13, 2008, 12:32pm | #

"The only claim that Israel has to the land is that they took it from the Arabs and have enough guns to secure it."

Substitute "Indians" for "Arabs" and that's pretty much how we came by ours. When has the world ever worked any differently?

The difference is that there have been Jews in Palestine for thousands of years. We actually have less claim to America than the Jews do to Israel.

Ayn_Randian | May 13, 2008, 12:34pm | #

he was merely expressing his annoyance with having to hear about Israel day after day after tedious, mind-numbing day.

well, ok...I'm still trying to figure out why this state of affairs means manifest rage against Israel, though.

I, personally, am tired of hearing day-after-day about the UN passing resolutions condemning Israel while they let freakin' Saudi Arabia and the Sudan sit on their Commission on Human Rights.

vanya | May 13, 2008, 12:35pm | #

Just because he was a POW doesn't turn him into some great tested military leader.

In many traditional military cultures being taken prisoner is not only not heroic, it is actually shameful - see Imperial Japan or Soviet Russia, or even Israel. From the Jerusalem Post:

"Two or three years ago we had a meeting at the Defense Ministry with a very senior IDF general," recalls Uri Ehrenfeld, a Yom Kippur War POW, deputy head of the Association of Disabled IDF Veterans' Jerusalem branch and, like Margalit, a leading activist in Erim Balaila. "At one point the general told us, 'You know, it's no great honor to be taken prisoner in war.' We stormed out of the meeting."

According to Tel Aviv University professor Zahava Solomon, the pioneer of Israeli research into the psychological condition of POWs, this sort of disapproval that was shown to soldiers who were tortured for months or years is rooted in the traditional IDF ethic that an honorable soldier "fights to the death, to his last bullet." By this ethic, he is supposed to die rather than be taken prisoner, which humiliates the army and the nation, and creates the possibility that he will give away secrets under torture. The model POW, Solomon notes, was Uri Ilan, who committed suicide in Syrian captivity in 1955, leaving behind a note that read, "Lo bagadeti" - "I did not betray."

joe | May 13, 2008, 12:35pm | #

We should have given them Oklahoma.

Can you imagine if, instead of Oklahoma, we had Israel in the middle of the country?

Man, did we ever blow that one.

Ilya Gertsikov | May 13, 2008, 12:35pm | #

Fluffy,

Withdrawing money is a right of any nation, but to threaten a people with extermination regardless of circumstances because they might some day choose to defend themselves is truly monstrous. That would really be crossing into fascist territory. How about nuking half of the world where you have conflicts? After all, Israel won this land in a defensive war that was started by Arabs to eliminate “Zionist Entity” from the river to the sea.
This kind of stuff has tendency to backfire.

Also, what kind of state would Palestinians build on what is now West Bank. Palestinians, so far, have not demonstrated any willingness or capability of building a viable state, or to become a people whose goal and purpose of existence is anything else but the elimination of Jews. Gaza is a pretty good example - firing rockets into Israel proper on daily bases. Majority of Israelis have already accepted the “two state solution” but almost none of the Palestinian people did – not really. Not if you listen to when they speak themselves.

TallDave | May 13, 2008, 12:36pm | #

The difference is that there have been Jews in Palestine for thousands of years. We actually have less claim to America than the Jews do to Israel.

Exactly. All the UN did is draw some lines so the Jews could have a state of their own.

Unfortunately, the rise of Arab nationalism, built on the Nazi/Soviet model, made that unacceptable to its neighbors.

Rick Barton | May 13, 2008, 12:37pm | #

acceptance of the red herring that it is "settlements" that are the source of the Arab-Israeli dispute;

Sure, a thieving and murderous occupation is but a "red herring”-Can't imagine why it would be disputatious...

It's our government's paying for the occupation that is the source of the drag on America’s reputation overseas and this constant wound.

Stop paying for the injustice done by the Israeli government and things will get better. BTW, poll after poll reveals that a majority of Israelis oppose te occupation.

Episiarch | May 13, 2008, 12:38pm | #

I, personally, am tired of hearing day-after-day about the UN passing resolutions condemning Israel while they let freakin' Saudi Arabia and the Sudan sit on their Commission on Human Rights.

Oh, if I were president the UN would go bye-bye instantly, don't worry about that.

I'm still trying to figure out why this state of affairs means manifest rage against Israel, though.

Because having colonial powers create you a new country (because you are understandably frightened that the world wants to murder all of you) by taking away other people's land was dumb, especially considering the religion and attitude toward you of the people whose land you took.

Neil | May 13, 2008, 12:38pm | #

Being a state senator for eight years and running for President for two does not give one a long record, Joe.

There are probably state Senators in my state more qualified than Obama.

Guy Montag | May 13, 2008, 12:39pm | #

I, personally, am tired of hearing day-after-day about the UN passing resolutions condemning Israel while they let freakin' Saudi Arabia and the Sudan sit on their Commission on Human Rights.

How about we get out of the UN and get it out of the USA?

Neil | May 13, 2008, 12:41pm | #

Push the UN into the sea!!

joe | May 13, 2008, 12:41pm | #

If the UN is illegitimate, does that mean its actions regarding Israel are illegitimate?

Take a moment before answering.

TallDave | May 13, 2008, 12:41pm | #

Sure, a thieving and murderous occupation is but a "red herring”-Can't imagine why it would be disputatious...

So if Israel stopped occupying those areas, the problem would be over? No more rockets fired into Israel? No more suicide bombers?

Ha.

vanya | May 13, 2008, 12:42pm | #

The difference is that there have been Jews in Palestine for thousands of years. We actually have less claim to America than the Jews do to Israel.

There have also been Palestinians there for thousands of years. Germans were living in the Sudetenland, Silesia and the Baltic Coast long before the Slavs showed up. Italians lived in Dalmatia long before the Croats got there, etc. Where does it end? I don't think historical national land claims should be valid beyond 3 living generations. So my claim to America is now perfectly valid, I also submit that the Israeli claim to Israel, while it was certainly invalid in 1948, is now valid. The Arabs had 60 years to reassert their claim, they failed. Maybe that sounds too much like might makes right, but at some point these disputes become too thorny and convoluted to deal with in any "just" way.

Guy Montag | May 13, 2008, 12:43pm | #

Sure, a thieving and murderous occupation is but a "red herring”-Can't imagine why it would be disputatious...

Yea, once they got out of Gaza everything calmed down so much. Too bad the original owners of Gaza did not want it.

Heard the West Bank prior owners don't want it either? Anything new on that and how much more calm there will be if Israel tosses it to Hamas too?

Rick Barton | May 13, 2008, 12:43pm | #

Neil:

I'm not worried about polls.

It's the two likely candidates of the Dems and the GOP that's what's concerning here.

Ayn_Randian | May 13, 2008, 12:43pm | #

If the UN is illegitimate, does that mean its actions regarding Israel are illegitimate?

False dichotomy. Past legitimacy is not indicative of future results.

Neil | May 13, 2008, 12:44pm | #

Israel needs to stay there until all resistance to the idea of the Israeli state is CRUSHED in the territories, only then can they talk peace.

joe | May 13, 2008, 12:45pm | #

It is a red herring to claim that the settlements are the entirety of the problem.

It is a red herring to claim that the settlements are completely irrelevant to the problem.

It is a red herring to claim that Barack Obama said either of the above red herrings in this interview.

Fluffy | May 13, 2008, 12:47pm | #

Withdrawing money is a right of any nation, but to threaten a people with extermination regardless of circumstances because they might some day choose to defend themselves is truly monstrous.

Oh please. If Iran becomes a nuclear power, we will certainly make nuclear deterrence of Iran our policy.

We will tell them: It doesn't matter if Israel bombs you with conventional weapons or not, if you use a nuke, we will obliterate you even if they don't.

We absolutely will have that as a policy.

My policy would simply apply that set of rules to everyone.

Besides, as in most instances of the use of deterrence, I would be much more anxious to claim to have that policy than I would be to actually carry it out.

In any event, I don't accept that having a policy that prevents minor powers from engaging in limited nuclear exchanges is actually all that "monstrous", actually. As Pakistan's nuclear arsenal matures, it probably wouldn't be that bad an idea to tell both India and Pakistan that if they ever have their own private nuclear war, we're taking out the winner. MAD worked for decades and the real danger in this century is that regional conflicts will arise where nuclear weapons are an available option but because of the limited arsenals available MAD between the parties is not inevitable.

Guy Montag | May 13, 2008, 12:47pm | #

A_R,

He was just being heavy, maaaaan.

BTW, check your mail. A Commie on AKO is upset that people get "labeled" in the USA.

Ayn_Randian | May 13, 2008, 12:48pm | #

So, despite the statements of the progenitor of my handle, we can safely say that we all agree to no aid, no meddling in the Middle East?

joe | May 13, 2008, 12:48pm | #

Neil | May 13, 2008, 12:44pm | #

Israel needs to stay there until all resistance to the idea of the Israeli state is CRUSHED in the territories, only then can they talk peace.

The Revenuers need to stay there until all resistance to law enforcement crushing the black markets is CRUSHED in America. Only then can we talk about legalization.

Of course, that's foolish. It was the end of Prohibition that made the dismantling of the black markets in alcohol possible.

Sort of like immigration liberalization is necessary to secure the borders.

And the commencement of an Iraqi withdrawal is necessary to achieve a political settlement there.

Fluffy | May 13, 2008, 12:48pm | #

Oh, and I guess I should specify what should have been obvious in the original post: namely, that since Israel would accept the proposed settlement, the policy would never be announced or put into effect anyway.

TallDave | May 13, 2008, 12:49pm | #

We will tell them: It doesn't matter if Israel bombs you with conventional weapons or not, if you use a nuke, we will obliterate you even if they don't.

What if a nuke goes off in Tel Aviv, and they claim they had nothing to do with it?

OK, so we investigate for six months, and it turns out it was Iran. Do we then nuke Tehran? I doubt that's going to work out.

Bob Goodman | May 13, 2008, 12:49pm | #

Can anyone here explain what's happened on the land from which Jewish settlements were removed? I don't know, but am interested.

Neil | May 13, 2008, 12:49pm | #

Yeah Joe after Israel withdraws the PAlestinians will accept the Israeli state and stop the rocket attacks.

Just like in Gaza.

LOL keep dreaming. Arabs only understand force.

Guy Montag | May 13, 2008, 12:49pm | #

We will tell them: It doesn't matter if Israel bombs you with conventional weapons or not, if you use a nuke, we will obliterate you even if they don't.

We absolutely will have that as a policy.

Not under President Carter Obama.

Guy Montag | May 13, 2008, 12:51pm | #

So, despite the statements of the progenitor of my handle, we can safely say that we all agree to no aid, no meddling in the Middle East?

No.

When our opponents stop "meddling" then we can. The policy of "leave us alone and nobody gets hurt".

Rick Barton | May 13, 2008, 12:52pm | #

TallDave:

So if Israel stopped occupying those areas, the problem would be over? No more rockets fired into Israel? No more suicide bombers?

Yes, of course reducing the injustice done to the Palestinians would reduce the violent response.

But we should not be paying for the occupation anyway-for lotsa reasons-foremost cuz it's unjust.

Neil | May 13, 2008, 12:54pm | #

Rick Barton the Palestinians consider the entire Israeli state the "occupation".

Guy Montag | May 13, 2008, 12:54pm | #

Can anyone here explain what's happened on the land from which Jewish settlements were removed? I don't know, but am interested.

The land is still there but much of the infrastructure was destroyed by the 'palestinians', including the incredibly productive greenhouses that were purchased for the 'palestinians' by doners, mostly in the West.

Added bonus: even more arms shipment tunnels from Egypt so that the 'fireworks of love' displays can continue to rain down on Israli towns across the fence.

Ayn_Randian | May 13, 2008, 12:57pm | #

When our opponents stop "meddling" then we can.

Who exactly are our "opponents", in what way are they meddling, and is significantly related to the security of the United States?

The last question is the big one.

Fluffy | May 13, 2008, 12:57pm | #

What if a nuke goes off in Tel Aviv, and they claim they had nothing to do with it?

OK, so we investigate for six months, and it turns out it was Iran. Do we then nuke Tehran? I doubt that's going to work out.

Well, Guy, unless that bomb completely decapitates the Israeli response capability, there won't be much point to nuking Tehran 6 months later. 6 months later Tehran will most likely slowly be filling up with water as the world's newest crater lake.

The point of making statements of nuclear policy is to convince your adversary that there is no strategic interest that would be served by deploying a nuclear weapon.

You can always construct scenarios where the actual implementation of your deterrence threats would be difficult or awkward. But that doesn't matter. Your adversary can't know before they deploy the weapon that you won't figure out it was them in a timely enough way to respond. They might think they can trick you, but your policy puts them in a box where they know that if they fail to trick you they are annihilated. Would you bet your life and the life of your nation on your ability to keep your fingerprints off an attack? That's the mindset you want to produce.

TallDave | May 13, 2008, 12:58pm | #

Yes, of course reducing the injustice done to the Palestinians would reduce the violent response.

No, I asked what happens if we eliminated the alleged "injustice."

Let's be honest: you know as well as I do it doesn't matter what Israel does, because until Arab states accept Israel's right to exist there will continue to be terrorist attacks.

Then only injustice there is that Israelis have to suffer attacks and are condemned whenever they take action to stop them.

joe | May 13, 2008, 12:59pm | #

Neil | May 13, 2008, 12:49pm | #

Yeah Joe after Israel withdraws the PAlestinians will accept the Israeli state and stop the rocket attacks.

I didn't write anything about "after." The closest I came was in my Iraq example, when I wrote "the commencement of..."

It's not "withdraw, then talk." It's "talk a little, withdraw a little, see how the talks go, and go from there."

Guy Montag | May 13, 2008, 1:00pm | #

Fluffy | May 13, 2008, 12:57pm,

You were responding to TallDave, not "Guy", but maybe it was a typo.

Neil | May 13, 2008, 1:00pm | #

The aren't interested in talking Joe.

The "Palestinians" are interested in war and destruction. See what they did to what the Israelis built in Gaza? The "Palestinians" only know how to destroy and kill.

joe | May 13, 2008, 1:01pm | #

"The only injustice there..."

Even you cannot possibly believe this to be true.

There are no injustices being done except those that befall Israelis?

You can't think of any others?

None? At all?

joe | May 13, 2008, 1:02pm | #

Neil | May 13, 2008, 1:00pm | #

The aren't interested in talking Joe.

There's your problem, Neil.

"They" are all just an undifferentiated, dark-skinned mass to you.

Thanks goodness, the Israelis are a hell of a lot smarter than you.

Fluffy | May 13, 2008, 1:03pm | #

Perhaps one reason the Palestinians don't honor ceasefires might be that the Israeli definition of "ceasefire" is "you stop shooting at us, but we can continue to assassinate your leaders if we can find them". No Israeli ceasefire offer has ever been what a reasonable person would consider a "ceasefire". The Israelis always assert that they retain the right to punish "criminals" during the purported "ceasefires".

We don't really know how the Palestinians would respond under a settlement that actually provided them sovereignty, and that buried the Israelis' "criminal" claims under a political settlement.

If following the end of the American Revolution, the British had said, "Yeah, we'll declare a ceasefire, but we have all these criminal cases for treason and for killing British soldiers that we're going to continue to pursue," what do you think we would have said?

Neil | May 13, 2008, 1:03pm | #

Joe why don't you visit Gaza sometime and tell me how wonderfully civilized the "Palestinians" are?

joe | May 13, 2008, 1:04pm | #

Arabs only understand force.

Has the statement "____________ only understand force" EVER been used for a reason other than justifying atrocities?

Fluffy | May 13, 2008, 1:04pm | #

Sorry, Guy. I lost track of who I was quoting.

Rick Barton | May 13, 2008, 1:04pm | #

So how come rockets are still flying out of Gaza?

Right after Hamas won the elections the Israeli government and our government did not recognize them. Border closings and embargos were imposed on the people of Gaza causing all manner of humanitarian crises.

BTW, years ago it was the Israeli government that helped Hamas to ascendancy cuz they wanted a quieter religious alternative to the PLO-A classic case of blowback.

Guy Montag | May 13, 2008, 1:05pm | #

Who exactly are our "opponents", in what way are they meddling, and is significantly related to the security of the United States?

The last question is the big one.

The last one was answered by Ayn Rand a long time ago and i happen to agree with her.

You are completly unaware of Iran and others messing with our allies? No, Iran does not get a pass because they are in the neighborhood.

So, how about your side stop playing games and fess up to what will really happen if all sides "agree" to stop "meddling". We will be the only party that stops and our allies get screwed.

zoltan | May 13, 2008, 1:05pm | #

Who exactly is meddling in our affairs the way we are meddling in the I-P situation?

joe | May 13, 2008, 1:05pm | #

Neil | May 13, 2008, 1:03pm | #

Joe why don't you visit Gaza sometime and tell me how wonderfully civilized the "Palestinians" are?

Neil's response to my observation that he is engaged in racist stereotyping is to assure me that his racist stereotype is true.

Typical.

Neil | May 13, 2008, 1:05pm | #

Joe there are no atrocities.

The IDF has been remarkably restrained towards the "Palestinians" after what the "Palestinians" have done to the Israelis.

TallDave | May 13, 2008, 1:05pm | #

Well, Guy, unless that bomb completely decapitates the Israeli response capability, there won't be much point to nuking Tehran 6 months later. 6 months later Tehran will most likely slowly be filling up with water as the world's newest crater lake.

I doubt it. If they use a proxy like Hamas or Hizbollah, how is Israel going to know for sure where the nuke came from? Syria had its own nuke assembly plant too.

They might think they can trick you, but your policy puts them in a box where they know that if they fail to trick you they are annihilated. Would you bet your life and the life of your nation on your ability to keep your fingerprints off an attack? That's the mindset you want to produce.

The Taliban didn't seem too deterred by their likely demise in the wake of 9/11. Besides, Iran's leadership is fractured. The really crazy clerics control the Qods terrorist-enabling forces. If they get nukes, it's not impossible they would welcome the martyrdom of half their countrymen.

Episiarch | May 13, 2008, 1:06pm | #

If following the end of the American Revolution, the British had said, "Yeah, we'll declare a ceasefire, but we have all these criminal cases for treason and for killing British soldiers that we're going to continue to pursue," what do you think we would have said?

We'll save the children, but not the British children?

Salvius | May 13, 2008, 1:06pm | #

Joe - We should have given them Oklahoma.
I always thought that, in the interest of fairness and justice, "we" should have carved out a piece of Germany to create the state of Israel... :-)

Nesera | May 13, 2008, 1:07pm | #

Neil | May 13, 2008, 1:00pm | #

The aren't interested in talking Joe.

The "Palestinians" are interested in war and destruction. See what they did to what the Israelis built in Gaza? The "Palestinians" only know how to destroy and kill.

Exactly. They're just primitive savages who don't deserve the soft treatment they're getting. Barricade them in and forget them.

Neil | May 13, 2008, 1:07pm | #

Its not stereotyping Joe its fact.

The "Palestinians" ravaged the wonderful infrastructure the Israelis built in Gaza.

The Israelis make the desert bloom, the "Palestinians" make fireworks displays with their RPGs.

TallDave | May 13, 2008, 1:08pm | #

Jimmy Carter's Obama-esque foreign policy removed the greatest threat to Israel's existence that it has ever faced - the danger of an invasion by Egypt, the strongest military power Israel has ever faced.

Egypt's inability to military conquer Israel had already been well-established. All Carter did was get tham to accept billions in U.S. aid in exchange for some public statements accepting that reality.

And he also helped create an even stronger and more virulent enemy in Iran, with trillions in oil wealth and an active nuclear weapons program.

joe | May 13, 2008, 1:08pm | #

Neil | May 13, 2008, 1:05pm | #

Joe there are no atrocities.

This is how seriously you need to take Neil's opinion.

There are no atocities being committed against Palestinians. None. Zero. It is an entirely one-sided problem, featuring heroic, morally-perfect Israelis against dastardly Arabs.

Don't pay any attention to the actual civilian body counts. Don't look at the people who live behind barbed wire.

Neil has a nice little story about elves and orcs, and that's all you need to know.

Guy Montag | May 13, 2008, 1:09pm | #

Right after Hamas won the elections the Israeli government and our government did not recognize them. Border closings and embargos were imposed on the people of Gaza causing all manner of humanitarian crises.

Might have had something to do with Hamas reaffirming their goal to destroy Israel?

Maybe just a little?

So, if some person was vowing to kill you, your refusing to trade with them should be viewed as a criminal offense and your home should be open to their visits at any hour?

TallDave | May 13, 2008, 1:10pm | #

We'll save the children, but not the British children?

LAWL!

Neil | May 13, 2008, 1:10pm | #

Tell us about all the wonderful technologies and economic productivity the "Palestinians" have given us Joe.

Daze | May 13, 2008, 1:10pm | #

Does Obama say anything in that interview that couldn't have been said by George Bush or Condeleeza Rice?

JG: What do you make of Jimmy Carter’s suggestion that Israel resembles an apartheid state?

BO: I strongly reject the characterization. Israel is a vibrant democracy, the only one in the Middle East, and there’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal. It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.

Aha, proof that Obama is exactly like Jimmy Carter!

joe | May 13, 2008, 1:12pm | #

Neil | May 13, 2008, 1:07pm | #

Its not stereotyping Joe its fact.

Go fuck your racist self.


TallDave,

Egypt's inability to military conquer Israel had already been well-established. That's a fine thing f