Yesterday, I asked a simple question: Did Cindy Sheehan really say that America was not worth dying for?
The answer is yes, she did.
You can find the complete transcript of her remarks here. (Thanks to Michael Silence)
This is the relevant passage:
I take responsibility partly for my son’s death, too. I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I’m going all over the country telling moms: “This country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq. {applause} We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if {applause}. 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant.
It's very clear when reading the entire passage that she was referring to America and not Iraq when saying "this country."
So this is how the darling of the anti-war left thinks of her own country; a morally repugnant system responsible for death and destruction ever since it began.
But no, she doesn't hate America.
Our public schools are nothing but propaganda mills teaching blind faith and obedience to authority.
But no, she doesn't hate America.
The attacks of 9/11 were somehow our own fault, based on some misdeeds that were blanked out by the applause (I'll bet you $20 the missing statement had something to do with our support of Israel. Any takers?)
But no, she doesn't hate America.
And it only gets worse. As Cindy gets rolling, she becomes even more vitriolic and hateful:
Yeah, nothing gives you credibility like insulting your opponents children. Besides, last time I checked, we didn't send anybody's children to die. Our armed forces are all adults and all volunteers. Casey Sheehan volunteered for the army, re-enlisted, and volunteered for the rescue mission where he died, even though his assigned billet was a non-combat billet. Nobody "sent" him anywhere.
What they’re saying, too, is like, it’s okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons.
Sweetheart, Israel is not known for hijacking planes, blowing up restaurants and school busses, or other rather uncivilized acts of random violence. Nor do they show a pronounced tendancy to indulge in random takeovers of their neighbors. In short, it appears that Israel is a country run by adults, instead of spoiled children.
We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now.
????? We dropped nukes on Iraq? What alternate dimension (dementia) is this woman living in?
It’s okay for Israel to occupy Palestine, but it’s – yeah – and it’s okay for Iraq to occupy – I mean, for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it’s not okay for Syria to be in Lebanon. They’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites!
Anti-Semitism is ugly to see, isn't it? Israel doesn't occupy Palestine because Palestine is not a country and never has been one. It's a label applied by the British to describe the section of the Ottoman empire they controlled following WW1 that includes most of the Middle East. The British portioned out the territory, creating countries to best take advantage of the natural resources.
And finally, in her conclusion, she loses all semblence of rationality
And we need to, we just need to rise up. We need a revolution and make it be peaceful and make it be loving and let’s just show them all the love we have for humanity because we want to stop the inhumane slaughter.
A peaceful and loving revolution? Show me one in the history books. Anywhere. And if you want to stop inhumane slaughter, overthrowing a dictator who murdered and tortured his own people at a higher rate than even the suicide bombers have been able to achieve might be a good start. Instead, Cindy wants us to pull out, thereby guaranteeing more "inhumane slaughter on an unprecedented scale."
And this is the leading spokesperson for the anti-war movement. If you want to kow whether someone is antiwar or anti-american, just show them the speech and ask them if they agree with Cindy, or are embarrased by her.
Posted by Rich at August 26, 2005 8:44 AM | TrackBackI say we round up all the anti America liberals and gas 'em.
Maybe Hitler was on to something!
Posted by: Buford on August 26, 2005 10:10 AMOh, really?
Look, just because I disagree vehemently with a point of view does not mean I want to slaughter all of those who hold it. In fact, quite the opposite. One of the main reasons I support the Iraqi war is that Hussein did torture and kill his political opponents.
While I think that Cindy Sheehan is completely wrong, she has an absolute right to say the things she's saying, just as I have the right to disagree and say why I disagree.
Posted by: rich on August 26, 2005 10:31 AMI have to say I've read over that quote a few times and it sure sounds like she's talking about Iraq to me..
Posted by: Chris Wage on August 26, 2005 11:42 AMCome on now, rich. Since you disagree with the left, obviously you want to crush dissent, screw the poor, and put babies on spikes.
Posted by: SayUncle on August 26, 2005 11:42 AMAlso, criticism of Israel is not anti-semitism.
Posted by: Chris Wage on August 26, 2005 11:50 AMNor do they show a pronounced tendancy to indulge in random takeovers of their neighbors.
Israel hasn't taken over land of their neighbors? Kuwait was a random takeover?
We dropped nukes on Iraq? What alternate dimension (dementia) is this woman living in?
So when people were referring to the "nuclear option" in the judicial nominations they were literally referring to a nuke being dropped on the capitol?
Israel doesn't occupy Palestine because Palestine is not a country and never has been one. It's a label applied by the British to describe the section of the Ottoman empire
This is disingenous...the people who were living in what is present day Israel about 65 years ago no longer live there. They live in refugee camps after being driven out of their homes.
I think that you have to remember that Cindy Sheehan isn't a politician and doesn't have speech writers working for her and isn't used to having people take her statements both literally and as soundbites. And hey, she is a little upset that her son died. My own take is that she was referring to the conflict in Iraq as not being worth dying for, although a literal look at her statement might suggest she was referring to the US in general.
But lets just say that that she really meant that America isn't worth dying for. Now you're a vet and I respect the fact that you were willing to die for your country. On the other hand, many of these right wing bloggers who are criticizing Sheehan for that statement are sitting behind their computers rather than enlisting. They be their own actions have decided that America isn't worth dying for. It starts from the top with George "I joined the national guard to get out of serving in Vietnam" Bush to Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney. If all of these people believe that America is worth dying for, then enlist and serve your country..but don't criticize a woman who lost a son in the army. And for fuck's sake, don't think that you know her son better than she did. Don't sit there and claim that Casey Sheehan disapproves of what his mother is doing..she knew him a heck of a lot better than you do. Paul Hackett also disagrees with the war but went to Iraq out a sense of duty to his fellow marines.
Posted by: Manish on August 27, 2005 2:05 AMThe fact that Casey volunteered for the mission that cost him his life comes from Cindy Sheehan herself.
I don't claim to know her son better than she did. Look at the speech she gave where she claims she was an accomplice in brainwashing her son to believe in patriotism towards America. If he wasn't a volunteer, and didn't believe in the mission he was on, then why would she have to claim he was swayed by public school propaganda?
Come on, people, use your brains!
And again, are you really suggesting that the only people that have the right to comment on military matters are veterans? If so, then show me your DD-214, or back the fuck off. Why is it that the only people who are allowed to support the war effort are those that have served? That's like saying that I'm not allowed to protest for peace because I did serve in the military. The illogic is truly staggering!
As for the refugee camps, remember the pictures when Najaf was in the headlines? It looks like a neighborhood, not a tent city. Additionally, when the UN partitioned the remainder of the British Mandate, creating Israel, additional land was given to Trans Jordon so that those who chose, yes chose, not to live in Israel with the Jews, would have a place to go.
So, manish, should we abolish Israel? I mean, if you're so worried about the "refugees" then that is the only viable solution, is it not? On the other hand, if you support a two state solution, then the displacement of the native population by the UN is no longer an issue, since you've accepted the validity of that displacement in the first place. Israel has worked to peacefully co-exist. The PLO and now the PLA, egged on by Syria, Eqypt, et al have resisted this at every turn. Israel's latest move, voluntarily abandoning the West Bank and Gaza strip is the latest in a long line of concessions and attempts at appeasement. At what point do the Arabs become responsible for their own actions?
Israel occupied lands captured in wars started by others. That's not random. Iraq decided it wanted the oil fields and invaded Kuwait to get them. That's random. See the difference?
As for Iraq being a nuclear war, she used that along with the word contamination. That specifically ties the statement to a non allegorical context. More than likely, she was referring, however clumsily, to the use of depleted uranium shells during the assault.
Chris, you may be able to read it that way, but given the context (I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have.) I sure don't see how. It's very clear that she is speaking in condemnation not of Iraq but the US.
Look, if y'all want to defend this woman, that's fine. But for God's sakes, at least admit that she's saying what she's saying.
Posted by: rich on August 27, 2005 2:13 PMThe fact that Casey volunteered for the mission that cost him his life comes from Cindy Sheehan herself.
No one is claiming otherwise. It is the implication that his enlistment, re-enlistment, volunteering, etc. is an endorsement of the war by Casey and that Casey would not have supported his mother in what she is doing now. Cindy has stated that he enlisted because he thought he would become a chaplain and re-enlisted out of loyalty to his buddies. Now, Vacaville is a fairly conservative town as California goes..one would think that at some point, someone who knew Casey well would dispute this, (even the email sent by Casey's relatives never claims that Casey supported the war).
And again, are you really suggesting that the only people that have the right to comment on military matters are veterans?
Where did I say this? I made an extremely specific point...many of the people (i.e. not you) who specifically are criticizing Sheehan for implying that "America is not worth dying for", are tacitly endorsing this position by not enlisting themselves.
Iraq decided it wanted the oil fields and invaded Kuwait to get them.
Iraq and Kuwait had a long standing border dispute.
But for God's sakes, at least admit that she's saying what she's saying.
You're the one claiming that Sheehan is using nuclear in the literal sense rather than as a metaphor. (btw, is this guy saying that a nuke was dropped on the Capitol? He does title his post "Nuclear Fallout".
As for the Palestinians and Trans Jordan..we can go on and on about this, but the bottomline is this..The Palestinians lived in this "label applied by the British to describe the section of the Ottoman empire" or whatever you want to call it for a very long time. Then suddenly someone else claimed that land. Some of the Palestinians fled to avoid the violence (many haven't been allowed back), some stuck around and became Israeli citizens and some left voluntarily with no desire to return. Ask yourself a question..what if some external body like the UN decided that Tennessee should be given back to the native Indians and that all current residents could have a sliver of land on the east side and west side. Would you simply accept it?
At the end of the day, you have two groups of people who are laying claim to the same piece of land to which there are few viable solutions. A two-state solution is probably the best thing at this point in the game. However, radicals on both sides are always going to push for the anihiliation of the other. You have a similar situation with India/Pakistan over Kashmir (another brilliant move by the British).
At the end of WWII, the world felt that the Jews should have their own homeland after what had happened. The problem of course is that although many people were sympathetic, nobody terribly wanted to give up their own homes. I remember reading that FDR had considered offering Alaska as the Jewish homeland.
At the end of the day, I don't have the answer to what to do in the Israel/Palestine situation. I do know that its a much more complex problem than most people (on both sides of the dispute) are willing to acknowledge.
Posted by: Manish on August 27, 2005 4:03 PMOK, first, chaplain's assistant is a combat billet. Casey re-enlisted in a transportation billet, ie non combat. He had to volunteer to go into a combat role during the rapid response mission. IN essense, niether you nor Cindy understands how the military works. His re-enlistment request (totally unsupported by any documentary evidence at this point) would have taken him from a cnon combat role (motor pool) to a combat roll (chaplain's assistant.). This is totally inconsistent with Cindy Sheehan's statements that he expected a non-combatant role.
Second, are you seriously trying to say that failure to enlist is in fact a statement that the war is not worth fighting? C'mon, I know you're smarter than that! I can think of several reasons why folks who support the war wouldn't enlist. For example;
1. The job is necessary, but it is already being taken care of by our military. (Number one on the hit parade) Re-enlistments are over quota in all branches. While initial enlistments are down, there are no reports out of the military that this will significantly impact troop strength in the near term. This means that the demand for initial recruits is not high.
2. The job is necessary, but through personal circumstance, I cannot volunteer. This is my personal reason. On 9/11, I considered rejoining the Navy. But as a 40 year old single father of 6, that just wasn't a practical idea. Others may not be physically capable of performing as needed.
3. The job is necessary, but I can help out more by staying in my current role.
OK, there are three good reasons why people who support the war might decide not to enlist. There are more ways to fight than to hold a weapon and the continued insistance of some on the left that those who support the war but do not fight are hypocrits is juvenile and reveals a certain shallowness of thought. I could just as easily say that if you are against the war, but do not go out and lie down in fromt of a tank, then you are a hypocrit.
As for the "border dispute", oddly enough, Kuwait City wasn't part of the disputed territories, yet it was occupied. In fact, after the invasion, Hussein claimed that all of Kuwait was a province of Iraq.
Finally, your Tennessee analogy is deeply flawed. First, Tennessee is a state with a government and part of a nation. The area under the British Mandate was not; there was no central government, just small regions under tribal control. The UN took this region and created a two state solution, that you just admitted was probably the best way to handle the problem. Except that the Arabs rejected the solution then and still reject it today.
By the way, your insistance that radicals on both sides are causing the problems is moral equivalency of the worst sort. How many Israeli suicide bombers have targeted school busses? Additionally, the extinction of Israel was for a long time the explicitly stated policy of the Palestinian Authority and the PLO before them. Extinction of Arabs has NEVER been the policy of the Israeli government.
The issues may be complex, but the players are not. As long as the Palestinians continue to rely on terrorist tactics, and as long as a significant portion of their population continues to strive for the eradication of Israel, then they get no support from me at all.
Period.
Here's a question for you manish; many liberals are big supporters of the UN, arguing that we need to let that world body mediate international disputes and such. The UN mediated such a dispute when it created Israel. Shouldn't liberals, as supporters of the UN's dominant position in global politics, support that decision?
I find it ironic that so many who find the Jews equally to blame for the problems in Israel are many times those who are most vocal in their support of the UN.
Posted by: rich on August 27, 2005 5:23 PMWhy are so many of you more upset about Cindy Sheehan than about the lies that were used to manipulate the American public to justify this idiotic war? Each reason-WMD, Iraq links to Al Qaeda, Iraq attempting to buy nuclear materials--have all ended up being false. Doesn't it even strike you diehards as amazing that each reason or prediction about the invasion of a poor third world country turned out WRONG??? There is no argument about this among rational humans.
I'd suggest that you may want to read more than right wing blogs or only watch Fox News. There's obviously a wealth of information you're missing. I'm beginning to think that you're all a pack of cowards unwilling to listen to, or consider any information that contradicts the war you appear to love so dearly, yet amazingly are unwilling to participate in--either you or your children.
Your hypocritical attitudes will sink the Republicans during the next Congressional elections. One can only imagine the distancing from the idiotic policies of the Cheney administration the Republican congressmen will be making.
Posted by: Dick on August 27, 2005 9:34 PMOK, first, chaplain's assistant is a combat billet. Casey re-enlisted in a transportation billet, ie non combat.....
You probably do now better than me or Cindy Sheehan..however, Cindy's story is that he was told when he enlisted originally that he would become a chaplain, but subsequently became a mechanic (or something else that wasn't a chaplain)
Second, are you seriously trying to say that failure to enlist is in fact a statement that the war is not worth fighting?
How do you keep not getting what I'm saying? I'm specifically referencing those people who are critical of the statement by Cindy Sheehan that America is not worth dying for. You have no right to criticize her unless you yourself are willing to die for America, period. I'm not making the whole "chickenhawk" argument in general. Having said that, you then say:
I can think of several reasons why folks who support the war wouldn't enlist
What you call reasons, I would call excuses. Contrary to your previous post, re-enlistments aren't running that high. You are probably referring to the NYPost article. NRO links to this page (scroll to the bottom) which has year to date re-enlistment numbers. In the active duty enlistment the army is at 89% of goal with the other branches at around 100% of goal. (Remember thats goal, which presumably is itself less than 100%). The reserves are much less than that with the army at around 80% and only the Marines at 100% and the Air Force (who presumably don't have a large role in Iraq) 113% of goal.
In your other post, you noted that first time enlistments are low due to the economy. To that I say bullshit. We are at war, and your telling me that people aren't enlisting because Costco is hiring? One would think that with about 1/3 of the country minimum fully behind the war (i.e. 100 million people) that some number of them would enlist. Now granted a number of these people will either be too young or too old, but surely there would be more than enough people to fill the positions that the army is looking for.
Finally, your Tennessee analogy is deeply flawed. First, Tennessee is a state with a government....
You are avoiding my question. The fact of the matter is that a government that the Palestinians didn't have any role in electing told them to get lost and people lost their homes. If it makes you feel better lets change the scenario to frontier USA. So tell me, how would you feel if the UN or whomever kicked you out of your home so that the original people who lived there could resume living there? How would you feel? Would you want them around?
You keep bringing up different justifications for kicking the Palestinians out of their homes. Things like saying "Palestine is not a country and never has been one. It's a label applied by the British to describe the section of the Ottoman empire" and bringing up trans-Jordan (would you be satisfied if they said here's a section of Alabama that you can live-in?)..I'm surprised that you haven't brought up the Balfour Declaration yet.
How many Israeli suicide bombers have targeted school busses?
None..because they don't have to. They just vote for politicians who want Israel to take control of all of the occupied territories. They also direct an army that conducts military operations in civilian areas. The "liberal media" tends to report on suicide bombings, while 3 times as many Palestinians have died in the most recent Intifada by Israeli troops conducting military operations in the occupied territories.
Here's a question for you manish; many liberals are big supporters of the UN....
Rich..ask yourself a question..why did Bush, Sr. bother going to the UN way back in the early 90s? He could have saved himself some trouble by just invading couldn't he? The reason he went to the UN is because people in other countries respect the UN. Its not a perfect organization...its corrupt in the way that many governments are corrupt, but in terms of being an ambassador of world opinion and consensus its all that we have. An operation with UN-backing has a better aire than one with US-backing. As a result, numerous countries were able to send troops to the operation. The Arab countries came through with about 100,000 troops in Desert Storm. Why? Because it was easier for them to do so as a UN operation. The war was easier with Arab troops in the ground war greeting Iraqi troops.
As a result, it was UN resolutions that were passed with regards to WMDs in Iraq. And its the UN that was charged with enforcing them and deciding that military action was needed. Bush, Sr. ceeded that control to the UN.
And the fact of the matter is that the UN did their job. They didn't do a perfect job, but ultimately the sanctions were there to make sure Saddam didn't get WMDs and apparently he didn't get them contrary to the belief of Bush & Co. who claimed that they weren't working. Now were they perfect? No..nothing ever is in life. There was the Oil for Food corruption, but the UN kept WMDs out of Iraq. Corruption is a part of life..whether its Dan Rostenkowski, Duke Cunningham, the UN, the government of Iraq, India or anyone else.
Is the UN perfect? No..but it does have a role. In fact, the Bush Administration is seeing that they could have a role in Iraq after smacking them down for so long. They aren't perfect, but sometimes they are the best alternative of a lot of bad options.
Posted by: Manish on August 28, 2005 4:48 AM1. Cindy's story is wrong. Or as Dick would put it, a lie. Again, there is no documentation that shows that Casey was promised any specific billet. And you sidestep the important issue. Cindy presents the argument that he was expecting a non-combatant billet and was placed into a combatant, when the truth is the exact opposite.
2. You have no right to criticize her unless you yourself are willing to die for America, period.
Let's see how this plays out:
All pretty ridiculous statements, wouldn't you say? The correct answer is "It isn't." So why is it different with military service? You are in effect saying that the only people allowed to say that America is worth dying for are those who have risked death for her, and that's garbage, plain and simple.
3. Your analysis of the recruiting/retention data is seriously flawed. The first table (you skipped that one. Why?) shows that 3 of 4 services exceeded their active duty recruiting goals for July and the Navy hit 99%. The table you quote from is not re-enlistment data but recruitment data, and it does show the Army lagging on a fiscal year basis, which is exactly what I said. First time enlistments are running beind. However, retention (re-enlistment) is running ahead of expectations:
All services met or exceeded their overall retention goals for July and are projected to meet their retention goals for the current fiscal year.
In short, the recruitment/retention picture is exactly as I said it was and the number you linked to prove it.
4. So tell me, how would you feel if the UN or whomever kicked you out of your home so that the original people who lived there could resume living there?
Show me in the UN declaration or any other government document where the residents of the Israeli territory were forced to leave in order to make room for the Jews. It's not in there. Some left to get out of the way of the coming wars. Some stayed and hoped to live in peace. Many of the people living in those lands chose to leave because they were and still are racist bigots who could not stand the thought of living side by side with Jews. And some were driven out, expelled.
Take another step back. How original do you want to get? Israel was Jewish, Moorish, Jewish, Roman, and on and on. Who has title to the land. Who are the original dwellers?
Bottom line is that your analogy would never happen; I can't respond to it. Here is a much better analogy.
An Indian tribe sues in Federal court to get their land back because the treaty they signed 100 years ago was broken. That land now supports a town, and a couple of factories. The current owners have invested million into improving the land, increasing its value 1000 times. How do you think the court should rule? If it rules against the tribe, do they have the right to start bombing the residents of the town? If it rules for the tribe, do the current owners get any compensation for their investment?
In my view, the current owners of the property have legal title to the land. They cannot be dispossessed. If any compensation is due to the Indian tribe, it comes from the body that broke the treaty, not the current owners of the land. Applying this to Palestinian refugees, those who were foreced from their homes through illegal activities have a claim on those who performed the aactivities, once a crime is proven. Those who left voluntarily, whether through fear or bigotry, are owed nothing by Israel. They might have a claim against the UN.
5. They just vote for politicians who want Israel to take control of all of the occupied territories.
You think voting in an election is morally equivalent to blowing up a school bus?
And just which politicians are you talking about anyway? Ariel Sharon who just ordered the eveacuation of all settlements in the West Bank and Gaza? Or Ehud Barak, who withdrew Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, despite continued Syrian occupation and cross border attacks. Or 1994 Nobel Peace Prize winners Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin, who officially recognized the Palestinian Authority and gave Palestinians some control over the West Bank and Gaza. Or maybe you're referring to 1978 Nobel Peace Prize winner Menachem Begin, who signed peace accords with Anwar Sadat, giving the Sinai peninsula back to Egypt. Or maybe you just haven't been following Israeli history all that closely. Just which of these men, covering several decades of Israeli history, tried to take over all the occupied lands? To the last man, every one of them gave up occupied lands in the name of peace.
Have the Palestinians lived up to their side of the deals?
6. So, in your glowing review of the UN, you didn't answer the question: Should't you support the UN decision creating Israel? Yes or no will do just fine. After that, do you support the UN's inaction in Rwanda? Or Darfur? The UN may be all we have, but it's corruption now outweighs its usefulness. We'd be better off without it. By the way, the UN did endorse military action in both the original cease fire accords from the first gulf war and by resolution 1441. It was only the corruption of the oil for food bribery and lucrative oil contracts that kept the UN from proceeding. They (France, Germany, and Russia)were bribed to stay out of it and they did. HArdly a ringing endorsement for the UN.
Posted by: rich on August 28, 2005 4:30 PMYou are in effect saying that the only people allowed to say that America is worth dying for are those who have risked death for her
You are again putting words in my mouth. You keep thinking that I'm saying "You can't support the war unless you enlist"..some people are saying this, I'm not. I said those people who criticize Sheehan for saying that America is not worth dying for, should put their money where their mouth is or STFU. If people want to say they respect Sheehan's opinion, but respectfully disagree, I have no quarrel.
You have no right to expect the garbage to be picked up unless you are willing to become a garbageman.
Aside from the issue of creating strawmen, are you really equating garbagemen to military service? Being a garbageman is a probably a crummy job, but the worst thing thats likely going to happen to you is that you are going to come home smelling foul. In the military, the worst thing thats going to happen is that you are going to come home in a pine box. Beyond that, garbagemen are usually unionized and have a say over where they work. If they don't like their job anymore or what their company expects of them, they can give 2 weeks notice and leave. The military does missions that we tell them to do and can't just give 2 weeks notice (heck some of them can't leave even when their commitment is up.)
Your analysis of the recruiting/retention data is seriously flawed.
According to NRO, which linked to that page the numbers are re-enlistment only. I assume that the table titled "Active Duty Enlisted Recruiting" refers to the fulltime service branches (by fulltime, I mean the opposite of reserves). Taking numbers for one month doesn't prove or disprove anything. IIRC, June's numbers were awful and I didn't use those either.
Show me in the UN declaration or any other government document where the residents of the Israeli territory were forced to leave in order to make room for the Jews.
This again is disingenous. The UN created a Jewish state and encouraged Jews from all over the world to emigrate there. Where did you think they were going to live, the sea?
Take another step back. How original do you want to get? Israel was Jewish, Moorish, Jewish, Roman, and on and on. Who has title to the land. Who are the original dwellers?
Not sure why you put that, but I agree with you completely. Part of the argument for the Jewish homeland to be where it is now (instead of Alaska for instance) was that it was where the Jews originally were. I agree that you can't arbitrarily choose one group that once had control of the land to be the group that gets to retake control.
Bottom line is that your analogy would never happen; I can't respond to it.
This in a nutshell is your response to my question. The idea that some foreign governmental power that you have no control over decides to give your land to someone else is something you apparently can't fathom.
Your analogy isn't anything close to the Palestinian situation. The Palestinians had no treaty with anybody swapping land for anything. They didn't break the terms of this non-existant treaty.
The closest analogy is probably Suzette Kelo. However, there are huge differences too. Kelo voted in the elections that elected the New London Mayor and city council. She was also afforded full due process under the law all the way up to the Supreme Court. All the courts along the way, she had some say in who the judges were. She elected the President's that ultimately nominated each judge. She elected the Senators that confirmed those nominations. This was under the auspices of a Constitution that her forefathers created in a democratic fashion.
Beyond that, Kelo retained her US Citizenship. She received just compensation (well in theory anyway, in reality she's getting shafted but thats a whole other story). She can turn around and buy a home right beside her old property. Heck if Pfizer (or whomever it is) wanted to, they could sell her property back to her and she could buy it and resume living in it.
The Palestinians had no say in their land being taken from them. They didn't have any say in electing any of the decisionmakers. They didn't elect any of the leaders of the Security Council at the time that made the decision. And they weren't just kicked out of their homes, they were kicked out of their country. A Palestinian has no means of obtaining Israeli citizenship..if they marry an Israeli, they still don't get citizenship.
You think voting in an election is morally equivalent to blowing up a school bus?
If you vote for someone who runs on the platform of "If elected, I will direct our security forces to blow up school busses" then there is no difference.
Ariel Sharon who just ordered the eveacuation of all settlements in the West Bank and Gaza?
Lets call a spade a spade. Sharon and the Likud Party originally supported the creation of the settlements in the first place (and for the record its all of the settlements in Gaza and a few settlements in the West Bank, not all of them). He sold the evacuation to the Israeli people as being too much of a security effort for the number of people who are living there and one that would make it easier to provide security to the remaining settlements in the West Bank.
Or Ehud Barak, who withdrew Israeli forces from southern Lebanon
Barak was a Labour party member, not Likud..but thats not even the point. Israel should be commended for withdrawing from southern Lebanon? Should a thief be commended for returning the stolen goods after the crime has been committed? Beyond that, Israel left because the security hit they faced from staying was greater than any perceived security gain of occupying those lands.
Just which of these men, covering several decades of Israeli history, tried to take over all the occupied lands?
Rich..here's a pop quiz...why are the occupied territories called the occupied territories? It couldn't be because they are, oh I don't know, occupied could it? Until recently, settlements were generally expanded, not contracted. Said settlements were taking Palestinian land and using them for Israeli use. Roads were built from Israel proper to the settlements that Palestinians weren't allowed to use or come anywhere near.
To the last man, every one of them gave up occupied lands in the name of peace.
Occupied land has to be taken first before it can be given up. You are the one who is deficient in your knowledge of Israeli history. You are noting specific Prime Ministers giving back land without acknowledging that a prior leader took it in the first place.
Should't you support the UN decision creating Israel?
No I don't support it and I have no obligation to support each and every UN decision. Both of us also don't have any obligation to support every decision of any given body whether its the UN, the President of the United States, the US Supreme Court, etc.
On the other hand, the government of the United States is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a signatory to the UN Charter. Nothing binding gets passed in the UN without the US agreeing to it because the US has a veto.
The US introduced the UN resolutions with regards to Iraq and voted in favour of them. No one put a gun to their heads to do so.
By the way, the UN did endorse military action in both the original cease fire accords from the first gulf war and by resolution 1441.
So those resolutions said that George Bush can attack Iraq whenever he feels like it? What they said was that Iraq had to disarm..and guess what? Iraq disarmed.
Posted by: Manish on August 29, 2005 1:17 AMMany of the people living in those lands chose to leave because they were and still are racist bigots who could not stand the thought of living side by side with Jews.
ummm..dude..Jews had been living in Palestine (or whatever is that you want to call it) for thousands of years in harmony with the Muslims who lived there. In India, Hindus and Muslims lived in harmony for thousands of years. It was the creation of Israel and Pakistan that created the divisions. A great big thanks to the Brits for fucking things up on both accounts.
Posted by: Manish on August 29, 2005 1:21 AMSo to sum up, you believe that:
A) Israel should never have been created in the first place.
B)Territory captured from an aggressor nation (the Sinai peninsula of Egypt, Golan Heights from Syria, etc)should be returned at the end of hostilities, regardless of the defensive implications for the country attacked.
C)Anyone who belives the US is worth defending must join up and do so, otherwise their opinion is hypocritical and they have no basis to criticize those who claim it isn't worth defending.
D)The Palestinian Displacement must be corrected, but the Jewish Diisplacement is their own bad luck and they have to lump it. (At the time of the creation of Israel, nearly 2 million Jews were stripped of their property and expelled from Arab nations with no compensation. In short, 5 times as many Jews were dispossessed as were Arabs. By the way, at the time of Israel's creation, only about 800,000 Arabs lived in the territory given to Israel. Compare that to Israel's population today of 6.8 million and you'll see why I laugh at your suggestion that the Arabs had to move out or the Jews would have nowhere to live.)
E) The fact that the PLO/PLA had an explicit government policy to eradicate Israel makes them no worse than the Israelis, who have never had any such position.
Thanks for your honesty. I think we can all see where you're coming from.
Incidentally, each time the borders of Israel expanded, creating those occupied territories you're so sensitive to, it was as a direct result of Arab aggression against Israel. Israeli prime ministers did not unilaterally annex foreign territory, they seized it in defensive wars. You conveniently ignore that portion of Israeli history; I wonder why? You also conveniently ignore the fact that, as I stated, Israel has made concession after to concession to the PLA and gotten nothing in return except blown up school busses.
So those resolutions said that George Bush can attack Iraq whenever he feels like it? What they said was that Iraq had to disarm..and guess what? Iraq disarmed.
Have you even read the terms of the cease fire or 1441? I'd guess not because they said a whole lot more than that. Remember free and unfettered inspections to verify disarmament? Never happened. Nobody today, except you, argues that Hussein was in compliance with either the terms of the cease fire or resolution 1441. Hell, 1441 was written because of his non compliance with the cease fire terms.
And when you break the terms of a cease fire, the consequence is a resumption of fire, hence the name.
And in closing, because there's no need to take this any further, I asked if blowing up school busses was morally equivalent to voting in an election and you said:
If you vote for someone who runs on the platform of "If elected, I will direct our security forces to blow up school busses" then there is no difference.
That is exactly what the Palestinian people have been doing for 40 years every time they 'elected' Arafat.
And you're defending them.
Posted by: rich on August 29, 2005 2:46 PMA) Israel should never have been created in the first place.
I don't disagree with the notion of creating a Jewish homeland, but feel that the way that it was ultimately carried out was poor and other options should have been considered. This is a much larger topic.
B)Territory captured from an aggressor nation (the Sinai peninsula of Egypt, Golan Heights from Syria, etc)should be returned at the end of hostilities, regardless of the defensive implications for the country attacked.
where did i say this? You again are putting words in my mouth. Show me where I covered the topic of Egypt or Syria for fucks sake. The only point I made was that Israel left South Lebanon for strategic purposes and not out of some high minded ideal of peace. If they were leaving for peace, they wouldn't have left unilaterally. They would have negotiated something like the Camp David Accords.
C)Anyone who belives the US is worth defending must join up and do so, otherwise their opinion is hypocritical and they have no basis to criticize those who claim it isn't worth defending.
no you are wrong and I've covered this atleast 5 times in this thread and I'm not going to remind you what my position is.
D)The Palestinian Displacement must be corrected, but the Jewish Diisplacement is their own bad luck and they have to lump it.
Not sure what you mean by "corrected", I would use the term "addressed". The genie can't be put back in the bottle. I've already stated that a 2 state solution is probably the best way to go. I've never covered Jewish displacement in this thread and I sure as hell don't support it. Stop putting words into my mouth.
By the way, at the time of Israel's creation, only about 800,000 Arabs lived in the territory given to Israel. Compare that to Israel's population today of 6.8 million
Again a disingenous argument. So does this mean that the vacancy rate in the occupied territories at the time of Israel's creation was 90%? There was housing available for 7 million people, but only 800,000 lived there? The free market really messed up eh? Housing has since been created by turning farmland and unused areas to housing by adding sewers, roads and infrasctructure. You are the only person claiming that Arabs weren't displaced from Israel. Read up on Israel's history at some point before shooting your mouth off.
You also conveniently ignore the fact that, as I stated, Israel has made concession after to concession to the PLA and gotten nothing in return except blown up school busses.
Under your logic, if I steal $100 from you and then give you back $20, I should be commended.
Nobody today, except you, argues that Hussein was in compliance with either the terms of the cease fire or resolution 1441.
Actually the UN was arguing that he was complying..you know the people who were actually on the ground. It was Bush, who only cared about attacking and nothing else, who decided he wasn't in compliance. Read the Downing Street Memo yet?
And you're defending them.
You've still avoided directly answering my question as to how you would feel if you were in their shoes. Since complying with UN resolutions is so near and dear to your heart, you are defending a country thats in violation of a ton of UN Resolutions, all passed with the blessing of the United States.
Rich, your problem is this..first you don't seem to be reading my arguments at all. I have no idea where you've come up with half of what you think I've said. Second, you seem to take the position that Israel has done to wrong and everything done to the Palestinians was just. Thats complete bullshit. I'm by no means claiming that the Palestinians or Arabs are complete saints.
Posted by: Manish on August 29, 2005 9:37 PMThanks so much for your analysis of my "problem." As for your arguments, I have read them and dissected them, showing the assumptions implicit in their structure, and why they are flawed, using the history of the region both pre and post Partition. If the resulting picture makes you uncomfortable, then maybe you need to re-examine your assumptions.
In the end, I refuse to have any sympathy for any people who think that the way to get what they want is to slaughter innocent people, including deliberate targeting of children. That's an abomination in my eyes and as long as the PLA refuses to reign in the terrorists, and as long as the majority of Palestinian people favor running the Jews into the sea, I will continue to back Israel, warts and all.
Sweetheart, Israel is not known for hijacking planes, blowing up restaurants and school busses, or other rather uncivilized acts of random violence. Nor do they show a pronounced tendancy to indulge in random takeovers of their neighbors. In short, it appears that Israel is a country run by adults, instead of spoiled children.
What effort have you made to find out what Israel does to others?
Posted by: jahan on September 22, 2007 11:01 PM