The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: DixieBelle on March 26, 2008, 02:59:04 PM
-
Nothing spurred this on. It's just something I've been mulling over for some time now. What's with all of the pathological and sometimes irrational hatred of Israel? Seriously, I don't get it. "Neo-con" gets thrown around so much these days and I really believe half of the people who use it as an insult don't even understand it's meaning. I have noticed this not only online but in real life.
Personally, I don't see what the problem is with Israel. It's a country. But it seems to be a conveinent scapegoat for all of America's ills. I get sick and tired of hearing people say "Bush's neocon this and that..." I've had no fewer than three people say something along those lines in face to face conversations. It's not coming from rabid liberals either. It's like a sickness has taken hold and formerly (assumed to be) rational folks start using the broad brush to criticize whatever U.S. policy is being reported in the media.
Color me a fool or babe in the woods if you must, I just don't get it. Yes, I know my history and I get why people have chosen sides in the Jew/Arab conflict...I just don't get the hate and broad brushing from normal, everyday people who have probably never even encountered an Israeli much less had cause to hate a country so much.
I understand frustration with U.S. policy. I certainly have my share of gripes and complaints. But the armchair quarterbacking is a bit much for me these days. Not to mention the fact that withdrawing all U.S. support would set off a series of unintended consequences.
What's wrong with people? I don't get......
And I really think that if the hatred and energy expended towards "the joooooooooos!" were ever channeled to illegal immigration, it would resolve itself in no time at all.
Okay, thank you for indulging Dixie's brain droppings today. :-)
-
I never associated "Neocon" with Israel support. I think it means a Big Government "conservative," and features growing the deficit, growing government, subsidies for failing business and complicity in Illegal Immigration. The only "con" part is the desire for lower taxes, which is in conflict with the rest except the growing defecit.
But that is just me.
-
Well me either but it certainly gets thrown around a lot when talking about being pro-Israel. But to me it means: advocating a strong foreign policy that doesn't bow to U.N. approval before acting (among other things). At least that's always been my take. The word "neocon" is old and has been adopted by many factions and used as both a compliment and insult. But yes, I do see lots of people equating it with pro-Israel beliefs.
-
I never associated "Neocon" with Israel support. I think it means a Big Government "conservative," and features growing the deficit, growing government, subsidies for failing business and complicity in Illegal Immigration. The only "con" part is the desire for lower taxes, which is in conflict with the rest except the growing defecit.
But that is just me.
The modern interpretation of "neocon" comes from a group of liberal/centrist politically active Jews (in the late 80's and 90's) that were/are supporters of Israel, and generally hawkish on the application of military force as an instrument of US foreign policy......they found a home in the republican party when the democrats fell under the control of the anti-war crowd....
doc
-
I never associated "Neocon" with Israel support. I think it means a Big Government "conservative," and features growing the deficit, growing government, subsidies for failing business and complicity in Illegal Immigration. The only "con" part is the desire for lower taxes, which is in conflict with the rest except the growing defecit.
But that is just me.
The modern interpretation of "neocon" comes from a group of liberal/centrist politically active Jews (in the late 80's and 90's) that were/are supporters of Israel, and generally hawkish on the application of military force as an instrument of US foreign policy......they found a home in the republican party when the democrats fell under the control of the anti-war crowd....
doc
Well, you learn something every day. But I think my definition is closer to what is meant when neocon is used as an epithet.
-
I think the reason that libs have a deep hatred for Israel has several explanations.
In no particular order..
First is they associate it with religion and the God of the Bible,this alone creates a visceral hatred among many.
Next is that Israel has a great sense of national pride which is something that works against libs ideals for global socialism.
Israel has never backed down from its enemies and is more then willing to defend itself which again is antagonistic to libs pacifism about defending and pursuing the cause of freedom.
Israel has a representative,elected government which means that" unsophisticated" voters may "ignorantly" choose officials that don`t agree with socialism.
Israel is capitalist system.
Israel more or less stands alone in the mideast and they consider its existence a destabilizing force which prevents libs from making corrupt oil deals with tyrants (like the French did).
They believe our support of Israel uses monies which they want to be spent on socialist programs here,foolishly thinking that the tyrants in the mideast can be trusted.
Israel is much like the USA and they hate America too.
Probably many more reasons besides those.
-
The whole Israel thing is quite weird on both sides of our political spectrum.
On the right, there are plenty of people who support it for purely religious reasons which have essentially nothing to do with realpolitik or the rational relations and proper distance to keep with an ally, who seem to be unable to distinguish between Israeli national goals and what would best serve purely American interests...and then there are Israel-hating nutcases like Gator.
On the Left, you'd think the fact that it is a modern pseudo-European Socialist state with the full panoply of big labor, expensive social programs, and state bounty ought to count for something, but mostly it doesn't seem to stack up against the fact that they are an ecclesiastical state with a lot of the trappings of a modern secular one.
The way the Cold War developed, they became an ally, and that's the situation we inherit. We are kind of in too deep to abandon that, absent them pulling some totally crazy BS that woud piss us off worse than whomever it was intended to be directed at. Not that we haven't sold out historical allies like Taiwan before, but short of the Israelis dumping a surprise first-stirke nuke on someone, it's kind of hard to see such a turn of the tide on Israel for a long time out yet.
-
Both DAT and Carl raise some valid points. American conservative support for Israel falls into two distinct categories.....Christian conservatives support Israel because biblical prophesy demands it (plus its the site of the holiest places in the faith) , and secular conservatives see Israel as the only friendly bastion of democracy in a largely hostile area that controls a resource that is vital to the stability of the world's economy.
Liberals are a different story entirely. As DAT stated, Israel is a socialist state in the model of most of western Europe, and liberals should love this (but they don't). Lately, Israel's government has drifted more and more to the left, and the current government has become downright pacifist compared to a decade ago (liberals should love that as well....but they don't). For reasons that will likely always remain a mystery to me, the VAST majority of Jewish Americans that comprise a significant block of Israel's support in the US are very liberal. Therefore, I can only guess that the disdain for Israel from the left in America is boiled down to the following issues........
.....Israel's government can "turn on a dime", i.e. it is not a "stable" leftist environment (like the EU). The current liberal regime hangs by the slimmest thread in the Knesset, and should they even hint at endangering national sovereignty, they will be gone in a week, and a conservative government installed. Therefore, although leftist, it cannot be relied upon to remain so.....liberals hate this.....
.....Israel places her national security above all other political considerations.....liberals hate this......
.....Israel is a militarily strong nation, and in the past has used her military strength to deal harshly with her enemies.......liberals hate this......
.....Israel consistently shows her disdain for the UN (and vise versa).........liberals hate this.....
.....Israel is a nuclear power.......liberals hate this.....
.....Israel refuses to "negotiate" or compromise her national sovereignty with her enemies.......liberals hate this.....
.....Israel is not a great beacon of "multiculturalism and tolerance"......liberals hate this.....
To this mix, I think that I would be remiss if I didn't mention that over the decades, many liberals have been among the most antisemetic of political groups in many parts of the world, and you arrive at the current state of affairs....
YMMV
doc
-
Great discussion. It boggles the mind but all of the things you each mention make it a little clearer. I guess I'm puzzled as to why assumed to be conservative folk would take such a hard line and start hurling the anti-Israel complaints. Especially given that most conservatives support U.S./Israel policies because of the religious or national security aspect. Mind boggling indeed. Perhaps there's been a cerebral event.
-
Great discussion. It boggles the mind but all of the things you each mention make it a little clearer. I guess I'm puzzled as to why assumed to be conservative folk would take such a hard line and start hurling the anti-Israel complaints. Especially given that most conservatives support U.S./Israel policies because of the religious or national security aspect. Mind boggling indeed. Perhaps there's been a cerebral event.
By your quoted comments, I assume you mean folks like Gator, as I don't hear conservative people expressing a dislike for Israel, or US support for her.
If I remember correctly, Gator's problem stems from his experience with the US Liberty incident, and threrfore I have always sort of dismissed his rantings. It is "ignorant" to brand an entire country forever based on one isolated occurrence. Thinking people know that nations will always act in their own interests, and doing so should not substantially alter their status as allies, regardless of the circumstances of the incident, so long as a reasonable explanation exists.
Therefore, I always placed Gator in the "ignorant" category, and moved on to something else....
doc
-
Okay, this is right off the top of my head, and I tend to be sloppy when recalling things.
Israel USED to be the Great Liberal Cause in America, a left-wing cause, a popular cause among Democrats, liberals, and pre-primitives; next to blue-collar labor unions, support of Israel was top on their list.
From circa 1947 until mid-December 1974.
Then it changed overnight; like, really fast.
I recall mid-December 1974, because from a reading of magazines of the period, from the extreme left-wing Nation to the mildly conservative National Review, that appears to have been when a convulsive shift took place; suddenly, among Democrats, liberals, academicians, whatnot, Israel changed from a cherished cause to an enemy.
I'm not sure what happened; it was almost as if the uberfuerhrerliberal of the liberals picked up a red telephone and called all other liberals in America, "Okay, we're doing an about-face here, starting right now, and so fall in line," sometime the middle of December 1974.
The shift is easily and blatantly discernible, if one looks at old magazines.
I mean to say the shift was sudden and vehement. Overnight. Within hours.
I have no idea; whoever controls the minds of Democrats, liberals, and primitives knows, but that whoever it is, isn't saying why.
For the record, those on the other end of the political spectrum, before mid-December 1974, the conservatives and Republicans, didn't pay much attention to Israel. There was admiration for Israel having fought and won four wars against a much more powerful opponent, but that was about it.
But among Democrats, liberals, and pre-primitives, prior to mid-December 1974, Israel was theirs to hold and maintain and support and cherish.
-
Very interesting Frank, I was not aware of the seismic shift....however, I was residing outside the US from 1973 until late 1975, so I missed it entirely.
doc
-
Very interesting Frank, I was not aware of the seismic shift....however, I was residing outside the US from 1973 until late 1975, so I missed it entirely.
doc
It must've been really weird.
In November 1974, for example, the Nation was 100% behind Israel.
But the next issue, the Nation decided Israel was the enemy.
And the news media, the academicians, the leftist think-tanks, all toed the line right away.
I have no idea why it occurred, but seriously, when looking at these old magazines, one is left with the impression that there exists one great big huge uberfuerhrer liberal who tells Democrats, liberals, and primitives what they're supposed to think, and powerful enough that they all obey.
It's just really odd, and there wasn't anything in particular happening in the Middle East in mid-December 1974.
-
I'll try to look up what was happening in the Israeli government at the time, who was the PM, and what issues they were addressing.....perhaps they made an umpopular (to US libs) decision.
Now that I think about it, it was around that time that they began aggressive work on their nuclear weapons program, which was, and is still very closely held (to this day, they refuse to confirm that they have them). Perhap that is what happened.
doc
-
Great discussion. It boggles the mind but all of the things you each mention make it a little clearer. I guess I'm puzzled as to why assumed to be conservative folk would take such a hard line and start hurling the anti-Israel complaints. Especially given that most conservatives support U.S./Israel policies because of the religious or national security aspect. Mind boggling indeed. Perhaps there's been a cerebral event.
By your quoted comments, I assume you mean folks like Gator, as I don't hear conservative people expressing a dislike for Israel, or US support for her.
If I remember correctly, Gator's problem stems from his experience with the US Liberty incident, and threrfore I have always sort of dismissed his rantings. It is "ignorant" to brand an entire country forever based on one isolated occurrence. Thinking people know that nations will always act in their own interests, and doing so should not substantially alter their status as allies, regardless of the circumstances of the incident, so long as a reasonable explanation exists.
Therefore, I always placed Gator in the "ignorant" category, and moved on to something else....
doc
Well he springs to mind but in my OP I made mention of the fact that I've had no fewer than three people in real life make similar comments (not Liberty specific - overall blame the Jews/Neocons stuff). It's kind of why I posted this. I just don't get it.
-
I never associated "Neocon" with Israel support. I think it means a Big Government "conservative," and features growing the deficit, growing government, subsidies for failing business and complicity in Illegal Immigration. The only "con" part is the desire for lower taxes, which is in conflict with the rest except the growing defecit.
But that is just me.
The modern interpretation of "neocon" comes from a group of liberal/centrist politically active Jews (in the late 80's and 90's) that were/are supporters of Israel, and generally hawkish on the application of military force as an instrument of US foreign policy......they found a home in the republican party when the democrats fell under the control of the anti-war crowd....
doc
it's a horribly misused word these days. I agree with your definition for the most part, although I have always
operated under the definition of a "neoconservative" as a classical liberal*, complete with an fairly expansionist
foreign policy and belief in somewhat activist government, that was chased to the republican party when the
democrat party became a haven for anti-anti-communitsts.
an "anti-anti-communist" is, IIRC, a term bill buckley coined to describe the leftists that perhaps couldn't bring
themselves to become communists themselves, or to support communism outright, but fought the republicans
at every turn in their efforts to defeat communism.
not much of a difference in the two definitions, if you ask me.
*"liberal" used to be a rather complimentary term. today, we would call them "moderates".
-
I'll try to look up what was happening in the Israeli government at the time, who was the PM, and what issues they were addressing.....perhaps they made an umpopular (to US libs) decision.
Now that I think about it, it was around that time that they began aggressive work on their nuclear weapons program, which was, and is still very closely held (to this day, they refuse to confirm that they have them). Perhap that is what happened.
doc
I'm trying to re-create history from old magazines, and that doesn't seem quite right.
It was well-known that Israel had an atomic bomb during the Yom Kippur War, and that took place in October 1973.
It seems to me, if I recall correctly, that suddenly in mid-December 1974, the "plight of the poor Palestinians" became popular.....whereas in the past, the Democrats, liberals, primitives, academicians, and liberal think-tanks had always ignored the Palestinians.
And suddenly the Palestinians were "victims."
This reinforces my impression that there's one single uberfuerhrer liberal somewhere, who calls the shots, and the rest immediately fall in line.....and that uberfuerhrer liberal obviously is capricious, random, sort of like someone we all know over at the other place.
-
Very interesting Frank, I was not aware of the seismic shift....however, I was residing outside the US from 1973 until late 1975, so I missed it entirely.
doc
at some point, Israel became the beacon of everything the left despises; democratic, economically developed, and militarily strong. they were seen as the powerful aggressors victimizing the poor, undeveloped, and homeless palestinians. you know
how the left loves the non-aligned.
I think israel's image really began to take a beating when it was viewed in the context of it's conflict against the "powerless"
palestinians.
-
Don't the Palestinians serve a larger purpose in terms of the Muslim world though? I can't help but think that their plight is somewhat used to serve a greater goal when it comes to making the world answer for supposed injustices against Muslims.
-
Great discussion. It boggles the mind but all of the things you each mention make it a little clearer. I guess I'm puzzled as to why assumed to be conservative folk would take such a hard line and start hurling the anti-Israel complaints. Especially given that most conservatives support U.S./Israel policies because of the religious or national security aspect. Mind boggling indeed. Perhaps there's been a cerebral event.
By your quoted comments, I assume you mean folks like Gator, as I don't hear conservative people expressing a dislike for Israel, or US support for her.
If I remember correctly, Gator's problem stems from his experience with the US Liberty incident, and threrfore I have always sort of dismissed his rantings. It is "ignorant" to brand an entire country forever based on one isolated occurrence. Thinking people know that nations will always act in their own interests, and doing so should not substantially alter their status as allies, regardless of the circumstances of the incident, so long as a reasonable explanation exists.
Therefore, I always placed Gator in the "ignorant" category, and moved on to something else....
doc
Well he springs to mind but in my OP I made mention of the fact that I've had no fewer than three people in real life make similar comments (not Liberty specific - overall blame the Jews/Neocons stuff). It's kind of why I posted this. I just don't get it.
Well....contemporary "neocons" initially at least, WERE Jewish, however, I think that the expression has morphed into a "broad brush" (and erroneous) condemnation of any "conservative" that outwardly supports aggressive use of the US military as an expression of US foreign policy.
Kind of like "if you support the war in Iraq, you are a "neocon", "warmonger" or "chickenhawk".........and since the neocons were initially Jewish, that means that you also are in league with the joooooos.....
doc
-
I'll try to look up what was happening in the Israeli government at the time, who was the PM, and what issues they were addressing.....perhaps they made an umpopular (to US libs) decision.
Now that I think about it, it was around that time that they began aggressive work on their nuclear weapons program, which was, and is still very closely held (to this day, they refuse to confirm that they have them). Perhap that is what happened.
doc
I'm trying to re-create history from old magazines, and that doesn't seem quite right.
It was well-known that Israel had an atomic bomb during the Yom Kippur War, and that took place in October 1973.
It seems to me, if I recall correctly, that suddenly in mid-December 1974, the "plight of the poor Palestinians" became popular.....whereas in the past, the Democrats, liberals, primitives, academicians, and liberal think-tanks had always ignored the Palestinians.
And suddenly the Palestinians were "victims."
This reinforces my impression that there's one single uberfuerhrer liberal somewhere, who calls the shots, and the rest immediately fall in line.....and that uberfuerhrer liberal obviously is capricious, random, sort of like someone we all know over at the other place.
bingo. I was headed in the same direction. you just got there before I did.
-
Great discussion. It boggles the mind but all of the things you each mention make it a little clearer. I guess I'm puzzled as to why assumed to be conservative folk would take such a hard line and start hurling the anti-Israel complaints. Especially given that most conservatives support U.S./Israel policies because of the religious or national security aspect. Mind boggling indeed. Perhaps there's been a cerebral event.
By your quoted comments, I assume you mean folks like Gator, as I don't hear conservative people expressing a dislike for Israel, or US support for her.
If I remember correctly, Gator's problem stems from his experience with the US Liberty incident, and threrfore I have always sort of dismissed his rantings. It is "ignorant" to brand an entire country forever based on one isolated occurrence. Thinking people know that nations will always act in their own interests, and doing so should not substantially alter their status as allies, regardless of the circumstances of the incident, so long as a reasonable explanation exists.
Therefore, I always placed Gator in the "ignorant" category, and moved on to something else....
doc
Well he springs to mind but in my OP I made mention of the fact that I've had no fewer than three people in real life make similar comments (not Liberty specific - overall blame the Jews/Neocons stuff). It's kind of why I posted this. I just don't get it.
Well....contemporary "neocons" initially at least, WERE Jewish, however, I think that the expression has morphed into a "broad brush" (and erroneous) condemnation of any "conservative" that outwardly supports aggressive use of the US military as an expression of US foreign policy.
Kind of like "if you support the war in Iraq, you are a "neocon", "warmonger" or "chickenhawk".........and since the neocons were initially Jewish, that means that you also are in league with the joooooos.....
doc
Well it's damned frustrating. Especially hearing from people in my real life who were formally assumed to have a good head on their shoulders. Did Walmart have a sale on stupid?? :-)
-
at some point, Israel became the beacon of everything the left despises; democratic, economically developed, and militarily strong. they were seen as the powerful aggressors victimizing the poor, undeveloped, and homeless palestinians. you know how the left loves the non-aligned.
I think israel's image really began to take a beating when it was viewed in the context of it's conflict against the "powerless" palestinians.
Golda Meir was prime minister at the time.
Golda Meir, the socialist schoolteacher from Milwaukee, before then had been a liberal icon.
And suddenly she became Satan to the Democrats, liberals, primitives, and academicians.
-
Don't the Palestinians serve a larger purpose in terms of the Muslim world though? I can't help but think that their plight is somewhat used to serve a greater goal when it comes to making the world answer for supposed injustices against Muslims.
Exactly. After WW II there were 50 MILLION displaced persons in Europe. They were absorbed in a generation. The 3 or so million "Palestinians" are NOT accepted into their "brother muslim" countries so they can remain a festering sore next to Israel.
islam -- it's all about the hate.
-
Don't the Palestinians serve a larger purpose in terms of the Muslim world though? I can't help but think that their plight is somewhat used to serve a greater goal when it comes to making the world answer for supposed injustices against Muslims.
The "palestinians" are scum.......I will agree that they are used as a tool by the rest of the muslim world to garner sympathy, but if you look at their history, they have been most oppressed by the muslims themselves.....
The "rest of the world", has made a large number of "muslim nations" rich beyond their wildest dreams, and still they bitch and complain. We have no control over what they have accomplished with their wealth, but they are only subject to injustices as a result of their own actions, and their gutter religion.....
doc
-
Don't the Palestinians serve a larger purpose in terms of the Muslim world though? I can't help but think that their plight is somewhat used to serve a greater goal when it comes to making the world answer for supposed injustices against Muslims.
Exactly. After WW II there were 50 MILLION displaced persons in Europe. They were absorbed in a generation. The 3 or so million "Palestinians" are NOT accepted into their "brother muslim" countries so they can remain a festering sore next to Israel.
islam -- it's all about the hate.
If you haven't already, you must watch the documentary that played on cable about the Palestinian girl who blew herself up and also killed a Jewish girl. The documentary followed the Jewish girl's mother and her attempts to meet with the suicide bomber's parents. They finally arrange a video conference between them. Very enlightening on how that overall conflict is allowed to fester. The Palestinians came off as dogmatic and brainwashed. It was sad. They are holding to their hatred out of principle now. They refuse to blink. Now, I'm no political scholar and I certainly can't begin to understand what life is like in that part of the world. But it doesn't take a genius to see the writing on the wall.
-
I will agree that they are used as a tool by the rest of the muslim world to garner sympathy, but if you look at their history, they have been most oppressed by the muslims themselves.....
The "rest of the world", has made a large number of "muslim nations" rich beyond their wildest dreams, and still they bitch and complain. We have no control over what they have accomplished with their wealth, but they are only subject to injustices as a result of their own actions.
Damn, you said that better than I could, and shorter too.
The "Palestinians" have been used by their own.
The "Palestinians" got a homeland in 1947; it's called "Jordan."
-
You know, what really annoys me about the "Palestinian" issue is, that I've spent some time in that part of the world, and when I went to Gaza, I could only sadly shake my head........Gaza could be the "Riviera" of the middle east, but for some reason, they prefer to lob home made rockets into Israel, than build high-rise condos and beach resorts......
doc
-
You know, what really annoys me about the "Palestinian" issue is, that I've spent some time in that part of the world, and when I went to Gaza, I could only sadly shake my head........Gaza could be the "Riviera" of the middle east, but for some reason, they prefer to lob home made rockets into Israel, than build high-rise condos and beach resorts......
doc
I have not been there, but I have heard the same. Anyone else gets pristine, beautiful seaside beach property, they START DEVELOPING and create resorts and the like. Not the muslims -- they just see it as a big rocket launch pad for lobbing rockets into Israel.
-
That's because it full of filthy joooooooooos!!!!!!
Somebody had to say it!!! :-) :-)
-
My memory is faulty, but someone once said something like...."the fighting will stop when the Palestinians learn to love themselves more than they hate Israel....."
doc
-
Well, they don't subscribe to the notion of places like holy sites ever becoming anything other than Muslim places. Once a Muslim place, always a Muslim place. They will never be able to say, "okay halfsies?" Or something along those lines.
-
Well, they don't subscribe to the notion of places like holy sites ever becoming anything other than Muslim places. Once a Muslim place, always a Muslim place. They will never be able to say, "okay halfsies?" Or something along those lines.
Well....prophesy says that there will be a THIRD Jewish temple built on the "temple mount".........so something is going to have to give at some point.
doc
-
My memory is faulty, but someone once said something like...."the fighting will stop when the Palestinians learn to love themselves more than they hate Israel....."
I believe it was Golda Meir--again, in the mid-1970s--who said peace would never come to the Middle East until the Arabs stopped killing their own children.
Or something like that.
-
I will agree that they are used as a tool by the rest of the muslim world to garner sympathy, but if you look at their history, they have been most oppressed by the muslims themselves.....
The "rest of the world", has made a large number of "muslim nations" rich beyond their wildest dreams, and still they bitch and complain. We have no control over what they have accomplished with their wealth, but they are only subject to injustices as a result of their own actions.
Damn, you said that better than I could, and shorter too.
The "Palestinians" have been used by their own.
The "Palestinians" got a homeland in 1947; it's called "Jordan."
I believe,and correct me if I am wrong,that the Jordanians under King Hussein expelled them for a variety of reason one of which was to create an antagonism towards Israel.
As to your point where the left turned against Israel in 1974 I would propose it coinicided with their feeling of superiority in the wake of Nixons resignation.
Remember I was 9 years old throughout 1974 so was not very politically aware as it related to international politics but given the dem party had embraced the pacifist,surrender at all cost McGovernite viewpoint in 1972 and they just got rid of the hated Nixon.
They thought they had complete political control in this country forever at that point and began to view Israel as an imperialist pariah on the world stage.
To add to that was the energy crisis that had swept through and the libs viewed Israel as a destabilizing force which irritated the OPEC nations.
Libs always think if you give a bully what they want they will be nice and go away so Israel standing up to the moslem countries instead of cowtowing aggrivated them and they blamed them for the increase in energy costs instead of the shieks.
-
I believe,and correct me if I am wrong,that the Jordanians under King Hussein expelled them for a variety of reason one of which was to create an antagonism towards Israel.
There was something that happened in 1970--for some reason, I recall S Downing (dutch508) commenting upon it in the other place--but I'm not sure what it was, where King Hussein had to expel a whole bunch of "Palestinians" because of their trouble-making.
It wasn't so much the "Palestinians" themselves, but their "leaders" (Yassir Arafat, &c.), who were seeking to destabilize Jordan. It sticks in my mind that S Downing knows a lot about this particular instance.
In 1947, the United Nations partitioned the former British mandate there, creating Israel and Jordan. Jordan was meant to be the homeland for any "Palestinians" who got displaced, but their "Palestinian" "leaders" wouldn't let their people go to the new Promised Land; they forced them to stay where they were.
-
I believe,and correct me if I am wrong,that the Jordanians under King Hussein expelled them for a variety of reason one of which was to create an antagonism towards Israel.
There was something that happened in 1970--for some reason, I recall S Downing (dutch508) commenting upon it in the other place--but I'm not sure what it was, where King Hussein had to expel a whole bunch of "Palestinians" because of their trouble-making.
It wasn't so much the "Palestinians" themselves, but their "leaders" (Yassir Arafat, &c.), who were seeking to destabilize Jordan. It sticks in my mind that S Downing knows a lot about this particular instance.
In 1947, the United Nations partitioned the former British mandate there, creating Israel and Jordan. Jordan was meant to be the homeland for any "Palestinians" who got displaced, but their "Palestinian" "leaders" wouldn't let their people go to the new Promised Land; they forced them to stay where they were.
I would also ask as a corollary to Dixies original question why,in light of the fact many or most libs would surrender Israels existence in a heartbeat to appease the islamofacists,do so many of the Jewish population here support the dem party?
-
But it seems to be a conveinent scapegoat for all of America's ills. I get sick and tired of hearing people say "Bush's neocon this and that..." I've had no fewer than three people say something along those lines in face to face conversations.
I think the word "neo-con" has become a catch-all phrase, at least in the last few years.
"Neo-con" has a very specific meaning to me. It was primarily Jewish Democrats who became fed up with how the Democratic party consistently undermined the US military, and they became "new conservatives." Basically it's big gov't libs who want a powerful military, and since they were Jewish then Israel was important to them.
Given the definition as I described, I don't consider GWB to be a neo-con. He had some advisors who were neos, but that was it. In the past few years, "neo-con" has been redefined to mean Republicans who approve of the GWOT, and that was never what they were.
Edit:
The modern interpretation of "neocon" comes from a group of liberal/centrist politically active Jews (in the late 80's and 90's) that were/are supporters of Israel, and generally hawkish on the application of military force as an instrument of US foreign policy......they found a home in the republican party when the democrats fell under the control of the anti-war crowd....
This is what I get for posting before reading the whole thread. I could have just quoted this and said "Ditto."
.
-
[\quote]
I would also ask as a corollary to Dixies original question why,in light of the fact many or most libs would surrender Israels existence in a heartbeat to appease the islamofacists,do so many of the Jewish population here support the dem party?
Carl....That is the great unanswered question in all of this, and I have heard a number of (somewhat unsatisfactory) explanations from several Jewish friends of mine over the years.
The most prevalent one is "guilt".....in other words jews feel guilty about the plight of the underclasses through empathy over their oppression in Europe and other areas historically placing them politically in the "liberal" camp.......however most of these same Jewish friends live their lives in a very socially and fiscally "conservative" manner.
It simply doesn't compute in my mind that Jewish folks would align themselves with a political party that would throw Israel under the bus in a heartbeat if given the chance. One could also postulate that American Jewish people are really not that connected with Israel in present terms, but only in an ecumenical sense........
I don't have a really good explanation........
doc
-
I believe,and correct me if I am wrong,that the Jordanians under King Hussein expelled them for a variety of reason one of which was to create an antagonism towards Israel.
There was something that happened in 1970--for some reason, I recall S Downing (dutch508) commenting upon it in the other place--but I'm not sure what it was, where King Hussein had to expel a whole bunch of "Palestinians" because of their trouble-making.
It wasn't so much the "Palestinians" themselves, but their "leaders" (Yassir Arafat, &c.), who were seeking to destabilize Jordan. It sticks in my mind that S Downing knows a lot about this particular instance.
In 1947, the United Nations partitioned the former British mandate there, creating Israel and Jordan. Jordan was meant to be the homeland for any "Palestinians" who got displaced, but their "Palestinian" "leaders" wouldn't let their people go to the new Promised Land; they forced them to stay where they were.
Not exactly the way the Jordan thing happened. The people expelled from Jordan were not Jordanians and Jordan was not established as a place for all the Muslims in the partitioned Palestine Mandate land to move to. Prior to the end of the mandate, it was known as 'The Transjordan,' and the population of it on the end of the Mandate was only intended to be the people who lived there, i.e. on the east side of the Jordan River plus the West Bank. During the Israeli war for independence, a lot of Arab leadership urged the Palestinians to flee the Israeli areas (based apparently on a totally unjustified belief that the combined Arab forces would soon crush the Israelis, and probably so the Arabs could commit unrestrained destruction when they did win, but that's just speculation on my part). The Israelis, for their part, didn't exactly have clean hands in creating the problem either, as they aggressively went to conquer areas that had not been allotted to them (mostly for sound tactical reasons from their point of view) and although nobody likes to admit it, there was also a certain small number of gross atrocities and a lot of terroristic threats by Israelis to 'encourage' Palestinians to leave. Neither the Israelis nor the Arabs really accomplished jack shit to end the whole 'Refugee Crisis' despite an occasional attack of good intentions on one side or the other. What happened in Jordan was that the refugees (whom the Jordanians do NOT view as Jordanians) and their militant hijinx came to be viewed (accurately) by King Hussein, a very smart and perceptive gent actually, as a destabilizing radical force that threatened the internal security of his country, so he kicked their asses out -- "I don't care if you go home, but you can't stay here."
-
Thanks, Tanker; I appreciate the illumination.
My "remembrance" of 1970 in Jordan was from old Time and Newsweek magazines, and as one might reasonably imagine, given that those accounts were on-the-spot-at-the-time, they were sketchy and sometimes erroneous.
It's like that HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales thing from December 1941; because Time and Life magazines of that month were based upon speculation, I had always assumed the two ships were sunk WEST of Malaya, when in fact they were sunk EAST of Malaya.
Sometimes I forget that people on-the-spot-at-the-time misinterpret what they're seeing and hearing, or even base their "news" reports upon speculation.
-
Since the time of Trans-Jordan, the "Palestinians" have also been, to one degree or another, thrown out of Egypt, Yemen, UAE, and to a lesser degree Saudi (they are allowed to stay only so long as they work, and don't cause trouble)....
doc
-
My memory is faulty, but someone once said something like...."the fighting will stop when the Palestinians learn to love themselves more than they hate Israel....."
I believe it was Golda Meir--again, in the mid-1970s--who said peace would never come to the Middle East until the Arabs stopped killing their own children.
Or something like that.
It was Golda Meir and the quote was "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us (Israel)." It is probably one of the most repeated quotes since it distills the entire conflict and is still quite true.
-
Since the time of Trans-Jordan, the "Palestinians" have also been, to one degree or another, thrown out of Egypt, Yemen, UAE, and to a lesser degree Saudi (they are allowed to stay only so long as they work, and don't cause trouble)....
doc
Which kind of shows how they are used as tools of a larger conflict. They don't seem to always be good houseguests either.
-
I recall mid-December 1974, because from a reading of magazines of the period, from the extreme left-wing Nation to the mildly conservative National Review, that appears to have been when a convulsive shift took place; suddenly, among Democrats, liberals, academicians, whatnot, Israel changed from a cherished cause to an enemy.
I'm not sure what happened; it was almost as if the uberfuerhrerliberal of the liberals picked up a red telephone and called all other liberals in America, "Okay, we're doing an about-face here, starting right now, and so fall in line," sometime the middle of December 1974.
Might have had to do a lot with the overwhelming defeat of Republicans at the polls during the 1974 midterms. Remember, that's the election we got folks like Joe Biden, Pat Leahy, and the like. Also remember the economy (in no small part thanks to Nixon's price controls) was in the tank, and he had just left office versus getting thrown out of office.
Also recall the 1973-74 oil embargo. That was the Arab "punishment" for our support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War.
-
it's a horribly misused word these days. I agree with your definition for the most part, although I have always
operated under the definition of a "neoconservative" as a classical liberal*, complete with an fairly expansionist
foreign policy and belief in somewhat activist government, that was chased to the republican party when the
democrat party became a haven for anti-anti-communitsts.
an "anti-anti-communist" is, IIRC, a term bill buckley coined to describe the leftists that perhaps couldn't bring
themselves to become communists themselves, or to support communism outright, but fought the republicans
at every turn in their efforts to defeat communism.
not much of a difference in the two definitions, if you ask me.
*"liberal" used to be a rather complimentary term. today, we would call them "moderates".
Chickenreds. People who hide behind the protections of the Constitution to call for its downfall, but too cowardly to move to an actual Communist country and live what they advocate, and too cowardly to foment revolution.
"Neocons" has been coopted by the Left to mean "JOOOOS!!"
-
Don't the Palestinians serve a larger purpose in terms of the Muslim world though? I can't help but think that their plight is somewhat used to serve a greater goal when it comes to making the world answer for supposed injustices against Muslims.
The Arab world will fight Israel to the last Palestinian.
They're cannon fodder, walking ordnance, and PR tools -- nothing more.
-
The Arab world will fight Israel to the last Palestinian.
They're cannon fodder, walking ordnance, and PR tools -- nothing more.
How I see it, Palestinians are pawns for them. Many Arab states do not like Palestinians, especially Gulf States. Palestinians are often discriminated in Saudi Arabia.
-
Ironically, Soviet Union was the first nation to recognize Israel. Soviet Union was bent on destroying Israel and were involved in the wars. Another thing is many Nazis fled to the Middle East, particularly Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. They were ruled by Pan-Arabists, which includes the Baath Party. Pan-Arabism shaped Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, and Osama bin Laden. These Muslim terrorists evolved from Arab nationalists. Middle East was plagued with terrorism in the 1960s and 1970s, but they were nationalists at the time. Groups like Fatah and PLO are more socialists, than religious. Lot of this problem in the Middle East is rather recent and it is due to the legacy of Fascism and Communism. Hitler and Stalin maybe long dead, but their spirit lives on.
-
Can I just say.......that I appreciate the intelligent conversation on this subject. :-)
-
Ironically, Soviet Union was the first nation to recognize Israel. Soviet Union was bent on destroying Israel and were involved in the wars. Another thing is many Nazis fled to the Middle East, particularly Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. They were ruled by Pan-Arabists, which includes the Baath Party. Pan-Arabism shaped Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, and Osama bin Laden. These Muslim terrorists evolved from Arab nationalists. Middle East was plagued with terrorism in the 1960s and 1970s, but they were nationalists at the time. Groups like Fatah and PLO are more socialists, than religious. Lot of this problem in the Middle East is rather recent and it is due to the legacy of Fascism and Communism. Hitler and Stalin maybe long dead, but their spirit lives on.
The bottom line is always the same...an alliance to Marxisim and Socialism in the secular sense,which lends itself to true religious fanaticism.
It is in keeping with western libs that that accuse Conservatives who are religious of wanting a theocracy yet they turn a blind eye to the fact that anytime religion has mingled with the left it has resulted in tyranny and despotism.
-
Can I just say.......that I appreciate the intelligent conversation on this subject. :-)
Well now, there's all sorts of historic liberal sudden about-faces.
One of the minor ones occurred on January 20, 1981, circa 10:00 a.m., when the homeless, out of the blue, were discovered.
Only to disappear exactly to the hour, twelve years later.
Some in the media tried to rediscover the homeless on January 20, 2001, at exactly 10:00 a.m., and it got a few sniffs, and then died.
What has always gotten me is the liberal preoccupation with the federal deficit and the national debt.
That used to be am exclusively Republican concern; it was no big deal to Democrats and liberals, nothing to worry about.
Then suddenly at that magic hour, 10:00 a.m. on January 20, 1981, Democrats and liberals abruptly started thinking the federal deficit and the national debt are big deals.
It's been a very long time now, and there's hardly anybody around to remember, but Prohibition was considered a Great Liberal Cause.
-
^Ronald Regan's inauguration......?
doc
-
Pardon the thread necrophilia. :-) This is so timely, I just had to add it -
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/05/09/the-perfection-fallacy-or-ill-give-you-something-to-complain-about.php
-
I never associated "Neocon" with Israel support. I think it means a Big Government "conservative," and features growing the deficit, growing government, subsidies for failing business and complicity in Illegal Immigration. The only "con" part is the desire for lower taxes, which is in conflict with the rest except the growing defecit.
But that is just me.
The modern interpretation of "neocon" comes from a group of liberal/centrist politically active Jews (in the late 80's and 90's) that were/are supporters of Israel, and generally hawkish on the application of military force as an instrument of US foreign policy......they found a home in the republican party when the democrats fell under the control of the anti-war crowd....
doc
I agree with most of your definition of Neo,(new),Con (conservative )!The name comes from the obvious reference to the former liberal affiliation of well known Jewish Intellectuals .The Neoconservative Revolution of Jewish Intellectuals who broke with the liberals over the Defense of Israel.Irving Crystal and his son and a few others are the best known.Liberals and their petty followers have incorporated it into their political jargon,Turn Coat is their newest term in this category !
-
Nothing spurred this on. It's just something I've been mulling over for some time now. What's with all of the pathological and sometimes irrational hatred of Israel? Seriously, I don't get it. "Neo-con" gets thrown around so much these days and I really believe half of the people who use it as an insult don't even understand it's meaning. I have noticed this not only online but in real life.
Personally, I don't see what the problem is with Israel. It's a country. But it seems to be a conveinent scapegoat for all of America's ills. I get sick and tired of hearing people say "Bush's neocon this and that..." I've had no fewer than three people say something along those lines in face to face conversations. It's not coming from rabid liberals either. It's like a sickness has taken hold and formerly (assumed to be) rational folks start using the broad brush to criticize whatever U.S. policy is being reported in the media.
Color me a fool or babe in the woods if you must, I just don't get it. Yes, I know my history and I get why people have chosen sides in the Jew/Arab conflict...I just don't get the hate and broad brushing from normal, everyday people who have probably never even encountered an Israeli much less had cause to hate a country so much.
I understand frustration with U.S. policy. I certainly have my share of gripes and complaints. But the armchair quarterbacking is a bit much for me these days. Not to mention the fact that withdrawing all U.S. support would set off a series of unintended consequences.
What's wrong with people? I don't get......
And I really think that if the hatred and energy expended towards "the joooooooooos!" were ever channeled to illegal immigration, it would resolve itself in no time at all.
Okay, thank you for indulging Dixie's brain droppings today. :-)
is this gator bait? :hyper:
-
Might also help if you peruse this--a dated article, but a relevant one...
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg052003.asp
-
Nothing spurred this on. It's just something I've been mulling over for some time now. What's with all of the pathological and sometimes irrational hatred of Israel? Seriously, I don't get it. "Neo-con" gets thrown around so much these days and I really believe half of the people who use it as an insult don't even understand it's meaning. I have noticed this not only online but in real life.
Personally, I don't see what the problem is with Israel. It's a country. But it seems to be a conveinent scapegoat for all of America's ills. I get sick and tired of hearing people say "Bush's neocon this and that..." I've had no fewer than three people say something along those lines in face to face conversations. It's not coming from rabid liberals either. It's like a sickness has taken hold and formerly (assumed to be) rational folks start using the broad brush to criticize whatever U.S. policy is being reported in the media.
Color me a fool or babe in the woods if you must, I just don't get it. Yes, I know my history and I get why people have chosen sides in the Jew/Arab conflict...I just don't get the hate and broad brushing from normal, everyday people who have probably never even encountered an Israeli much less had cause to hate a country so much.
I understand frustration with U.S. policy. I certainly have my share of gripes and complaints. But the armchair quarterbacking is a bit much for me these days. Not to mention the fact that withdrawing all U.S. support would set off a series of unintended consequences.
What's wrong with people? I don't get......
And I really think that if the hatred and energy expended towards "the joooooooooos!" were ever channeled to illegal immigration, it would resolve itself in no time at all.
Okay, thank you for indulging Dixie's brain droppings today. :-)
is this gator bait? :hyper:
Nah. Was honestly just an attempt to discuss an issue that can easily get off track if you know what I mean.
-
no problem :-) I was just curious, had to ask..
and my honest opinion on Israel is this:
i think a lot of us are worried they *are* God's chosen people and hence, we dont want them blown off the earth in yet another religious war.
we know we give them too much money, but we think if we stop God might smite us or something.. :-)
we also promised to give them that money decades ago and i have no idea what it would take to undo it..
so, we are stuck at a crossroads it would seem. we either reassess our financial obligations to the world, including Israel, and keep moving forward with that, or we cut it off and take the heat.
i have no idea what the path should be... but it seems things are coming to a head in that region and we'll be forced to choose soon enough.
-
no problem :-) we know we give them too much money, but we think if we stop God might smite us or something.. :-)
we also promised to give them that money decades ago and i have no idea what it would take to undo it..
I think many have the wrong idea about our aid to Israel (and many don't want to know the truth), which, last time I looked, is largely military and defense related, of which, most is turned around and spent right here in the good 'ol US keeping our factories running and providing jobs.
Israel has a strong economy at most times, and is a net exporter of technology right now, and a number of US manufacturers have "joint ventures" there. It is not as though we are handing them buckets of cash, Israel is a true ally and a strong trading partner to the US.
doc
-
Can I just say.......that I appreciate the intelligent conversation on this subject. :-)
Thanks for reviving this thread, I missed it the first go around. It's a very interesting read. I can for myself, I don't know much about Israel, but have always found any hatred of it to be a little strange.
Also, I was never sure of what the term "neo-con" referred to, because mostly it's used as a slur, so I just ignored it.