> The Israelis are surrounded by people
> who have explicitly genocidal intentions
> towards them.

Yes, and we have to ask... Why?

The core presumption of the state of Israel is the presumption that their belief in a supernatural force entitles them to that territory in a way that others are not entitled... Right? (I'm eager to be corrected if that's not the case.)

Amy, I don't think you're the sort of person who'd accept that kind of reasoning. (Nor is Sam Harris.)

The rest of us in America are merely tired of worrying that the fates of tiny nations in political positions of almost laughable tenderness, such as Israel and Taiwan, can so readily summon our thunderous warmaking power in their defense, and against our own larger interests.

OF COURSE Israel is surrounded by enemies. But in the age of the Iphone, they're also vulnerable to instantaneous and irrational censure from distant and huge nations like Indonesia.

Sure, Israel is a modern and (roughly) democratic country. They're among the best and brightest of humanity.

But why should we let such a tiny nation distract the rest of the world, howsoever foolish it may be, from the hard work of its own betterment?

I heard an interesting interview this weekend with George Gilder (I think - or at least similar ideas to what I see from George on the internet).

I wish I could confirm all that was said - everything sounds like a rather biased source I find on the net.

THe main point was that Jews tend to see success and then copy it and improve on it. Most other peoples tend to want to tear down the success of others. One thing I had never heard before is that the Chinese tend to have a similar view as the Jews and have had similar types of problems in Asia outside of China.

One question that arose for me is how much land to Jews buy pre-ww2 in the Palestine-Israel area. Clearly some. Depending on the source is sounds like very little to a whole lot.

"...What do groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and even Hamas want? They want to impose their religious views on the rest of humanity. They want stifle every freedom that decent, educated, secular people care about."

I thought you were perfectly fine with chaos in the Middle East, as long as the US didn't have to intervene directly?

Do you honestly believe that the situation in Israel is totally disconnected from what is going on in the rest of the Middle East, and that the US can support Israel with some kind of magical non interventionist foreign policy?

What I see is the potential beginnings of World War III. All courtesy of the clueless Obama administration.

Nit: some of the Harris quote above is duplicated...

The core presumption of the state of Israel is the presumption that their belief in a supernatural force entitles them to that territory in a way that others are not entitled... Right? (I'm eager to be corrected if that's not the case.)

And likewise the core presumption of Israel's enemies 'is the presumption that their belief in a supernatural force entitles them to that territory in a way that [Jews] are not entitled.' And entitles them to kill every man woman and child on THE ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET who does not submit to their will.

Fuck em. Irseal is literally the dike holding back the ocean. So long as the majority of Muslim aggression is directed at them its that much longer we dont have to deal with it.

Peace in the Middle East is a Christian battle as much as it is a Jewish/Muslim one, as those who believe the scriptures are very invested in the outcome. It's a supernatural, scriptural, and apocalyptic scenario, just pick a word you relate to. Both sides are claiming a small piece of land that is holy to Jews and Muslims, with religious events that took place on them documented in scripture. I agree with lujlp that a Middle East united against Israel is keeping them from being united against the US, but mark my words, it will be world war if Israel falls. We should be a friend to Israel and realize the implications that are broad and very complicated, if they fall.

Genesis 12:3 (regarding Israel) "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

God's blessing is no concern of mine.

No.

You guys are seeing this precisely backwards: The social forces are flowing the other way. Idiot nations around the globe, not just the middle east, are using Israel as the distraction for their own wretchedness, both within their own borders and in international contexts (UN, etc.).

Rather than let their populations express two sentences in a row about the mismanagement of their own cultures by the crime families in command, governments distract their citizens with Israel, as if the strength of its character were mere American treachery, and the grotesque poverty of the surrounding cultures was the desirable, natural order.

Or, Goosey [et al], will you decline to take the point?… Will you prefer to extend this proxy fight to stroke your ego as well?

Your "world war" is, more than anything else, the emergence of women's voices in their own homes and in their own societies. You should want nothing less than the fastest, plainest eruption of that conflict which you can summon. If there's decency in humanity at all, it's inevitable: For how many more generations should your American sisters have waited for suffrage?

…Or do you think it should have come sooner?




Be sure and get back to us on that.

Okay crid, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're basically saying that other nations have been using redneckedness as I call it (I may be a jerk, but at least I'm better than Joe Blow who beats his wife. That makes me a good ole boy in these woods) to generalize that they may be misogynistic nasty countries, but at least they're not Israel? That's just missing the point, but it is a point to make, and likely what gameplay other countries are using. It's not the viewpoint of the main players (generally speaking, unfettered hate and genocide), but it's likely a tactic at play.

No. Never translate.

Don't do that. I'm good at this, I said what I meant, and it's on this same page. Nothing was evaded, my response is precisely on point. You can quote it yourself.

If you can't concede the issue, say nothing and feign ruminative growth.

Concede the issue - wha? People have different viewpoints regarding this conflict. Palestine and Israel would not argue that yours is a valid view and may be one of world gameplay, it's just not their direct viewpoint. When my kids ask why does everyone hate Israel and hate Jews, I can't even form a valid response, it's just pure hate. That has as much to do with everything in Israel as it does here with black/white issues here in the South. Some things you can't fix and can't make right, no matter how hard you try.

Hamas is on the phone; those danged Jooz are shooting back this time.

Solution?

Short but to the point.

I am going to re-read what Crid said. I didn't get his point the first time but that has happened before.

It is unwise to try and interpret what Crid says. He does not like it. He does not suffer fools well, even those of us that do not consider ourselves fools. I will admit I have been foolish at times; after all, I have argued with Crid once or twice.

"The core presumption of the state of Israel is the presumption that their belief in a supernatural force entitles them to that territory in a way that others are not entitled... Right? (I'm eager to be corrected if that's not the case.)"

I am not sure what the core presumption of the state of Israel is. I am sure they have defended their land by battle and blood. So, in the way of the world, doesn't that make it theirs?

It is unwise to try and interpret what Crid says.

Thats because he is a bullshit artist who constructs verbal Rubik's cubes PRECISELY to avoid saying anything of any import.

He also routinely miscategorizes, if not outright lie, about what people say to set the scene for his verbal turds to be viewed from the angle he preferes

> People have different viewpoints regarding
> this conflict.

Right? I know! Totally! It's such a pisser....

Awright listen, Goose... You pissed me off.

I mean, I'll always be grateful to you for that... It's why I come here.

But still, you are —at least in a technical sense— wronger than me about something. And that's never acceptable.


> Palestine and Israel would not argue that
> yours is a valid view and may be one of
> world gameplay

Yes. So why should we let the lyrics of their demented duet tell us how to dance? Fuck 'em. Who cares what they "argue"?


> When my kids ask why does everyone
> hate Israel and hate Jews, I can't
> even form a valid response, it's
> just pure hate.

Don't be sanctimonious. You're not such an elevated creature yourself that you could be confounded by such unremarkable bitterness. The resentment felt by less-successful people towards shit-together Jews (or any shit-together person) is elemental in human nature... All human nature. The nature of all humans. You saw it in kindergarden and grade school and everywhere in early childhood (as your kids certainly recognize it today). Don't pretend to be such a refined darling that you simply can't imagine.

Either your family (and to a lesser extent, your surrounding culture) teaches you to keep a lid on it, or it doesn't. And if by no other mechanism, you had it beaten out of you by peers... People who needed you to know that your oh-so-deeply-personal spite was a dead end... Something that wouldn't be accepted by them when you were in the mood to make excuses for your weaknesses.


> Some things you can't fix and
> can't make right, no matter
> how hard you try.

The Hell you can't. The American south is much better than used to be. Obviously. Obviously!


I wrote a bunch of other stuff, but it was too boring.

We should no more let tiny Israel dictate our response to the world's billion-point-six Muslims than we should let tiny Taiwan dictate our response to the billion-point-four Chinese mainland, with whom we're more intimately invested than two superpowers have ever been heretofore.

> So, in the way of the world, doesn't
> that make it theirs?

Well, golly... Which "way of the world" do you mean?

In the video, Prager takes great pains to note that it was the United Nations that divided the land with borders which, sixty years on, still demand "battle and blood."

Nowadays, three out of every four resolutions presented to the UN is a condemnation of Israel. About half its published output concerns the tiny country.

I bet Prager duzzen worry boudit much. Nowadays.

"We should no more let tiny Israel dictate our response to the world's billion-point-six Muslims than we should let tiny Taiwan dictate our response to the billion-point-four Chinese mainland, with whom we're more intimately invested than two superpowers have ever been heretofore."

Agree.

Israel is my friend. Moslems are the enemy of Israel. Many Moslems are the enemy of Americans.

"Well, golly... Which "way of the world" do you mean?"

The one where the good guy lives (me) and the bad guy dies (them). Or, the one that wins the war. Like when the cave men in cave number one kills all the cave men (and the ugly women) in cave number two. They are then free to keep cave number two and the good looking women.

You get pissed off waaaay too easy, Crid. I'm not trying to spar with you, but state an opinion, and not a volatile opinion either. You remind me of this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87w655s3xKc

I'm prettier. And I didn't say you were volatile, I said you were wrong.

(Fave JC.)

Three strangers strike up a conversation in the airport passenger lounge in Bozeman, Montana, awaiting their flights.

One is an American Indian passing through from Lame Deer. Another is a Cowboy on his way to Billings for a livestock show and the third passenger is a fundamentalist Arab student, newly arrived at Montana State University from the Middle East.

Their discussion drifts to their diverse cultures. Soon, the two Westerners learn that the Arab is a devout, radical Muslim and the conversation falls into an uneasy lull.

The cowboy leans back in his chair, crosses his boots on a magazine table and tips his big sweat-stained hat forward over his face. The wind outside is blowing tumbleweeds around, and the old windsock is flapping; but still no plane comes.

Finally, the American Indian clears his throat and softly he speaks, "At one time here, my people were many, but sadly, now we are few."

The Muslim student raises an eyebrow and leans forward, "Once my people were few," he sneers, "and now we are many. Why do you suppose that is?"

The Montana cowboy shifts his toothpick to one side of his mouth and from the darkness beneath his Stetson says in a drawl,

"That's 'cause we ain't played Cowboys and Muslims yet, but I do believe it's a-comin'."

Islam functions more as a political system rather than pure religion.
Shariah looks more like fascism than Socialism or capitalism.
A couple of videos about political Islam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9sYgqRtZGg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y
The media tries to make this guy out as a hater fringe not job.
No one has any rebuttal to the facts he state.

"We should no more let tiny Israel dictate our response to the world's billion-point-six Muslims than we should let tiny Taiwan dictate our response to the billion-point-four Chinese mainland,"

Two points: (1) I'm not comfortable with the idea that we should throw allies under the bus because being allied with them makes us unpopular with the kool kidz. (2) It's long been my observation that Jews are the canaries in the world's coal mine. Generally, a society's willingnes to embrace Western cultural and moral values coincides with how well it treats Jews. A culture that treats Jews badly is a culture that you don't want to live in.

Once again Crid decides not to let little things like facts get in the way of his opinion:

"We should no more let tiny Israel dictate our response to the world's billion-point-six Muslims than we should let tiny Taiwan dictate our response to the billion-point-four Chinese mainland,"

Of that 1.6 billion, the vast majority of Muslims in the world are located in the following countries:

Afghanistan
Algeria
Bangladesh
China
Egypt
Ethiopia
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Malaysia
Mali
Morocco
Niger
Nigeria
Pakistan
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Sudan
Syria
Tanzania
Tunisia
Turkey
Uzbekistan
Yemen

These are the countries with 10 million or more Muslims in their populations (and of these Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Nigeria, Bangladesh, and Turkey account for ~850 Million)

Can someone please remind me again how Israel is dictating our response to countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Turkey which alone account for over half of that 1.6 billion figure?

Factor in the other counties in that list and you have an even larger fraction of the total world Muslim population that as far as I can tell Israel doesn't have an issue with.

Is Israel dictating our foreign policy with Russia as well?

Or perhaps Israel dictated our policy with Afghanistan (never mind that whole 9/11 thing, right?)

Get your head out of your ass Crid and face reality for once in your life.

This issue has nothing to do with the world wide Muslim population and everything to do with a small local population of very angry people who happen to be Muslim and live in the Middle East.

Ah, Artemis! We've established that you you live in an institution; that while you have frequent and gentle social contact with people of some literacy, you personally carry no degree; that you've no employment history, and have certainly never hired anyone yourself; and that you're not well-traveled (no airline experience) or worldly, even in the lesser contexts (e.g., calming a drunkard). Wanna talk about Israel?

> This issue has nothing to do with
> the world wide Muslim population

Stamp your passport in Tel Aviv, fly 4,768 miles to Sepang, and tell us what happens when you meet the customs officer.

"and everything to do with a small local population of very angry people who happen to be Muslim and live in the Middle East."

Artemis, you're just trying to yank Crid's chain, right? Either that, or Crid is right in his opinion of you.

Artemis- Dave B secretly told me that he'll give you a dollar if you can respond in less than 120 words!

No lie!

(DB: Relax.)

Ah, Artemis! We've established that you you live in an institution; that while you have frequent and gentle social contact with people of some literacy, you personally carry no degree; that you've no employment history, and have certainly never hired anyone yourself; and that you're not well-traveled (no airline experience) or worldly, even in the lesser contexts (e.g., calming a drunkard).

I take it you have macros which generate variants of this insult.

I take it you have macros which generate variants of this insult.

Posted by: Art Deco at July 29, 2014 4:41 PM

Crid doesn't need a macro. Artemis/Orion has been on this board for a while.

I like to fuck with pretentious people. It's a bad habit in context like this… But people shouldn't get away with bullshit, even anonymously.

But, to answer your point, yes, I've configured a lot of neurology for BS identification. I grew up not-smart on a campus of brainiacs: I noticed that they often said bullshit things, and that half those in line for their Smart People candy had nothing going on anyway.

Sorry for the first comma. I HATE that.

But people shouldn't get away with bullshit, even anonymously.

Unless its Crid ofcourse

Also-

Both of Cousin's points at July 29, 2014 7:06 AM are spot-on, and deserve response.

For (1): Many small countries are allies, but as Kennedy noted, alliances are impermanent while interests aren't. Israel's conduct and a developing global context both allow us to recalibrate our affiliation without shame.

No one, not in the modern Western World or the uncharted Cosmos of Decency, is ever, EVER going to think of Islam as "the kool kidz," though I sincerely admire the sarcasm.

I think I've badgered you (CD) into watching the Barnett lectures. Robert Kaplan makes the point as well, as does Oren: Israel has far less claim to legitimacy than does its sworn enemy in Teheran. The Iranian plateau in an ancient center of civilization, and it's not going away. Eventually it will have a bomb, and we'll need to dealing with it in a straightforward and respectful way.

Re: (2)—

> A culture that treats Jews badly is a
> culture that you don't want to live in.

I like how Hitch put it, too: "A critical register of the general health of civilization is the status of 'the Jewish question'."

But Israel is not Judaism any more than Vatican Hill is Christianity. (And by the way, have you seen what's happening to Mecca? Cosh linked this tweet. It's interesting that the author of the column is a woman, because IIRC, she wouldn't be allowed to visit anyway.)

I share condo ownership with Jews, and we adore each other: they get no specials treats for their beliefs. To what degree must I honor their sanctimony overseas?

That part of the "mine" was known for its toxic vapors and sketchy caverns: Perhaps the victors of WWII had no business putting a canary in there.

Ah, this is a better link for the Mecca piece.

Maybe I was wrong. More later.

I like to fuck with pretentious people. It's a bad habit in context like this… But people shouldn't get away with bullshit, even anonymously.

"Bullshit" in this instance was 'artemis' statement of fact.

No. His/her tiny little list was inane... It's obvious that he/she'd never thought about it before, grabbed the first batch of stats he/she could find from the (paper) encyclopedia, and pretended they were relevant.

They weren't. My point wasn't that the proximity was the problem, but quite the opposite. Every child of five who'd fondled the globe on Granpa's desk would have known as much.

Here:

As usual in Saudi Arabia, women must travel together with a male guardian (Mahram), unless they are over 45, travelling with a group and have their guardian's signed consent.

"I've configured a lot of neurology for BS identification."

Ah yes... that whole BS of the simple math that the vast majority of the Muslim population of the earth does not in fact live in countries that boarder Israel.

You are the one putting forth BS arguments that assert that Israel is somehow "dictating" policy to the US regarding 1.6 billion Muslims.

That this assertion bares no resemblance to reality is of no concern to you and that I point this out to you using the actual facts is "BS".

Also, more regarding Cousin's (2) at July 29, 2014 7:06 AM:

> A culture that treats Jews badly is a
> culture that you don't want to live in.

Absolutely! But we don't want to live in them anyway. See Saudi Arabia, above: I don't want the women in my life to live in a place like that.

I want the ugly countries of the world, and we're talking about some HUGE populations, to get their shit together.

I don't want to ennoble them as Muslim populations, I want to ennoble them as HUMAN populations.

Do I need to ennoble Jews as Israeli before I've given them what they need? My favorite ones are all American, after all.

Dave B Says:

"Artemis, you're just trying to yank Crid's chain, right? Either that, or Crid is right in his opinion of you."

Do you honestly think there is anything to the claim Crid is making that Israel is trying to dictate US policy toward 1.6 billion Muslims across the globe???

That is the claim that I believe is utterly off the mark and has zero evidence to support it.

The conflict in the middle east is not between Israel and the Muslims of the world.

It is a conflict between Israel and it's neighbors who do not constitute a majority of the Muslims of the world... not even close as a matter of fact.

To suggest that the conflict in the middle east is between Israel and all Muslims world wide is to be ignorant or deceitful.

Art Says:

""Bullshit" in this instance was 'artemis' statement of fact."

You have hit the nail right on the head.

Crid is the only one peddling BS here when he says such inane things as:

"We should no more let tiny Israel dictate our response to the world's billion-point-six Muslims..."

Israel doesn't have issues with the vast majority of the 1.6 billion Muslims who live on earth.

They only have issues with the small fraction who happen to live next door.

That number only constitutes a tiny fraction of the 1.6 billion Muslims who exist.

That Crid is turning the Middle east conflict into a world wide Israel vs. All 1.6 billion Muslims is the only BS I see here.

> You are the one putting forth BS arguments
> that assert that Israel is somehow "dictating"
> policy to the US regarding 1.6 billion Muslims.

If (and when, as this week) any fraction of those 1.6 billion threaten Israel meaningfully, the Knesset's first calls are to the United States, and we're expected to worry for their borders as if they were are own. Well, I don't think we should pretend we're ready to defend them from Teheran. I don't think we should pretend we're ready to defend Taiwan from the mainland, either.

But I guess you think we should.

You didn't tell us about your flight to Malaysia. You did your homework, right?

Your last sentence is a run-on: Did you go to high school? High school would have taught you about sentence structure, contractions, punctuation, and not saying goofy things.

> Israel doesn't have issues with the vast
> majority of the 1.6 billion Muslims who
> live on earth.

So you DIDN'T take that airline flight....

Nor did you read the part about the UN resolutions, either.

Muffin, quibbling is not thinking.

Crid Says:

"If (and when, as this week) any fraction of those 1.6 billion threaten Israel meaningfully, the Knesset's first calls are to the United States, and we're expected to worry for their borders as if they were are own."

Are you confused with what the concept of "Ally" means?

It means that if your nation is threatened you contact your allies to inform them of the situation and discuss possible courses of action.

If Britain were to be credibly threatened by India or Pakistan or Iran, or any number of other countries they would probably contact their allies as well.

Have you ever had a friend in your life to know what it means to have loyalty to those who you have a history of trust and camaraderie?

The point isn't that the US and Israel are allies... the point is that Israel simply isn't enemies with the vast majority of the 1.6 billion Muslims exist on earth.

You are trying to paint a picture here that simply does not comport with reality.

The US has many allies across the globe... the expectation of allied nations is that they provide support for each other in times of trouble.

You must spend a great deal of your time being a fair weather friend... abandoning the people who thought you were their friend as soon as they hit hard times.

I'm not surprised this is your attitude considering your general behavior.

Crid Says:

"and not saying goofy things."

The only goofy thing that has been said so far is your claim that Israel is somehow dictating to the United States how to interact with the 1.6 billion Muslims who live across the planet.

Well, Sugarbutton, you know me...

"I think I've badgered you (CD) into watching the Barnett lectures. Robert Kaplan makes the point as well, as does Oren: Israel has far less claim to legitimacy than does its sworn enemy in Teheran. "

Actually I have not watched the Barnett lectures, but I'll make a point of it. As for historical claims: I'm at the point of saying screw history, when it comes to this. The situation is what it is today; Israel is there and the rest of the region needs to learn to cope. And the concept of "Palistinean" is a modern artifact anyway; basically they are people that Jordan kicked out. Having said all that, an accommodation would be possible if their culture wasn't one of murderous raving lunacy. (Even other Arab leaders will tell you in private that the Palis make them very nervous.)

(And I thought about the UN mandate argument... but I'll admit I'm not sure how much water that holds today. The only thing I could say is that the UN had more apparent legitimacy in 1948 than it does now.)

"But Israel is not Judaism any more than Vatican Hill is Christianity."

Point taken. I try not to view Israel as the "Jewish nation" but simply as an American ally and a nation that constructs itself in accord with Western values. Admittedly overlooking the Jewish nature is at odds with how Israel views itself.

"Eventually [Iran] will have a bomb, and we'll need to dealing with it in a straightforward and respectful way."

Indeed... having failed to intervene when we had the chance, we are now stuck with realpolitik. What form this actually takes is not clear to me at this point.

Amy Says:

"Islam -- in a Hadith, among other places -- calls for the death of the Jews."

Well... I guess that puts Israel in quite a pickle considering that it has over 1 million Muslim citizens.

What exactly is your point Amy?

Do you also believe that Israel is in a conflict with 1.6 billion Muslims world wide (including it's own citizens)... as opposed to being in a conflict with the 0.25% of the worlds Muslims who live in Gaza and the West Bank?

For you to argue that Israel has issues with every Muslim on the planet is for you to argue that Israel has problems with it's own citizens.

> Israel is there and the rest of the region
> needs to learn to cope.

Well, that's our topic... Apparently they don't. Neighbors aren't viewing Israeli life as a model.

Our policy toward Iran has been perfectly shabby, but I can't imagine anything called intervention that would have improved things.

the Knesset's first calls are to the United States,

And Secretary Kerry makes a nuisance of himself to no good end.

Israel receives a check from the United States government worth 1.2% of its gross domestic income, a check it could do without given a few years to make some fiscal adjustments. Presumably, the U.S. government shares some intelligence with it and Israel is not on the list of countries on which we have extended embargoes re technology transfer.

That's the extent of the dependence at this time. That places certain limits on BO's leverage because Congress is not likely to authorize actual aggression against Israel in the form of sanctions, &c.

Well, that's our topic... Apparently they don't. Neighbors aren't viewing Israeli life as a model.

More precisely, Israel is an embarrassment to it's neighbors. Its per capita domestic product exceeds that of each of its five neighboring jurisdictions by margins ranging from 2x to 15x. All attempts to dislodge it militarily have been failures and some have been ignominious failures. Contrary to expectations prevalent a generation ago, it's not likely to be over-run demographically by its neighbors as the salient metrics on fertility have nearly converged. In the last generation only a few states in the region have been gaining ground on Israel economically and these (Turkey and Tunisia among them) are not adjacent to Israel. All of this has been accomplished in spite of an international trade boycott organized by the Arab league, in spite of Israel's nearly complete lack of natural resources, and in spite of the quantum of resources Israel has had to spend on its military.

More later! You won't want to miss it!

Check this space!

Dood...

> That's the extent of the dependence at this time.

C'mon... DudeManBro... C'mere, ya little mook... [Noogies!] Don't kid a kidder.

God only knows how much support Israel gets from the United States. There's above-board private donations, private business dealing, and who-could-imagine what sort of tax-avoidant exchanges happening in secret. That's on top of the abject spy scandals.

The United States isn't merely a patron of Israel. 'Proxy' might be the wrong word, but it's impossible to imagine that the country could have survived all these decades without our intimate involvement, and not only from our own Jewish citizens, doing as they please with their own resources. If you had to guess without Googling (and there might be no sturdy numbers anyway): Which country, Mexico or Israel, would you suppose receives more remittances, in dollars and/or in parcel-count, from the United States?

It's not a strictly American project. But where resentment of Israel soaks into resentment of the United States, we can't be surprised.

> Israel is an embarrassment to it's neighbors.

Yes, and not only because (per the foregoing) they're a favored child: They have cultural patterns refined across millenia and continents to build lives of strength and decency and service to fellows.

This is a human nature thing. These vindictive neighbors are not going to absorb Jewish decency and discipline by proximity when resentment is so much less challenging a response.

Israel is being used, by the corrupt leadership of lesser nations, as a distraction for their own incompetence.

What does America want out of Israel? Is there any point at which a voter NOT concerned with flattering their supernatural fascinations could ask if our loyalty is to the people rather than their religious beliefs?

"Is there any point at which a voter NOT concerned with flattering their supernatural fascinations could ask if our loyalty is to the people rather than their religious beliefs?"

I think so.. a shared cultural heritage, and a common belief in the core values of Westernism (and particularly the American form of it). The question is whether you can view Israel as an ally worth defending if you put Judaism and Zionism aside. I think the answer is yes.

And Taiwan?

Competing examples are always at hand... Your principles will be tested.

This whole comparison with Taiwan is not useful for the following reason.

Israel actually has official ally status with the United States in the form of being established as a Major non-NATO ally for more than 20 years.

Taiwan does not have such official status as an ally with the United States.

One can certainly make ethical or moral arguments about the "right" thing to do in both instances.

However, there is nothing inherently bizarre about the United States being more invested in a nation it has a long established relationship as an ally with than one it does not.

It is the difference between how involved you would be willing to get in a physical altercation when one of your good friends is involved in the fight versus someone you know but aren't particularly close with.

You are obfuscating the realities of the situation by confusing politics with ethics.

Let's make sure we get one thing very straight... the US probably wouldn't be involved at all if not for the fact that the entire region is politically unstable yet rich in oil.

If Taiwan struck vast deposits of oil tomorrow you can bet the US would suddenly have an enhanced interest in getting involved in what was going on in their neck of the woods.

Needless to say, the analogy you are attempting to make has too many holes in it to be a useful point of comparison or to act as a litmus test for principles.

What if for example someones principles were simply to uphold long established strategic national partnerships?

"This whole comparison with Taiwan is not useful for the following reason.

Israel actually has official ally status with the United States in the form of being established as a Major non-NATO ally for more than 20 years.

Taiwan does not have such official status as an ally with the United States."

Always a formulistic answer to deep ethical and historical questions.

Right Artemis?

This is why people don't respect your viewpoint. You attempt to distinguish between interests and allies, based on technicalities, like whose agreement dotted the i's and crossed the T's correctly.

Not how the real world works.

Crid, don't know if you're still watching this thread, but...

I'll admit Taiwan is an anomaly, in a number of respects. Although Taiwan is a Western-style democracy now, it wasn't for much of the time that we've considered it to be in our corner. It's more of an example of a useful strategic alliance. Let's just say that we have certain, um, assets located there and have since the Cold War. So it's in our own interest to defend it. And there are some historical ties going back to WWII.

based on technicalities

To be fair life is technicalities. And moral equivocations

Isab,

How do you think politics and nations work?

It is all based upon treaties, alliances, technicalities, interests, etc...

Rarely if ever does the United States intercede in foreign affairs simply because it is the "right" thing to do.

That is unfortunately how the real word does work.

I'm not the one living in a fantasy land... you are if you believe that since the situation between Taiwan and China bares structural similarities to the goings on in the middle east means that the United States can or will handle these situations in an analogous way.

I am living in the real world where things like treaties, alliances, and political motivations have a significant impact upon how the US does business abroad.

If you want to have a discussion about morality and ethics I am open to that kind of discourse.

However, that conversation wouldn't be one of "real world" politics... it would be a hypothetical conversation about what we should be doing if the world was more ideal than it actually is.

Also... I forgot this point:

"This is why people don't respect your viewpoint."

Do you honestly lack the courage to speak for yourself?

Instead you have to somehow speak for some larger plurality that includes the likes of Crid?... please keep in mind that any group that includes the likes of Crid is probably not one you would want to be associated with.

Furthermore... I lost most of my respect for your point of view when you loudly and confidently claimed that climate scientists are wrong about global warming because plants increase CO2 concentration.

When I pointed out that your statement was factually incorrect... you admitted to being wrong but didn't budge a single millimeter with regard to your overarching perspective.

In other words... when presented with overwhelming evidence that you had your facts wrong... your opinion did not change at all.

The second I saw that I lost all respect for you.

See that... I can speak for myself and I don't need to pretend that I talk for a collection of other people to get my point across.

Please keep in mind that as much as you care about my opinion of you... I care even less about your opinion of me. It is really less than meaningless to me at this point because you have proven yourself to be someone who forms opinions without regard to factual information (Crid does the same thing by the way).

How do you think politics and nations work?

It is all based upon treaties, alliances, technicalities, interests, etc...

Rarely if ever does the United States intercede in foreign affairs simply because it is the "right" thing to do.

I think politics and strategic alliances are like icebergs. What you and I see is the tiny bit above the surface.

Underneath is a massive amount of known unknowns, and unknown unknowns,

The real corporation among nations is so hidden that you as a private citizen will never be privy to it.

And as someone who once had a top secret clearance, and worked with nuclear weapons, my belief in my own ability to actual know at what level Israel helps us with intelligence about the Middle East, or that Taiwan supplies us with info about communist China, or aids us in our dealings with other allies, and foes, is that I am not nieve enough to believe that I even know one tenth of a percent of what goes on.

You on the other hand make an incredibly bone headed statement like this:

"This whole comparison with Taiwan is not useful for the following reason.

"Israel actually has official ally status with the United States in the form of being established as a Major non-NATO ally for more than 20 years.

Taiwan does not have such official status as an ally with the United States."

Can you actually understand how superficial and a idiotic a statement like this is?

Statements like this, smack of reading some freshman level political science text somewhere, and swallowing it whole.

I think you need to read up on your World War II history to understand a little more about what our moral and ethical obligations might be to Taiwan, and the Nationalist Chinese.

Not saying they are perfect, just as with Israel, nothing should assume to be simple or cut and dried.

There is no black and white here,

Isab,

You've really taken to this whole method of argumentation where you present ZERO facts or evidence to back up what you are saying and instead make claims that are completely vacuous or unable to be verified.

I know it is easier that way... but it isn't actually a useful way to get to the heart of a problem.

For example:

"I think politics and strategic alliances are like icebergs. What you and I see is the tiny bit above the surface."

Great... an iceberg analogy where you assert we can't actually know anything with regard to this subject because it is all a series of hidden back door operations.

FIne... so your claim is that we can no nothing with regard to this subject, all of our knowledge is simply too limited.

Then you go on to say this:

"Underneath is a massive amount of known unknowns, and unknown unknowns,

The real corporation among nations is so hidden that you as a private citizen will never be privy to it."

OK... so now we are in tin foil hat land where it is all clandestine and hidden operations which no "private citizen" will ever be able to form a reasonable or informed opinion.

"And as someone who once had a top secret clearance"

Ah... but you are no mere "private citizen"... you know better... you've submerged yourself beneath that ocean and investigated the ice burg.

I've got news for you, top secret clearance isn't all that impressive.

Do you even realize how many people have or have had top secret authorization in the united states?

It simply isn't this impressive thing that you are asserting it to be and it is extremely limited in scope because while you may have had at some point "top secret" clearance to something, it doesn't imply that you had access to anything of import related to this specific set of situations.

It isn't as if top secret clearance suddenly opens up the totality of secret governemt files that you can peruse at your leisure.

"Can you actually understand how superficial and a idiotic a statement like this is?"

Really... so you don't think that Israels status as a Major Non-NATO Ally has any baring upon the politics of this situation as compared to a country like Taiwan?

"Not saying they are perfect, just as with Israel, nothing should assume to be simple or cut and dried.

There is no black and white here."

Of course nothing is cut and dry.

But you haven't actually said anything.

All you have said is that we can' know anything... that it is impossible for us to know anything... that it isn't cut and dry... and then claim that I am somehow "wrong" without actually providing one shred of concrete evidence to support your contention.

Keep in mind, if none of any of us can know anything with regard to this situation... then all of our opinions on this subject are just as devoid of a foundation.

Speculation by any party is unfounded if your statements are correct.

And yet I am the only one you are calling out for having an opinion on the subject because it happens to differ from the opinions of others here who would be in the same exact boat.

Simply put, you are trying to have it both ways.

You can't discount my perspective on this subject with the contention that none of use can know anything about this topic without casting all of the other perspectives put forth into question as well.

Keep in mind I have never made a statement about these issues being "black and white"... my statement has ONLY been that a reasonable person could draw a distinction between Israel and Taiwan on these grounds, therefore the comparison is not useful.

In other words... I was identifying a gray area, an area that wasn't as clear cut as Crid was making it out to be.

So basically I explain how things aren't quite so simple to someone else, and you decide to lecture me on how things aren't so simple.

Get a grip.

If I were dealing with normal and reasonable individuals I wouldn't have to correct this typo... but considering the type of people I am dealing with who enjoy ignoring content and instead criticizing typos in blog posts made in the middle of the night, here is a brief corrigendum to one of my sentences:

"Fine... so your claim is that we can know nothing with regard to this subject, all of our knowledge is simply too limited."

Isab,

One further thing I am curious about.

You started off in this discussion saying this:

"What I see is the potential beginnings of World War III. All courtesy of the clueless Obama administration."

Where was all of your nuance there?

Were was all this talk about layers upon layers of unknowns and unknown unknowns?

In other words... you blindly speculate about our current administration causing WW3 and that is all hunky dory.

I speculate that countries like Israel and Taiwan may be handled differently by the nation due to their differing official status as a national ally and you lose your shit and start going off about how none of use can actually know anything.

I'll take your more seriously when you sound less like a conspiracy nut case with the WW3 talk where you hold the current administration accountable for the goings on across the globe.

It seems to me you take great liberties speculating about things in a very unsophisticated fashion for someone who is suddenly so interested in nuance and things not being "black and white".

To you what isn't clear cut is the well defined ally status of Israel and Taiwan.

However it is apparently quite "black and white" to you who is to blame for all of the worlds current international problems... and lo and behold somehow it is all the fault of the Obama administration... as if the conflict in the middle east just appeared out of thin air within the last 5 or so years as opposed to it being a perpetual hotbed of conflict for as long as any of us are alive to remember.

Again, your opinion appears to be immune to little things like facts.

Artemis...

Just hold me.

> Taiwan is a Western-style democracy
> now, it wasn't for much of the time
> that we've considered it to be in
> our corner.

Who said it was?

I don't think American support of Israel —or perhaps as importantly, the support of Israel by so many Americans— happens because they're regarded as a cute knockoff. They certainly weren't put there for that purpose.

> Let's just say that we have certain, um,
> assets located there

…not sure what you're being coy about…

> and have since the Cold War. So it's in
> our own interest to defend it.

You'd start WWIII for a port? When Japan, Korea, and even Viet Freaking Nam are doing everything they can to accommodate our carriers?

> And there are some historical ties
> going back to WWII.

Well, we're into it or not, and you keep switching sides, even within the same comment.

To wit: How 'Merican is this?

Wait... Let me rephrase the question....

When China owns $1.3 Trillion dollars of American debt —and there's no finer bargain in the Cosmos— why should we pretend Taiwan is a precious bulwark of capitalism flowing torrent of yeller commiedom?

Against a flowing etc.

Okay, bedbugs

…And similarly (to Taiwan's withering as a capitalist bulwark), he said after breakfast, whatever exemplary utility Israel once held as democracy in its typically authoritarian neighborhood has been diminished by the broad swing of human culture in the decades since.

Before WWII, there were maybe a dozen countries that were democracies. Now there are more than a hundred which at least demand to be described that way, and almost as many proudly aspiring to capitalist wealth and security. Israel isn't any too remarkable that way.

No, the signal irony of her identity is her religious foundation. As decades come and go, that becomes ever more intolerably ironic for modern types (like Amy).