Redstate

I think many of her critics (like me) aren't saying they're unhappy with her in an advisory role. She's just proven unsuitable in a role placing her in charge of bureaucrats, of which the President is in charge, ultimately, of all.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

The problem is that Rice has tried to engineer a vast reform of the State Department, moving diplomats who would rather serve in Brussels to Quetta and Pnomh Penh. This produced huge pushback in a Department that was, to be honest, a huge resevoir of Democratic Party loyalists. This is actually the work of two-terms. I suspect, if the D's win, that her efforts will be undone by the next S.O.S..

Further, one of the critiques from the Right was the expectation of a Yezhov Purge of the Department once she got there, as if Rice was supposed to do a "thorough housecleaning" of Foggy Bottom. It was as if Rice was supposed to staff the Department with the likes of John Bolton and Alan Keyes, and Buffy from the Tarrant County Young Republicans. That's impossible to do with long service CS types. Rice understood this, and worked with what she had handed to her by Powell.

What conservatives don't understand is that ANY Bush appointee not specifically approved by the Democratic cloakroom was always going to have problems at State.
Powell got away with it because Democrats perceived him to be a "dissident", which he, in fact, was. Some conservatives like to indulge in John Bolton fantasies. This is nonsense. Someone like John Bolton would have never gotten out of Foreign Relations, much less been able to run the Department. But he has great book sales.

What Rice did not do, that Powell did all the time, was engage in hostile leaking against the White House. I've never understood the hostility of conservatives toward Rice, given the towering difficulties that were handed to her, and her insistence on carrying out the policies of the President. Least forgivable, in my eyes, was the conduct of conservatives after the 2006 Lebanon war, in which Rice deliberately stalled a ceasefire for three weeks to give the IDF chance after chance to make a lemon out of lemonade, and they just couldn't hack it because of poor leadership at the top. People like John Bolton, who know better, blamed her because they didn't want to blame the Olmert Government for its own towering incompetence.

Today's speech is a welcome refresher for those who forget that the role of the Secretary of State is diplomacy. It is the President's role to remind one and all of princple and the Mailed Fist.

Now, if only McCain will follow through. I have my doubts.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Tim Schieferecke

Cry me a river, Barack.
Cry me a river.
I hope John McCain says-"ditto to what Dubya said."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

David123

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

he just criticized appeasement, and Obama is howling like a stuck pig. Now, what does that tell you?

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

a terrorist appeaser. That's what.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

But I loved the anecdote about "an American Senator" in 1939. Which ever speech writer came up with that tidbit was brilliant.

Does anyone know the name of the dumbass Senator?

Not certain, but would guess Burton K. Wheeler

"If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one it hits will holler."

That dog got HIT.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Bush was absolutely right in what he said. The libs can't stand it. I was just making my weekly visit to the one lib blog I visit (because I am clearly a masochist or whatever). Anyway, they were all in an uproar over President S@*T for brains, as they so eloquently refer to him.
Oh by the way, Conservatism is dead in case you missed the memo.
MelZ

He just supports meeting and negotiating with them without any preconditions. Oh wait, that is a policy of appeasement and engaging with terrorists.

His bad!

*****
Unrepentant Black nationalist, Unapologetic Black conservative!

Ahmadinejad, Hamas, FARK etc aren't terrorists therefor he hasn't.

You merely need to look at it with the right "glasses" on.

the "Left" glasses?

N/T

he does have (had) a warm reltionship with Tom Coburn, who wants to arrest abortionist.

McCain '08

I literally laughed out loud at your post. If you could only bring along about another 15% cool black cats, we would DOMINATE the media talking points- you have a way with words good sir!!

"Small town folks get bitter after which they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment."

I was about to add more than my simple "Thanks!" but my language was so pedestrian that I was sure you'd say, "Zoot, you no longer have a way with words."

*****
Unrepentant Black nationalist, Unapologetic Black conservative!

While I am all but certain that the bit about the American senator in 1939 was an indirect slap in Obama's smug little face, this response by him shows that he is aware of his soft, weak underbelly when it comes to foreign policy.

Of course, in his twisted liberal mind, Hamas, Iran and the like aren't "terrorists". They are just downtrodden folks trying to get along as best they can...

Now we're going to find out how good a candidate McCain is.

I'm not so sure, seeing that he appears to have mailed in his speech today. None of this works unless McCain follows through and is relentless in his attack.

Of course, McCain could go for the "New Tone", and completely blow it, which is what I expect him to do.

Putz.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

McCain actually LIT INTO Obama this afternoon. He is not a putz- he may be a lot of things, but that is not one of them. He is going to pleasantly surprise us how much he goes after Obama on his insane positions..

"Small town folks get bitter after which they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment."

When/where did McCain light into BHO? Been at my desk all day, would love a link or at least a little info?
MelZ

Obama's defense boils down to, "That's not true, how dare you attack me!" This is a statement, not a defense.

Of course, this is the essence of Obama, nothing that looks like something. I would call it smoke and mirrors, but there aren't any mirrors. It is just smoke.

Obama said he would not negotiate with Hamas (though one has to assume that, like Reverend Wright, Obama had no idea what Robert Malley was doing either).

However, Bush said "terrorists and radicals," an obvious allusion to Obama's willingness to negotiate with Iran as well.

That's a more debatable point.

In 1956, Soviet premier Khrushchev told assembled Western ambassadors, "We will bury you!" But we negotiated with the USSR for the better part of 40 years. Even Reagan, who denounced the USSR as an "evil empire," negotiated arms-control agreements with the USSR.

Having said that, it was always U.S. policy (except maybe under Jimmy Carter) to negotiate from a position of relative strength. We didn't want "negotiations" to be nothing but a thinly disguised American surrender.

The problem with negotiating with Iran is not that it's tantamount to appeasement (that's just silly). The problem with negotiating with Iran is that, thanks to Bush's Iraq misadventure and America's continuing insatiable thirst for oil, the U.S. is in a pretty weak bargaining position vis-a-vis the Iranians. Bush didn't mention those points, because it wouldn't reflect well on the strategic thinking (or dismal lack thereof) underlying his Administration.

Reportedly, Ahmedinijad's own Oil Ministry advisers have told him that a U.S. military strike on Iran that crippled their oil production or distribution facilities would send world oil prices soaring to $300 per barrel or more. And that is why Ahmedinijad regards the U.S. as a paper tiger.

Under the current circumstances, negotiating with Iran could not be undertaken on any terms other than surrender.

Reagan made sure to have a massive military modernization program under way before negotiating with the USSR. Bush did not bother to have a massive energy independence program under way. If Obama had a massive energy independence program under way, then he could actually negotiate with Iran on some basis other than surrender. Otherwise not.

BTW, one more point: Negotiating with Hitler would have worked just fine, if there had been real strategic thinking, real force, and a real willingness to use it, behind those negotiations. The problem was not negotiation. The problem was not having the will to force a good bargain. A coalition consisting of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Russia and France would have totally contained Hitler and prevented World War II. But the West didn't want to make an alliance with the USSR till it was too late; and the West was too afraid of war--even an easy war, even any war--to not throw Czechoslovakia under the bus.

The problem for Chamberlain and Daladier wasn't negotiation. The problem was that the option of military action had been arbitrarily taken off the table. Which is what Obama seems to be promising too.

Negotiation with powers like the USSR or Iran works when you walk up to the negotiation table with a fully loaded gun. And the guy across the table from you knows that you will use it.

the war. They agreed to split Poland in half as part of their cooperation.

You're "if only" negotiation fantasy has no merit.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Your statement should be "the USSR was cynically on Hitler's side early in the war." Allying with Hitler bought Stalin two more years to rebuild his army after having purged it in the political terror of the '30s.

Negotiations with Hitler were bound to fail in any case. If the west had had a credible threat to bring to the table in the first place, there would have been no need for negotiations. Negotiations with the USSR were not conducted on parity; they were conducted to explain to the Soviets where the line was beyond which, if they crossed it, we would unleash our power. That is the real thrust behind negotiating from strength: both power and will. We did not address Hitler that way, and he knew it aforehand.

He wanted Poland and a good part of Eastern Europe under his control. He had public negotiations with the West and made demands that he knew we would not accept (conceding him several countries). At the same time he was using this public negotiation as leverage in secret talks with Hitler to get HIM to concede those countries.

I suspect that neither Hitler nor Stalin had any intention to keep whatever agreement that was reached. Hitler broke it first, but I doubt Stalin would have hesitated to break it if he thought he had the advantage. But this just proves that negotiations with dishonorable people will only get you temporary relief if any and I agree it only gave Hitler and Stalin more time to build their armies.

The point is sinz's little fantasy of how negotiations could have worked on Hitler is just not realistic and not supported by facts.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

_____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

1) Britain was broke from WWI and didn't not have an effective military option. By the time Munich came, the British could not do any militarily.

2) The Conservative Party (which Chamberlain was the leader) felt they could "work" with Hitler because they wanted to use Germany as a shield against Stalin and Russia. They saw Communism as a bigger threat than Nazi's. And they had a point - communist terrorists were organizing all over Europe.

3) This example has almost nothing to do with today's situation.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

I am taking Obama and his hacks literally at their word –

He does not support “engagement” with terrorists, which means he has no intentions in betrothal to any terrorists. I guess Obama just intends to live with them without the benefit of marriage.
I hope Michelle is proud.

Now he has advocated sitting down so that we can better understand their position. Obama also wants to increase foreign aid to the terrorist havens in hopes that a better educated terrorist will be more manageable.

M Penny

That begs the all-important question. Does Obama oppose gay terrorist marriage?

If a main argument against gay marriage is that marriage is intended for procreation and perpetuation of the species...then wouldn't you want gay terrorist marriage?

hit two libs with one speech!!

Except he might wanna cut that number in half, in regards to the terrorist appeasement traitors on the other side of the aisle, but hell, who needs numbers, they aren't real Americans anyway. Either way there was no better man on hitting our enemies in the mouth and killing some terrorists. No wonder Hamas is praying for Obama.

The trouble with our friend John McCain isn't that he's ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn't so.

"We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman, and child. So we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal, and peaceful life, just like the citizens of *every other nation*."

Got that, Hamas?

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

whoever wrote that speech.

absentee
Also Find Me Here.

this speech looks like it could have just as likely been delivered by Senator McCain.

[And whoever the speech writer was should be hired by the McCain camp.]

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Barack who?

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

b*tch-slap. Heh.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Evil cannot perceive evil; darkness cannot recognize darkness. That's why we need light to recognize darkness...Else it's just more of the blind leading the blind.

The left and the MSM are not an exception to this law of human nature; rather they are exemplars.

And Rightly So!

absentee
Also Find Me Here.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Notice how the ISRAELI PARLIAMENT and Elie Wiesel were CLAPPING when President Bush finished that sentence?

Are they in on the "cast political aspersions on poor defenseless Obama" also?!

"Small town folks get bitter after which they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment."

emphasis here for now. Let it play out for a day or so, and then when the press comes calling for a statement, give them the same one the WH Press Secretary gave.

___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!

So did Lieberman. Looks like this was a coordinated attack after all.

Good God, could there be life in the McCain Campaign yet?

Olbermann's reaction tonight should be a video for the Ages.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

You have stated more than once that McCain would cave and defend Obama. Instead, he unloaded with both barrels to the point that the libs are whining about how unfair McCain is. Please admit you were maligning the guy unfairly..

"Small town folks get bitter after which they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment."

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

n/t

That doesn't really explain Israelites position then. Are they just plain crazy to want to talk with Hamas?

The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds..unbelievable -Brennan Manning

The problem with Iran is that it's leadership has declared eliminationist aims toward a longstanding American ally and is, at the same time, pursuing atomic weapons and the means to deliver them.

The Democratic argument is that we haven't pursued any negotiations with the Iranians. That is not true. We have pursued backchannel negotiations with the Iranians since 2000. The heart of the Democratic argument, which is left unsaid, is that we haven't made enough concessions to the Iranian Theocrats. This is absurd. Iran's regime is Fascist and Expansionist. They are not that way because of something we did to them.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

That's a good point about the back-channel negotiations. They have been occurring, and it makes Bush's statement somewhat odd - since on the face of it, he's saying that all negotiations are appeasement. Which I assume he didn't literally mean, since this back-channel talk has been going on.

I think you're right too about the implicit Democratic argument being a variant of "not enough concessions". But I'm not sure I buy the idea that Iran is expansionist. It seems to me more like they are acting as any country is supposed to - securing their own existence through whatever means possible (building nuclear weapons, establishing allies, etc.). That doesn't mean they're expansionist though, as I (personally) haven't heard any rhetoric from them or anyone else about expanding their territory. So the comparison to Nazism falls apart there (considering Germany had a long history of expansionism prior to 1939). It seems to me like Iran is just (rationally, from their perspective) trying to gain a better power position.

If that's the case though, then their power can also be increased through various incentives that we and the world community can offer them in lieu of military power. I'm not saying it will work, but it's an option. And to my knowledge (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), the negotiations I've heard about with Iran have largely been threats and sanctions, and not incentives. To put it simply, the carrot and the stick work best together.

While Iran might not necessarily be expansionist, they're looking to spread their influence. They supress their people, won't recognize Israel, and have been partially to blame for some of the attacks on our soldiers within Iraq. What's there negotiate? We don't give in, in hopes of receiving something in return. Doesn't work that way, never has.

Want incentives? Join the rest of the world by acting accordingly.

"We don't give in, in hopes of receiving something in return. Doesn't work that way, never has."

You're absolutely right, but this isn't what negotiations are about. Negotiations are about giving up something in return for something. We don't offer incentives just for fun; we offer them only if they agree to stop certain actions.

"Want incentives? Join the rest of the world by acting accordingly."

The problem with this is that countries like Russia and China are more than willing to get mutual benefits with Iran regardless of whether they act according to international norms. If we want them to change their behavior, we have to do more than threaten and push them into the arms of rising powers.

We offered the same to North Korea. What have we received yet? Agreements so often turn into lies. We'll do what we've always done and hold our ground. When they're ready to talk, we'll be ready but they haven't made an effort. What we don't need to do is lie to ourselves that we can somehow entice them by offering them a piece of candy. Again it doesn't work that way.

I'll admit that I haven't followed the North Korea situation too closely, but I thought there had been some definite progress made there? Haven't they stopped their nuclear weapons program? Correct me if I'm wrong, by all means.

Quite frankly, once the Chia Pet got past the embarrassment of being caught in the middle of the Syrian Desert trying to build a processing plant for the Iranians, he decided to proceed.

Too many Conservatives have jumped to conclusions about these talks. They did close down Pyongbyon. However, the North Koreans got caught with their pants down by the Israelis and there was a lot of wounded pride and criminal activity that had to be brushed under the rug. They only recently released a declaration about their atomic program.

It's a dying regime. Someone will put 9 grams in the back of Kim's head within the next 5 years, probably on orders from Beijing. The guy is a huge pain in the a$$ and he's costing a lot of people a lot of money. Once the Chinese decide they can make more money off a united, neutralist Korean peninsula, Kim Jong Il will end up like Sonny Corleone trying to go through the New Jersey Turnpike tollbooth.

Remember what happened to Moe Green at the end of Godfather, Part I? That's Kim Jong Il. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

...have always been about two things, Iraq and their nuclear weapons program. Once we get past that, then we can talk about normalization. Democrats assert, wrongly, that Bush hasn't been negotiating at all. Republicans assert, rightly, that we have been negotiating, and these guys still want to send the Jews to the Ovens.

Iran isn't expansionist in the territorial sense, but one of the reasons a regional power like Iran builds the atomic bomb is to attain regional hegemony. It's shortsighted as hell, but there you have it. Hegemony is like empire without the borders. Their objective is rather simple: make the Iranian Embassy the most important building in any Arab Capitol. They see atomic weapons as a shortcut to that ambition. Hitler was just foolish enough to start his conquests too early, before he had atomic weapons.

Your assumption is that we have only been threatening them. You could not be more wrong. We have offered them all sorts of incentives. Rice's diplomacy has been all about incentives. A cursory check of Google could confirm this. However, the Iranians have other plans and have continued their arms buildup and their atomic weapons program. They have also continued their eliminationist rhetoric against Israel, most recently on the Anniversary of the founding of the State. Iran has spurned the offers of the EU-3, the US, and Russia for one reasons: it wants a weapon. Further, they have been smuggling weapons into Iraq to kill American soldiers. Lastly, they have fielded a brigade of troops into Lebanon to stir the pot there and prepare for another Missile War in the Levant.

It's not as if the Iranians have displayed peaceful intent. Barack Obama shows no sign of understanding this.

This is simple stuff. There's no reason to blame the U.S..

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

I agree with much of your analysis, and it's probably the best reply I've gotten on here. I do think Iran has regional hegemony in mind, but the big problem with that goal is that Israel is there. Two large military powers with nuclear weapons tend to be more stable (see the Cold War for the obvious example), than a multipolar system that seems to dominate the Middle East right now. So that could be an inadvertent benefit of Iran having nuclear weapons. No one would be willing to attack each other for fear of reprisal, and so countries would instead focus on economic power. That being said, Israel (obviously hoping to retain their power position) wants to deny Iran the possibility of nuclear weapons, and I think everyone outside of Shiite Islam can agree that's a good idea. I don't buy arguments that Iranian leadership is crazy or suicidal because everything they do makes more sense in terms of straightforward power politics. Rhetoric is merely hiding their political positioning.

I do think you're right to say "Iran has spurned the offers of the EU-3, the US, and Russia for one reasons: it wants a weapon." Our goal should be to stop this from occurring, but I don't agree with those who think that overwhelming force will work. We can certainly destroy Iran (or their capabilities) easily, but not without huge unintended consequences backfiring on us. So there has to be some fine line between aggression and negotiation that doesn't leave the US worse off.

Anyways, to be clear, I'm not blaming the US for these problems. I think they are an important player in this situation, but they're working with forces outside of their control.

and I absolutely agree with you that there must be lines of communication and that it's absurd not to negotiate with despots, bad people, etc. The question lies in whether the leadership in Iran is suicidal/crazy/extremist or not. Although I'm not of the opinion that the leadership in Iran is crazy, one must at least take into consideration the idea that they at least susceptible to the influence of extremists, considering that they are a self-proclaimed extremist theocracy dedicated to reestablishing the Caliphate and wiping out Israel.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are. After all, while Saudi Arabia's domestic policy is very much influenced by Wahabism (the variant of Islam followed by al-Qaeda), they tend to be very pragmatic when it comes to foreign policy. So for me, that's really the main issue: exactly how entrenched the extremists are, and how willing Iran's leadership is to listen to reason.

Your typical Spartan warrior clinging to spears and gods:

I think the unique situation in Iran certainly makes it seem as though hardline religious extremists might be suicidally running the show, but from their actions I don't think this is the case. It seems as though the Iranian leadership is much more concerned with retaining power domestically and developing their power abroad. Even the Supreme Ayatollah has political battles with Ahmadinejad, as each struggles to get a little more power from the other. They are much more concerned about mundane things like power than they are with bringing about some religious apocalypse. (Undoubtedly, there are some elements in Iran who want this, but as with anywhere, I think they are in a very small minority. Iran's civil society is relatively modernized in many aspects, and doesn't widely hold to such fundamentalist views.)

leader that are the problem. MembersOnlyJacket-ijad is a figurehead. Iran has ONE refinery. Their economy is a basket case. They are surrounded on three sides by the greatest military in the world, a nation they have waged war against since 1979.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

There is no ethical compromise possible.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I'll make the same point I made above - if this is true, then are most Israelites crazy?

It seems to me that the sort of rigid divides we have here in America are much less clear on the ground in Israel. Which leads us to believe (falsely) it's an all or nothing situation.

There is no ethical compromise possible.

I can keep repeating this until it sinks in.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

That doesn't really answer my question though...

Are you suggesting 2/3 of Israel is crazy to want to talk with people who rigidly want to kill them?

It's simple.

The human mind can only take so much. People are desparate for the fighting to end.

Its not rational to walk into a gas chamber either, but most did.

Don't get me wrong, I am not criticizing the victim. I am saying you do not know what it is like to be bullied on a scale that the Israelis do.

People are hoping beyong hope for an end to the fighting---at least on the Israeli side.

Compare Israeli TV with Palestinian TV and you will learn all you need to know.

I can quote all sorts of polls. Doesn't mean the answers have a tremendouns amount of meaning.

Most polls in Western Europe were against the installation of Pershing II cruise missiles in the 80s. Those folks were flat out wrong too.

It does not matter how much it costs in American "treasure" and American lives, we must do whatever it takes to protect and support Israel. There is no cost too high, no number of American lives too many in this cause.

Really? There has to be some sort of conditions, even if they are debatable. I mean we wouldn't risk plunging our economy into a depression, ruining out military, and causing the general downfall of America to save another country, right? Even if it's an extremely close ally like Israel. I mean if you're right that we should give unconditional support to Israel, it would be unprecedented in history that one country would sacrifice itself for another.

Fatah wants to push the Jews into the Sea.

They're the Moderate Palestinians.

Light the Ovens vs. Jews into the Sea

As I always have said, there's a wide range of opinion among the Palestinians.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

Re:

I mean take the Israel/Palestine situation - nearly 2/3 of Israelites believe Israel should talk with Hamas. Are they somehow terrorist appeasers? Or do they realize that diplomacy can actually solve some things?

Why are they and I wrong then? It's a serious question, and I'm certainly willing to change my position. But I need some actual reasons why, besides just statements that I'm wrong.

And I do tend to believe that the people actually in the situation are more likely to have an idea of what will and won't work. Hence, it's important to take into account what Israelites themselves say.

:ka-click: Next post, Sparky. And don't even think about weaseling out of this one.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

The "Palestinians" have proven time and time again that they care more about erasing Israel than they do building any kind of state.

Nobody called himself a Palestinian before 1945.

people who hate you and want you dead. It is actually quite fun to do so. The key is that you negotiate with them in the certain knowledge that they cannot satisfy that want or act on that hatred. People who are sitting there fuming in impotent rage don't usually negotiate very effectively. Now it is an open question as to whether you SHOULD negotiate, but the mantra that you can't is simply a canard.

In Vino Veritas

n/t

It seems that what the GOP needs is a Republican Bill Clinton (with better morals) ....dingo

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Speciallist, these sorts of simple talking points don't lead anywhere. It's not an argument, and it just reiterates what you believe, without taking into account other arguments.

Politics has way too much of these slogans (on the left and the right), and I think we could really use actual arguments in order to figure out the best way forward for our country.

This is understandable.

We in the West believe in negotiation short of war to solve disputes. It's the Western Way. World War II occurred because the Germans and the Japanese understood this weakness among Western Statesmen. As Mr. Churchill remarked after Munich:

"The Western Democracies had a choice between dishonor and war. They chose dishonor. They will have war."

Understand something; quite unlike most of the people here, I believe the Israelis should quit the West Bank and Gaza, hunker down behind a physical wall and several hundred artillery pieces, and leave the Pallies to their own worst instincts. The Hamas radicals frankly want the Settlements to continue. To them, it "keeps the egg scrambled" and keeps the onus on Israel. I believe that in the long run, if Israel stays in the West Bank and tries to reassert control in Gaza, she will lose the demographic war for her existence and cease to be a Jewish State.

But make no mistake; the Palestinian wish-dream is for the physical extermination of the Jews. You can't conceive of that because you are a Westerner, so you have no frame of reference for that kind of genocidal thinking. But it is there, nonetheless.

You can't really negotiate with these people. You can only dictate the terms of their independence from a position of overwhelming strength.

The news of the Final Solution was kept from the bulk of the Allied Armies for one reason-most of the Allied Leaders believed that people wouldn't believe such awful propaganda. It is because you don't believe that, say, the Persian Leader is capable of Genocide that Genocide is possible. No one believed what Hitler was going on about in Mein Kampf until the first paratroopers from the 101st ran into Dachau and Bergen-Belsen.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

danger were the least willing to confront the truth.

If your car brakes down in the middle of the road at midnight, are you the most objective commentator of the situation?

You need to open your eyes. This cultural and moral equivalence thing is impeding your logic.

I have given you plenty of arguments why they are wrong. You keep asking, how could they be wrong, they are closer to the problem than I am.

Distance can bring objectivity.

...breathing down their necks.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

So Israelis are willing to risk their self-preservation because the American Left has been pressuring them to? That doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe you could explain how they are doing this, because it seems pretty far-fetched to me.

of people to deceive themselves. Americans and Israelis are no exception to that rule.

Second, there clearly are politicians in Israel who try to triangulate in a way to get more international support, including support from the US.

You think American politicians are the only people who pander?

Those are good points, and thank you for actually debating, rather than reciting talking points.

It's true that people can and often do deceive themselves, but the overwhelming support really strikes me as something that can't simply be put down to mass deception.

Secondly, the aim to gain more American support would seem to make Israelis lead more towards the aggressive position. With a neoconservative in office, it seems that ratcheting up anger towards common enemies would be the best bet (as is done with Iran). But, and again this is what I find so odd, Israel is opposite of the common opinion in America when it comes to Hamas. So I don't think the stats can be attributed to your second point either.

the US would have supported a tough stance with Hitler?

Few,

History is filled with wishful thinking resulting in a weak posture that actually encourages the most negative of outcomes.

Nobody wants to confront tough problems.

Certainly we should learn from history, but to say that every conflict situation is like Europe in 1939 is to completely overlook the facts. I'm not saying the comparison can't be made on some level, but saying that we were wrong in 1939 so we must be wrong every other time we want to talk with enemies is much too general. There are important differences and these need to be taken into account.

become more similar.

....American lefties have vis-a-vis wanting to negotiate with/understand the people who want to kill us all.

Have you ever met a terrorist? I've met several. Written about some, killed others (sorry if that's a bit crude on a Thursday afternoon).

Have you studied terrorists and terrorism -- particularly those who specifically target civilians, agitate for the extermination of an entire race, and kill themselves to accomplish their ends (like those surrounding Israel)? I have.

I disagree with President Bush on more issues and actions than I can quickly count. However, he could not have been more correct -- COULD NOT have been more correct -- in a statement he ever made, than he was here:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. ... We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Period. Learn from reality, and learn from history.

Those who do, don't end up in these naive, senseless, massively destructive cycles that the Left -- both in the U.S. and in Israel -- seek to perpetuate ad infinitum.

took a few minutes to think about what Bush said.

For some reason, I doubt it.

...but on a State Visit like this, she had a hand in writing the speech.

Presidential Addresses are State Documents that are vetted six ways from Sunday through several different Divisions.

She has to have a ready response when she sits down in front of Foreign Relations next time and Biden is sitting there, purple with rage, audtioning for a job in a Barack Administration.

None of this was a surprise to her. I wouldn't be surprised if she believed that Barack's softness on Iran was leading to a harder line in Geneva, as the Iranians decided to wait out the Administration and start throwing more EFP's at our troops to stage a 'mini-Tet". Believe me, she can't be happy with Barack's freelancing on Iran. It's undermined everything she's tried to do. There's literally no incentive for the Iranians to strike a deal now while there's a good possibility that some Nancy-Boy might get elected that they can roll like a New Guy and send away from Tehran with his underwear and an imitation Persian Rug.

One of the great myths on this and other Conservative Boards is that Rice doesn't understand just how screwed up the Palestinians actually are. People forget that as a diplomat, she has to deal with both sides, plus the rest of an Arab World that believes that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion weren't fakes. Plus she has to keep the Arabs on "our" side of the whole "Iraq vs. Persia" equation as we wrap up the Iraq war.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

Jeff, you're clearly an intelligent guy, and I like to think I am too. So I think we can agree that appeals to your authority aren't going to sway me.

An appeal to the evidence in history is much more persuasive. I think you probably have a better knowledge of world history than I do, but I'm certain there are many times when talking with enemies has averted painful and unnecessary wars. So judging from the historical record, it's not clear either way, whether negotiating is useful.

I take one issue with Bush's statement above and that's his characterization of negotiation as trying to argue that another country is wrong. If that were the case, nothing would ever get negotiated. But agreements do come about because sides who don't agree with each other can still reach a situation where each mutually benefits. This is what I think should be tried in the current case with Iran (and what I think most Israelis want to try with Hamas).

Let's take this here, then.

if there is actually an accommodation that could please both parties.

You can't negotiate with someone who is dedicated to bringing about your death. You underestimate the motivation of Iran, Hamas, and Islamo-Fascism gnerally.

Try negotiating with a your would be executioner? Try it sometime. It never works.

Negotiating life or death with Iran is not like negotiating farm subsidies with France.

"...AT ALL, YOU MISERABLE SOB!" Then we could have gone on from there with a discussion of why it's impossible to negotiate with someone who wants to include conditions and expectations that are literally intolerable. Put more succinctly: that previous was a test of your depravity level.

Alas, you flunked.

Blam.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

My apologies Moe, I misread your message and thought it was referring me to your next comment. It should be obvious, but of course I don't want any Jewish people to die. That's a major reason why I think negotiating is so important, because ratcheting up antagonism hasn't done any good yet.

I'm not sure if my other account was blocked because of not replying to your comment, but I'd appreciate it if this account didn't get blocked. I enjoy debating these issues, and oftentimes Redstate provides me with really interesting perspectives on my own positions. I try my best to keep the debate civilized too!

But I will be merciful, this one time.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Thanks Moe, I do sincerely appreciate it.

Like I said, I have my opinions on matters, but what I really enjoy about Redstate debating is that (in the best cases) I can put forth my arguments and see how they stand up.

I have a random question, what does :ka-click: refer to?

Also, if you write something of the form :A:B:C: does that mean that :B: is a stage direction nested inside a larger one including A and C, or is :A: one, :C: another, and B is just what you're saying?

After lurking much and joining in the conversation occasionally over the past six months as various stages of political fatigue allow, I believe that :ka-click: is the sound of a shotgun being cocked where the intruder is warned to be more polite

"...unless you correct whatever you're doing now."

And before you say: yes, it's somewhat silly. Then again, so are most forms of trolling - and God knows that there's a certain class of Internet commenters that purely hate it when people don't take them seriously. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

You seem like a decent person, without a clue as to how bad it is out there in the non-Western world.

You can't negotiate with someone dedicated to your destruction. All you accomplish is to embolden the attacks and accelerate the threat.

Go to memri.org, and watch "Palestinian" tv clips for a couple of hours.

You will vomit at what you see.

You're right, I regrettably haven't lived outside the Western world. Undoubtedly this has placed some biases in me, and I try to be aware of them.

To be clear, I think Hamas and Iran have both done some terrible things and are presently dominated by people who want to do more terrible things. But I also believe that political actors can change over time, and that with the right approach we can coerce them into becoming more moderate. Just threats and sanctions isn't going to do it though, because it causes a similar backlash in those communities as when Ahmadinejad says some crazy statement to us. We rightfully despise him for it, but we have to be aware of how our actions can radicalize other countries too.

And despite my lack of experience in the non-Western world, Israelites still want to talk with Hamas. Which I've now repeated a million times (!), but I think it should really cause us to stop and ask why they would want to, and whether our approach is really ideal. Or maybe our own approach is biased in the same way that I am about the non-Western world - both are predicated on a lack of intimate knowledge of the ground situation.

they are wrong...they will just kill them after they kill those who did not capitulate!

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

instead of being the reason for their reason for their very existence.

Hamas exists to destroy Israel, that is their Charter (constitution).

The government in Iran is an Islamic Theocracy, it is the reason for their existence.

The "terrible things" that they do are not some type of accidental, coincidental, or ancillary attribute. They exist to subjucate or kill us. PERIOD. If Hamas stops trying to destroy Israel, it ceases to be Hamas. If Iran recognizes the minority rights of non-Muslims, it ceases to be an Islamic Theocracy.

This should be contrasted with more convention adversaries. The reason for North Koreas existence is not to kill Americans, South Koreans, or anyone else in particuar. Don't get be wrong, North Korea is a hell hole, but if we negotiate from a position of strengh, there can be some benefits to dealing with N. Korea.

Some Isrealis want to talk to Hamas. Some Americans thought Reagan was going to provoke war with the Soviets by putting Purshing II missiles in Europe.

People are capable of deceiving themselves. Some people don't get evil. They really haven't encountered it in the systemic way that it exists in groups like Hamas or Hezbollah.

Go to www.memri.org and just watch TV clips. See what they teach their kids and then get back to us.

Jews....I would say not very well. The time has come for them to light up that hellhole known as Gaza and end this travesty once and for all...good God man this has been going on for this round 60 freakin years...enough is enough...Hamas and Hezbollah know nothing about negotiating other than to get a reprieve to rearm...they are pure evil....they use women and children to hide behind while they blow themselves and others up...they have no soul...you cannot appease that kind of insanity you must KILL it.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

you will kill thousands of innocents because, as you state, the killers hide behind women and children. It will be very difficult to "kill" your way to a solution in the ME. The terrorists have the will but not the means and Israel has the means and not the will (thank God). In the end, this will have to be a negotiated settlement. The Palestinians will have to shun the murderers among them and elect a government that really has their best interests in mind. Unfortunately, Hammas is now the government so Israel and the US have no choice but to talk to them. Talking to them does not mean that we give up or concede anything.

innocents regardless...and before Hamas was the government the PA was the government and the same old crap was happening...and oh yeah there is a choice...and I gave you mine...60 years of hell for any Jew in that country and everybody is supposed to "talk" give me a break. 60 years of talk and war has gotten no where..again that hate will won't be satiated it must be killed....you don't like that and I understand that but that is the fact.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

You would like Israel to launch a counter-attack and lay waste to Gaza and perhaps even the West Bank in an effort to destroy the terrorists? That's certainly an option though I doubt the Israeli citizenry, the world community or the US would support such a move.

I certainly don't have the answers. I wish I did. However, in the end, I am convinced that the solution will come about once both sides sit down and talk. The Palestinians seem to be very far away from being reasonable negotiating partners. They must, as most have written here, agree to at least a couple of pre-conditions before serious negotiations can even begin:

1. Agree that Israel has a right to exist as an independent Jewish state (that means no right of return as defined by the Palestinians)

2. They must lay down their arms and repudiate terrorism

Beyond that, everything else should be negotiable, including:

1. Final borders
2. Division of Jerusalem so that each side can place their capital there.
3. Israeli compensation payments to those families that can prove that they were dispaced when Isreal was founded.

Perhaps I'm an optimist but even the IRA and Northern Irish terrorist came together to negotiate peace. Both sides finally agreed to lay down their arms in order to come to a peaceful solution. We are a long way away from that in the ME unfortunately.

I don't think approaches like this are very useful. They can stir emotions, which can be important, but as a practical strategy, calling for the destruction of a country puts us on the same immoral level as Iran. We're better than that, and if that requires us to get hurt by taking the high road, I think it's worth it. Beyond the ethical rationale though, the consequences of such an action would be profound. We would basically send the entire Arabic world into the arms of China and Russia, and throw away key resources for a (in terms of numbers) relatively small conflict.

n/t

It seems that what the GOP needs is a Republican Bill Clinton (with better morals) ....dingo

Could you explain how it's weak?

They (non-western world) call for the destruction of us (Western world), we still need to dialogue and try to negotiate.

We call for their defeat, and we are being inflammatory?

It is readily clear that you have never lived outside the protective confines of the West---where they system protects the right of individuals to have all to many self-destructive illusions

No, I think both are being inflammatory and both are wrong. On a purely ethical level, we should take the high road. This doesn't mean we can't use force when appropriate, but it means we shouldn't threaten to destroy entire countries. It's wrong no matter who does it, and just because our enemies do it doesn't make it OK for us to do it. I readily agree that it will hinder us, but it's my ethical belief that that's required to be an ethically good country. Good countries, like good people, must sacrifice sometimes in life.

n/t

It's not just a matter of being ethical, and it's certainly not about being innocent. It's about setting a standard which we can legitimately use to coerce other countries into doing the right things too. (Do you not think our claims to spread democracy are laughed at in the Arabic world, because we won't talk with elected representatives like Hamas?) It's about not destroying innocent lives in Palestine for the sake of a (in terms of numbers) relatively minor conflict. It's about not inflaming the Arab world through such a conflict, and turning them towards our real rising and potential enemies - Russian and China. We SHOULD take an ethical stance because we ARE better than our enemies, but there's also good economic and political reasons to not do such actions anyways.

1. Israel is a democracy
2. The democratically elected government REFUSES to speak with Hamas.
3. If 2/3 of Israelis were demanding talks with the terrorist group- how is it possible that the more RIGHT WING political party (Likud) is about to take over the government?!!

Only someone completely clueless could believe that 67% of Israelis want talks with Hamas

"Small town folks get bitter after which they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment."

Someone should tell the Israelis about your points too:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/958473.html

make sure to say good bye to family and friends before you go

You kill him.

Period. Saying the following bromides:

It's wrong no matter who does it, and just because our enemies do it doesn't make it OK for us to do it. I readily agree that it will hinder us, but it's my ethical belief that that's required to be an ethically good country. Good countries, like good people, must sacrifice sometimes in life.

...does you no good when you cede the right to wage total war to the enemy. You lose. He wins.

That's not acceptable to Registered Voters, by the way. Democracy is not a suicide pact. That's what a lot of Democrats haven't figured out.

Try peddling that kind of nonsense after a tactical nuclear weapon goes off in Tel Aviv or in downtown Manhattan. Fifteen kilotons should do nicely for a test case.

Good countries, like good people, must sacrifice sometimes in life.

Want to try again? Terrorism is not Eighth Grade Civics.

Jesus wept.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

The only problem is that this is typical worst-case scenario thinking. If Iran were to attack Israel, there would be HUGE repercussions (and as I wrote elsewhere in this thread, I would be first in line to support retaliation). Iran would be annihilated. Which is precisely why they WON'T do it. Instead, they're looking for regional hegemony:

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/joliphant/2008/may/15/everytime_i_get_read...

Which, considering that's the case, requires a much different response than if Iran was looking for genocide. The vast difference between Germany in 1939 and Iran now is that Germany was the dominant power in Europe beforehand. Iran, even with a nuke, couldn't stand up to Israel alone, let alone with Israel's allies. Despite Ahmadinejad's bluster, there's no real chance that they will attack.

So, if it's not a worst-case scenario, then we don't have to throw out all ethical boundaries and become as degenerate as our enemies.

As someone said on the show The West Wing, I hold my guys to a higher standard...that's why they're my guys.

given the imminent threat of death and destruction. I am amazed that any leftists exist in Israel.

See, now I see it differently - it seems to me that the existence of an Israeli left shows that the threat isn't really so imminent. Especially - and I know I keep repeating this, but it's an astounding stat - since 2/3 of the country is willing to talk with an "imminent threat". This suggests to me that maybe we, in America, are too far away from the situation to properly assess the right way forward, if an overwhelming majority of Israelis believe "crazy terrorists" can be negotiated with.

might be wise

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

Over 500 rockets have been fired into civilian Israeli cities in the past 300 days.

Here's a photograph of some of them.

Just some of the hundreds of homemade (water pipe, rebar, soldered fins, ball bearings/nails, and explosive) rockets indiscriminantly fired from Gaza into the civilian town of Sederot on a daily basis. This collection, at the Sederot police station, is of rockets which have landed in the city.
More here. (photo © Jeff Emanuel 2007)

Several were fired yesterday into Ashkelon, a beautiful and ancient coastal city which houses archaeology from the Canaanites to the present.

Suicide bombers were commonplace in Israel until the border fence (see pic below); while it has halted the bombings, the international left is demanding its removal, for the reason that it apparently violates terrorists' international right to murder innocent Jews.

At top is a Palestinian city in the West Bank; at bottom is Israel. Were Israel to withdraw its security forces from the West Bank, the distance between the Jewish state and a population which has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to use violence against Israeli civilians would simply be the width of the Israeli-built security fence shown here (which the United Nations has condemned as a human rights violation against Palestinians).
(photograph © Jeff Emanuel 2007)

Further, a bourgeoning nuclear nation, with a massive populace and quite a large standing army, has seen its leader make almost weekly calls for Israel's outright destruction, and has been giving money, training, and personnel to every group in the region that seeks to destroy Israel.

Not an imminent threat? Really? Please revisit your definition of that word, or explain it better to me.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I support the fence, despite being part of the international left (I presume, since I am part of the American left which would be a subset thereof). I defended it when a Liberal friend compared it to the Berlin Wall (?), and think that they oughta be able to keep people out.

I have heard that the problem with it though is not its existence but the way that it cuts through Palestinian towns and such, taking weird zags that cut through neighborhoods and hurt the economy etc. in Palestine, is seen as unofficially annexing parts of the West Bank, they used "eminent domain" of sorts to bulldoze houses to make it, all that stuff. I was wondering if you have a response to that, as it seems theoretically it could have been built in a less damaging-to-people-on-the-other-side way.

Good question Zombie, I'd also like to hear anyone's thoughts on it. It seems like a possible way to secure Israel's borders, and allow Palestine to not have a "Swiss cheese" country that angers them.

If the "Palestinians" actually wanted peace, issues like the swiss cheese issue could be addressed.

However, when you are more interested in death then in life, the geographical details don't much matter.

The conflict is NOT about land. It is about ideology. Until you come to grips with that, you will fall into the trap of being distracted by that which is meaningless.

As an aside, try to find usage of the word "Palestinian" before 1945. There was no such group at that time. Then ask yourself how and why there are people identified as Palestinians now?

I find it hard to believe that "Palestinians," as a group, want death over life/peace. That is a group with millions of people, and while a frighteningly large portion wants just to destroy Israel, does that mean that the majority do as well? Besides, maybe if the economy was better in the West Bank, people there would start to worry about life and material things more than ideology and death.

As for Palestinians, I think that a point that is forgotten often is that while Jewish refugees from Arab countries were welcomed to Israel after 1948, Palestinians were left in a bad state just to be a pawn/talking point/rallying point for Arab nations (Jordan, Syria, all those places that supposedly care for the Palestinians...did little to care for the Palestinians).

I don't know if "Palestinians" was in use, but "Palestine" was.

what you "feel" is unimportant. The facts are that the Palestinian Arabs have time, after time, after time chosen death, murder, poverty, and misery over reconciliation. There is no economy in the West bank and Gaza because they are incapable of doing anything but make bombs and attack and hate.

It might not be politically correct to indict an entire people but these are the people who even liberals have famously said the "never miss a chance to miss a chance". These are people who have been repeatedly kicked out of the other Arab nations. Egypt, Libya, Jordan, and Syria have kicked them out because they were nothing but troublemakers.

At this point I don't even care if they have any legitimate grievances. I would like to ship them all out into camps in the Sahara desert where they can kill and hate each other to their hearts content.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

parlors - nt

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

First of all, do you have any info to support that that is a mainstream view? It would not surprise me, but on the other hand it does not take a lot of people wanting to do so for it to be highly visible. If only 1% of people wanted to send their kids to die to be "martyrs" then that would still be a huge group of potential suicide bombers. Even the institutional support does not imply that it is a mainstream view...when I posted the other day something about terrorism someone replied that part of the problem is that people in these countries are not so much in agreement with the terrorists as afraid of speaking out.

But more importantly, if there is just no dealing with the people of Palestine, what do you propose to do? Doesn't that throw a wrench into the whole spreading Democracy thing that most Americans want to some extent (especially if you think the same about other groups of people in the world)? I mean, it's not like the Palestinians are just going to up and vanish like a fart in the wind, to quote the Warden at Shawshank.

Finally, on a totally random side note, in yesterday's open thread I asked people two questions, one of which I addressed to you specifically. You did not respond - I am not sure if that is because you didn't want to or did not see it but in case of the latter I wanted to direct your attention to it to give you a chance to do so (or ignore it if you want).

by their elected leaders that get re-elected.

They have raised three generations from first grade thru college that jews are little more than animals.

more later

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/the_tribes_of_benjamin...

I will recount one story that gives me some hope. Israel had just retaliated against Hamas in Gaza who had fied rockets into Israel a few yeears ago. A reporter was interviewing a man whose barber shop was destroyed by Israel expecting him to denounce the Jewish State. Instead, he said that next election he woild vote for any candidate that wouldn't get his barber shop bombed!

I think Bush is right about democracy in the ME. It clarifies matters. The people chose warmongers, and war they got.

Peace most often follows utter (see utter) defeat.

And 2nd and 3rd elections as the people get their minds right!

see The South, Germany and Japan.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I agree, the daily rocket attacks are reprehensible. But my problem is why do the Israelis still support talking with them? I think there is a chance to allow moderates in Hamas (and we MUST remember that no political entity is homogeneous) to take control, and I think that's what the Israelis are currently hoping for.

As for the Iran situation, I'm not convinced that they pose an imminent threat either because of simple power politics. An attack - any attack! - on Israel would be blatantly suicidal for Iran, and despite Ahmadinejad's rhetoric there's not really any reason to believe they would attack. Certainly they are building up their power, but this is all consistent with typical power politics. It doesn't mean they are planning for an attack. The only real argument I've seen for their likeliness to attack is the religious one that argues along the lines that they want to bring about the end of times. But that argument holds about as much water for me, as the argument that some fundamentalists in America want to destroy the Middle East to bring about the apocalypse. It's more paranoia than rational thought.

My personal explanation for Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is that he knows it will antagonize the Western world, who will then antagonize him. This outside threat (from Iran's perspective) leads the people to believe they need a militaristic hardliner like Ahmadinejad. I think domestic politics need to be looked at to understand his rhetoric. But that's admittedly mostly hypothetical on my part.

by the UN, by international public opinion, by weakening political support in the West, by disappointment in their own leaders, etc.

There are no moderates in Hamas any more than there are moderates in AQ.

There may be people who sign up to get money and chicks, but I don't classify the "go along" type as moderates, since they would be more than willing to cut your throat with a steak knife.

So you don't believe President Tom's rhetoric. Nobody believed Hitler, Stalin, or Mao either.

How about he attacks because he things the West has lost all resolve to do what is right? To do what is necessary?

You are decent person without a lot of experience in dealing with evil. You are not going to be able to fathom what makes these people tick. It is very very very ugly and outside the zone of your experience.

To interpret Ahmadinejad's rhetoric in a purely secular way is to ignore who he is. He is not some secular politician just trying to navigate his way to continued power.

"Because they are getting worn down by the UN, by international public opinion, by weakening political support in the West, by disappointment in their own leaders, etc."

These are legitimate reasons, but since their current president has astoundingly low poll numbers, it's surprising that they still agree with him on trying to get a peace agreement.

"There are no moderates in Hamas any more than there are moderates in AQ."

Of course there are moderates. Every single group in history, even the most radical, has been split between those who want to moderate their actions and those who want to be more aggressive. It's not a matter of being radical for the sole sake of being radical. One of our strategies should be to take advantage of this split.

"How about he attacks because he things the West has lost all resolve to do what is right? To do what is necessary?"

I don't buy this because Ahmadinejad knows (as everyone does) that to attack Israel would IMMEDIATELY change everyone's opinion about restraint. There would be no question (and I would be at the front of the line) that America, Europe, Israel, etc. should retaliate with full force for such an action. Any attack on Israel would be suicide for Iran. So to say that he's different because he's religious is to ignore all the "secular" plans he makes (long-term oil deals with India, Russia, etc.). I don't see any real chance of Iran attacking any other sovereign nation anytime soon.

Israel is getting worn down. Maybe that is Iran's plan?

Not only do I disagree that Hamas has moderates. I contend that Fatah has few moderates.

Look, the Nazis, Communists, Jihadists, etc. all had or have people who were purely opportunists and just went with the winner. No question. Doens't mean that you can somehow appeal to them to make them non-opportunistic.

Iran is attacking Iraq every day. Killing Americans I might ad.

People don't buy lots of things. Nobody thought in January 1, 1939 that the would was going to go to hell. Doesn't mean those people were right.

You argue well, but no offense, you make a lot of assumptions that can be essentially be summarized as "that can't be true."

History is on my side. Many things that "couldn't be true" have been repeatedly shown to be true.

You don't understand the mindset because you are a healthy and intelligent persson living in the west. You have many assumptions:

Of course there are moderates
its not a matter of being radical for the sake of being radical
Everyone's opinion would change if Israel was attacked (I think people would say, well there is not point about arguing now, the damage is done)

I am not saying to ignore all the secural plans, I am saying that people ALWAYS underestimate dangers because they don't see the world in the way that the thugs do

You're thinking like a rational American. You need to stop. They don't think as we do. When they say that Israel must cease to exist, it is best to give them credit for believing in what they say.

Their calculation may be somewhat different than ours. It is enough to know that they have sworn that Israel will cease to exist and that they are seeking the atomic bomb.

Strangely enough, attacking him directly would rally the Iranians to him. He will have to commit some overt hostile act against us, as the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor.

The Israelis, imho, need to simply quit the West Bank and Gaza. Force the Palestinians into de facto statehood on their own. Then, any agression against Israel comes from outside. As long as they occupy the West Bank, the Palestinians look like the aggrieved party, no matter how genocidal their intent.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

Poland existed in the summer of 1939, and was wipe off the map mere months later.

You are alive until you die.

It is today until it is tomorrow.

n/t

still exists.

No, my argument is that a vast majority of the people supposedly in imminent danger don't seem to think so. Chalking it up to mass deception seems too convenient to explain why 5 million people are willing to talk with Hamas.

n/t

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/958473.html

n/t

As I'm sure you can guess, there's not 4 separate polls that have asked the same question. So you can either accept the evidence or not. But arguing against it because "it's only one poll" isn't very persuasive. It's a poll by the oldest and most influential newspaper in Israel - its results are valid and worthy of discussion. If you don't believe that, there's nothing I can do to change your mind.

n/t

Actually, let's make it fair - you find 1 respectable poll that says the opposite of my poll's conclusions, and we can call it even. Burden of proof is on both of us.

n/t

Haaretz....you really ought to read the more conservative Jerusalam Post....so what we see in the poll I found is that for one it falls in the margin of error and just like here in America the left wants capitulation and the right want's to kick the crap out the enemy...and a majority of Israeli's do not want to leave the occupied territories...so for people who are hell bent on "negotiating" they certainly are unwilling to give up their land to do so..

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/10726

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/30246/israelis_oppose_withdrawal_fr...

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Thanks for taking the time to find these Jaded.

The first poll is 2 years old though, so it suggests that the trend over time has been towards more and more people wanting to talk with Hamas.

The second is, as you mention, not the same question. It asks whether people want to give up land, which is, unsurprisingly, not popular. It certainly makes negotiation harder like you say, but it doesn't show there's no popular support for direct talks. So with the Haaretz poll and the Jerusalem Post poll, it's a more nuanced picture, which is always useful.

(Just a sidenote, personally I try to read a broad range of news sources. Any one of them will be biased, but hopefully together they can give a more accurate picture. So thanks for the Jerusalem Post reference.)

people capitulating it is because they have had bombs raining down on them almost everyday for 2 years....it's called PTSD and they would do anything to make it stop.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

n/t

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

If they would do anything, why would they limit themselves to talking? Unless, of course, force hasn't been working.

And to be clear, a relatively small amount of Israel is subject to rocket fire. So to attribute widespread support for talking with Hamas to PTSD seems untenable. More likely, Israelites are in a better position than us to see how their current strategy has been working (or not working), and think they need to try something new.

n/t

and no attributing widespread support for talking to Hamas to PTSD is not untenable....you just think so...might I direct your attention to

http://www.bullyeq.com/bol/stress/ptsd.htm#PTSD,%20PDSD%20and%20bullying

The part that catches my eye is

1.One of the key symptoms of prolonged negative stress is reactive depression; this causes the balance of the mind to be disturbed, leading first to thoughts of, then attempts at, and ultimately, suicide.
A.2.The target of bullying may be unaware that they are being bullied, and even when they do realise (there's usually a moment of enlightenment as the person realises that the criticisms and tactics of control etc are invalid), they often cannot bring themselves to believe they are dealing with a disordered personality who lacks a conscience and does not share the same moral values as themselves. Naivety is the great enemy. The target of bullying is bewildered, confused, frightened, angry - and after enlightenment, very angry.

Those two sections catch my attention because obviously 55 percent of Israeli's are suicidal as in part 1 and as in part 2 naivety is the key indicator so the ultimate conclusion would be that they JUST WANT IT TO END!!!!
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

.

.

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/streetwise/2008/may/11/retrospective_may_1...

A Saint For Our Times? NOT!

Please post the NEWS ARTICLE where "2/3 of Israelis want to talk to Hamas"! Considering Olmert is about to be forced from office and the Likud is about to take over...

You are either willfully lying, or woefully ignorant.

Either way, please don't try and discuss Israeli-Arab issues, it really is something that takes years of study to understand..

"Small town folks get bitter after which they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/958473.html

I got a hours worth of work done and your still givin that link!!!...Pathetic

gutless liberal
singing cooks acquiesce, stress
incontinent skunk

"It's the Haiku Stupid"

hell he could have asked all the people of Serdot and gotten that number....no poll without internals is worth the paper (internet) it's written on...but it makes him feel knowledgable about the people of Israel...he pays no attention to Jeff who has seen the evil that must be killed....which tells me all I need to know about him.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

n/t

gutless liberal
singing cooks acquiesce, stress
incontinent skunk

Here's my problem with arguments like this. In comes some information that completely conflicts with your worldview (never talk to enemies!), and instead of asking yourself about why, you try to deny it. So you make up crazy theories about why some evidence is wrong instead.

Like trying to connect bullying with terrorism? Sorry, that's a little bit of a leap. And it still doesn't reveal why the majority of Israelis (who aren't subject to rocket fire) are suddenly collectively suffering from PTSD. Do you really not see how ridiculous this argument is? It's like taking the attitudes of some individuals in a single state, and then extrapolating to argue that the whole country feels that way.

Or arguing that you need more links? Sorry if I haven't gone out myself and individually asked each Israeli what they want. I would think that a reputable poll would be enough. I know if I read a poll that seriously contradicted my worldview, I'd wonder whether I was wrong. But others just try to deny evidence.

Jaded's last point has the only real argument - he attacks the methodology of the poll. So to (temporarily) satisfy both of you, here's another link with the stats of the poll (600 respondents, MoE +/- 4%):
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/30039/israelis_want_direct_talks_wi...

Could you find just One more?...please

"So you make up crazy theories about why some evidence is wrong instead."....nomad14

This just in - 90% of people think speciallist is a troll! :)

Sorry, no links though.

n/t

out you it should be one of us who likes you...

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Hey now, I like speciallist just fine.

speciallist had a sock-puppet account a few weeks ago named Elaborate Troll. He was so good at it that he got his sock-puppet banned.

smart...poll will be up soon! keep coming back and you will see it!

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

n/t

and they are adult Israeli's...hey you know there are Arab-Israeli's right...I know you think your smart...and perhaps in a book sense you may be...but street smarts you lack...let me pose a couple of questions to you...if I come up to you and I stick my finger in your chest over and over what will you do? If I than smack you in the face over and over what will you do? If I than knock you to the ground what will you do? Talk to me?

Because I can guarantee you if I did all of that to you and you talked to me...I would do much worse.....take my word for it you cannot bargin with a bully the bully likes it and he beats you up anyway.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Exactly! Now I know you meant to imply that the Palestines were the bullies, but don't you realize that's how the Palestines feel about the Israeli incursions? No one likes to be pushed around, and so it's no wonder that both sides react angrily to each other's aggressive actions. It's a vicious circle, and more violent conflict (short of complete annihilation) isn't going to end it! That's my very simple point that I've been trying to make.

As for the poll, it simply shows that this idea that we should never talk to enemies for fear of legitimating or emboldening them isn't felt by the Israelis themselves.

You can reject evidence, but that's not going to resolve problems.

As for the fact that its 600 out of 7 million, if you know anything about statistics, you know that this is perfectly reasonable. That's how statistic work. Every single poll you have ever come across has only questioned a very small portion of the total population. It's the power of math!

I have spent the bulk of my life listening to how EVIL the Jews are and how if they just talked to their enemies they would have peace...BS...everytime they have given an inch those animals have expected a foot...I have almost 35 years of listening to this crap behind what I say what do you have? your feelings?

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

the keyboard until he's a pulp...lol

I don't think approaches like this, calling for the destruction of a country puts us on the same immoral level as Iran and if that requires us to get hurt by taking the high road, I think it's worth it. We would basically send the entire Arabic world into the arms of China and Russia...nomad14