Frum has a point. The peace process is dead and staying dead. The USA and the EU are still in denial about this, but there will be no two-state solution. Israel has no real interest in it, and as time passes (demographic tick-tock) neither will the Palestinians. Bob is still nostalgic for the 1990s (in the company of Abbas) when there was a glimmer of hope for a two-state resolution of the conflict. Sorry, that is over now. Biblically speaking, the handwriting is on the Apartheid Wall. Ultimately, there will be one state between the Jordan River and the Sea. I tend to blame the collapse of a peace process on Israeli intransigence and the horrific crimes of the occupation, although plenty of blame accrues to Arafat, Hamas and Islamic Jihad as well. In any case, Frum arrives at the same point I do, although he comes from the extreme Zionist right and I from the progressive left: there is no walking these parties down the aisle to a 2-state dream. As Bob suggests in his thought experiment, Palestinians can, and soon will, simply demand the right to vote as Israelis. Good for them. I will support them in their quest for a

Five star comment.

Quoting Wonderment: Palestinians can, and soon will, simply demand the right to vote as Israelis.

And Israel will simply refuse. If you really believe that ultimately there will be a one state solution (of course there will), and that Palestinians within that state will demand a right to vote, you better remain quiet about it. Because if Israel believes that Palestinians within its territory will eventually win the right to vote, it will expel or exterminate as many of them as possible before that can happen. There is only one outcome that can be safely counted on: A Jewish state in perpetuity. And, once again, let's just remind people of what has been happening over the last century. Israel has almost completed its conquest. Just a few more years to go. No way they're going to let any peaceniks screw up their decades-long project now.

Personally I find Mickey's contrarian bent refreshing and a bit familiar. Starting to read The End of Equality now, weird reading a book from 94 about politics.

Gentlemen, The train of indigenous Iranian democracy--the Green Movement--has already left the station. It's done--wave goodbye, put a fork in it, and put a final fork into any wishful thinking that US support for domestic democrats in Iran will have any effect at all. Those 'democrats' are themselves fiercely loyal to their country and their Islamic Revolution. Their movement is a very essentially a conservative movement to reacquire freedoms they believe lost in the June 2009 elections. The Greens are most definitely NOT regime change democrats. But they will pay a price for opposing the theofascism governance in Iran, despite their loyalty to their country and their Islamic Revolution. By the June 2013 elections in Iran, all of the 2009-10 Greens will be gone; dead, discredited, or "disappeared." The IRGC, specially formed as a 'parallel organization' to protect the Revolution, is more firmly in control than ever, and will never permit a repeat of electoral disputation in Iran again. The IRGC already acts as the Praetorian Guard, self-funded with at least 30% ownership of the Iranian GDP, and has the entire nuclear portfolio under its control. Not even the 600,000 man Iranian Army is in a position to take on the 400,000 IRGC, which

So, as the title of the DV implies, I think Frum said all sorts of silly, outrageous, or factually challenged things in the course of this interesting and enjoyable 65 minutes. This is the only one I really want to talk about though. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/266...8:47&out=39:38 I'm having trouble reconstructing the moral argument that Frum is making here. It sounds like he's saying that people that have started wars in the past can make no moral claims against the people they initiated those past wars with, thus giving the aggrieved party moral carte blanche in all future interactions. That's why it would be morally permissible for the United State government to disenfranchise the descendants of Confederates and militarily occupy the 11 states of the Confederacy today, 150 years after the war. This is so crazy that I'm about 95% sure that it isn't what he's trying to say, and Frum assured us earlier in the DV that he hates having his views mischaracterized, so I give up. What does Frum mean here? I would think that all people have a fairly strong right to be citizens of a sovereign state if they so choose. The Palestinians living in Gaza

Quoting Don Zeko: So, as the title of the DV implies, I think Frum said all sorts of silly, outrageous, or factually challenged things in the course of this interesting and enjoyable 65 minutes. This is the only one I really want to talk about though.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/266...8:47&out=39:38

I'm having trouble reconstructing the moral argument that Frum is making here. It sounds like he's saying that people that have started wars in the past can make no moral claims against the people they initiated those past wars with, thus giving the aggrieved party moral carte blanche in all future interactions. That's why it would be morally permissible for the United State government to disenfranchise the descendants of Confederates and militarily occupy the 11 states of the Confederacy today, 150 years after the war. This is so crazy that I'm about 95% sure that it isn't what he's trying to say, and Frum assured us earlier in the DV that he hates having his views mischaracterized, so I give up. What does Frum mean here?

I would think that all people have a fairly strong right to be citizens of a sovereign state if they so choose. The Palestinians living in Gaza

The fight against any form of Fascism has always been nothing less than a fight to the death.

Franco was around for an awfully long time.

Quoting Wonderment: The USA and the EU are still in denial about this, but there will be no two-state solution. Israel has no real interest in it, and as time passes (demographic tick-tock) neither will the Palestinians.

Presumably, there are not a few other Jews, especially among the population of Israel, who can hear the same clock as you. I wonder, then, what do you think motivates these people to oppose a two-state solution, if we stipulate that eventually, the Palestinian and other Arab people in Israel will become the majority? Do you think they are burying their heads in the sand, so they don't hear the tick-tock? Or do you think they plan to run an apartheid state or other similar minority-rule country for the foreseeable future? The thing that I don't get is why anyone who cares about Israel as a Jewish state would be opposed to some sort of two-state solution now, while they still have the clout to make it so, with terms as favorable as they're ever going to get. Seems to me that the more time they let pass, the less bargaining power they'll have, just by the population numbers, and so I don't

Quoting Don Zeko: So, as the title of the DV implies, I think Frum said all sorts of silly, outrageous, or factually challenged things in the course of this interesting and enjoyable 65 minutes. This is the only one I really want to talk about though.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/266...8:47&out=39:38

I'm having trouble reconstructing the moral argument that Frum is making here. It sounds like he's saying that people that have started wars in the past can make no moral claims against the people they initiated those past wars with, thus giving the aggrieved party moral carte blanche in all future interactions. That's why it would be morally permissible for the United State government to disenfranchise the descendants of Confederates and militarily occupy the 11 states of the Confederacy today, 150 years after the war. This is so crazy that I'm about 95% sure that it isn't what he's trying to say, and Frum assured us earlier in the DV that he hates having his views mischaracterized, so I give up. What does Frum mean here?

I would think that all people have a fairly strong right to be citizens of a sovereign state if they so choose. The Palestinians living in Gaza

I think David Frum's comments on the Tea Party movement are largely on point, though I think there is much more slippage between layer 1 (C4L-types) and layer 2 (the party types) than he indicates. I think this is caused by a large number of people newly drawn into the political process (largely, as David says, due to resentments built up in the Bush years) who have not yet formed their tribal commitments, and who have sympathies that lean in both directions. The reality of populism and the grassroots, I think, is that you don't have a real orderly sorting of people by their beliefs. Personal connections, random chance, and a spirit of restraint from criticism, can cause a much more heterogeneous structure to the movement.

I would think that all people have a fairly strong right to be citizens of a sovereign state if they so choose. The Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank clearly are not, so why are their often unsavory efforts at achieving this more nefarious than any geopolitical group since the Confederacy? Does anyone have better insight into the mind of Frum than I do?

Yes, I would be happy to translate: "In order to justify Israel's conduct, no matter what it may be, I'll concoct whatever sophistry is at my intellectual disposal. I merely start from the premise, 'If Israel does it, it must be good.' Nothing is too ludicrous." Right-wing Zionists, most notably American ones like Frum, will shamelessly rush to Israel's defense for everything from torture to assassination to collective punishment, to the slaughter of civilians. They will smear anyone from Jimmy Carter to Justice Goldstone to Barack Obama, for daring to deviate from the Likud party line. If all else fails, play the anti-Semite or self-hating Jew card. I think Bob asked the wrong (right for 1990) moral question. The real question has nothing to do with the current bogus "peace process," but is

Do you think they are burying their heads in the sand, so they don't hear the tick-tock?

Yes, it's like global warming denial: "We've still got 50 years, so fuck it. Worse comes to worst, we take our foreign passports and bail to the EU, Russia or the USA." They also get caught up in the cycle of violence and revenge. Nothing like endless mutual hatred to distort your thinking.

The thing that I don't get is why anyone who cares about Israel as a Jewish state would be opposed to some sort of two-state solution now, while they still have the clout to make it so, with terms as favorable as they're ever going to get.

A lot of decent people believe very strongly in a two-state resolution. They refuse to admit that there is no path to it. I guess they need a few more years.

Quoting Wonderment: Yes, it's like global warming denial: "We've still got 50 years, so fuck it. Worse comes to worst, we take our foreign passports and bail to the EU, Russia or the USA."

I suppose I could believe that, although I confess to a bias of believing Jews are more sensible.

They also get caught up in the cycle of violence and revenge. Nothing like endless mutual hatred to distort your thinking.

No denying that.

A lot of decent people believe very strongly in a two-state resolution. They refuse to admit that there is no path to it. I guess they need a few more years.

This is funny -- a place where, perhaps, you are more realistic and I am more idealistic.

Quoting TwinSwords: Nice to see Bob on so much, lately. Also glad to see David; although I disagree with him about almost everything, he's always been an enjoying diavlogger to listen to.

I agree with Frum when he says the Republican party has gone insane.

About the Palestinians' quest for justice, Frum has this to say: >> You get what your power entitles you to. I see. So the Jews in the 40s got what their power entitled them to. Ditto with African Americans before civil rights. South Africa's Apartheid... same thing. Good old Might Makes Right (from a Canadian no less!) >> The Palestinians have about the worst moral case of any group of people. .. of people who've been kept in an open-air prison for 43 years. >> People who keep fighting and losing have to take the deal they can get. What the German commanders were saying in Warsaw no doubt. Speaking of which, Frum compares the Palestinians to the Germans in WWII. Stay classy, Frum. Why is Wright giving a low-rent jerk like Frum a platform? And why don't we have a Palestinian on bhtv instead of this hasbara robot?

Quoting a Duoist:
The train of indigenous Iranian democracy--the Green Movement--has already left the station. It's done--wave goodbye, put a fork in it.

Sounds like Jeane Dixon with an advanced college degree. I have no patience for yet another "sage" who thinks he is clever enough to predict the future and then marshals myriad (in his view) incontrovertible facts to support his arguments... Have a little humility, for god's sake. None of us has a clue as to what the fuck is going to happen next in the world. To pretend otherwise is to cling to the illusion of control.

Quoting jimM47: I think David Frum's comments on the Tea Party movement are largely on point, though I think there is much more slippage between layer 1 (C4L-types) and layer 2 (the party types) than he indicates. I think this is caused by a large number of people newly drawn into the political process (largely, as David says, due to resentments built up in the Bush years) who have not yet formed their tribal commitments, and who have sympathies that lean in both directions. The reality of populism and the grassroots, I think, is that you don't have a real orderly sorting of people by their beliefs. Personal connections, random chance, and a spirit of restraint from criticism, can cause a much more heterogeneous structure to the movement.

I'd recast "largely on point" as "correct to a first approximation, with a very generous benefit of the doubt." One thing that bothered me about his characterization of the faction that didn't like what Bush was doing, from pure Conservative Principles™, who somehow just couldn't "find their voice" as I think he put it, was that this is just so much hogwash. "Resentments built up?" Please. They had eight years to figure this out, and they're just getting

It's interesting to hear David's theory that Ahmadinejad is trying to create a belief that Iran is farther along in its nuclear program than it is in order to intimidate its enemies, etc. I just wonder if David developed this theory as a result of lessons learned from Saddam's nuclear bluff.

Jimmy Carter brought Begin and Sadat together and mediated a lasting peace settlement. I wouldn't expect David to give Carter any credit for accomplishing anything worthwhile, but Carter's achievement as a successful mediator between two resistant parties is a fact of history.

Quoting TwinSwords:
There is only one outcome that can be safely counted on

Yes, the Israeli state has been guilty of inhumanity and expansionism (by the way, does that sound like the history of any country that you might currently enjoy living in?). The grievances of either of the aggrieved parties can be supported with endless facts, figures and charts, and I give you due credit for the effective use of graphics to bolster your particular point of view. However, to my mind, the essential problem is the demonizing and dehumanizing on both sides that leads to the justification of the most unspeakable acts of violence on the part of each self-identified group toward the other. As to the above-quoted assertion, I would say that the "one outcome that can be safely counted on" is this: whatever outcome is counted on, the reality will turn out to be quite different. Let's face it -- humanity's track record in predicting the future (which is simply an attempt to gain some illusory sense of control over it) is pretty piss-poor overall.

David Frum has entered into "foolish land". Sad. The Persians long ago mastered chess. Maybe, to put it in a way David could understand - rope-a-dope. That means, to spell it out, that both sides are in cahoots to distract the tea leaf readers. David is a tea leaf reader. So what are we to think? Even more important, what are we to do when pundits carry on in this way (Robert - for a long time - David, recently)? Well, first thing is let them believe what they think - how could it be otherwise. But for the rest of us, just imagine if Iran were suffering the same sanctions that Saddam endured. He decided the best course of action was to dispense of WMD and con the rest of the world into believing otherwise...sounds like a good plan for us to pursue again, no? Well, like a game of poker (or chess, which the current Iranian regime seems to have mastered) it takes balls to test Iranian weak points --- balls which these two sad-sacks don´t have----very, very, very sad.....

Quoting Markos: Jimmy Carter brought Begin and Sadat together and mediated a lasting peace settlement. I wouldn't expect David to give Carter any credit for accomplishing anything worthwhile, but Carter's achievement as a successful mediator between two resistant parties is a fact of history.

Who do you think bears more of the credit for that peace treaty? Carter or Sadat? Carter had the right policy in fostering that deal, but his was NOT the harder path. Sadat decided that it was not in Egypts interests to continue fighting Israel. He made his peace, and died for it. And Egypt is better for it. Will Hamas ever agree to cease hostilities as Sadat did? No? Then continue to suffer and die. It is an interesting thing to love death more than others love life. But for people who prefer that trade, so be it. Fight, die, fight, gain sympathy from the worlds left for being the underclass, the ones not in power (the reverse of might makes right, "oppressed" makes right on the left), turn world outrage against Israel, throw generations of your children and men against it. And what does all of that get you? sympathy from the left, anger towards Israel

Quoting listener: Yes, the Israeli state has been guilty of inhumanity and expansionism (by the way, does that sound like the history of any country that you might currently enjoy living in?). The grievances of either of the aggrieved parties can be supported with endless facts, figures and charts, and I give you due credit for the effective use of graphics to bolster your particular point of view. However, to my mind, the essential problem is the demonizing and dehumanizing on both sides that leads to the justification of the most unspeakable acts of violence on the part of each self-identified group toward the other.

As to the above-quoted assertion, I would say that the "one outcome that can be safely counted on" is this: whatever outcome is counted on, the reality will turn out to be quite different. Let's face it -- humanity's track record in predicting the future (which is simply an attempt to gain some illusory sense of control over it) is pretty piss-poor overall.

This turns out to be a pretty good expression of how I feel about the issue.

Frum sums up what the zionist strategy has been since 1948. Initiate wars; blame it on the Palestinians, and then argue as result of those wars Palestinians are not entitled to what's rightfully theirs. It boils down to 'might makes right'. The Master Plan

Straight talk from Mr. Wright.

Quoting Wonderment:
In any case, Frum arrives at the same point I do, although he comes from the extreme Zionist right and I from the progressive left: there is no walking these parties down the aisle to a 2-state dream.

See, this is good! It is possible to arrive at the same conclusion after coming at it from different vantage points. I find that very hopeful.

Quoting listener: Sounds like Jeane Dixon with an advanced college degree. I have no patience for yet another "sage" who thinks he is clever enough to predict the future and then marshals myriad (in his view) incontrovertible facts to support his arguments...

Have a little humility, for god's sake. None of us has a clue as to what the fuck is going to happen next in the world. To pretend otherwise is to cling to the illusion of control.

Hear!Hear! Who could have predicted a year ago that Scott Brown would win Massachusetts? Now everyone can see why things have happened the way they did because hindsight is 20/20. We do like our narratives about the past, however, and feel qualified, therefore to make predictions about the future. But, humans seem to be stuck with relying on making predictions and game theory....if A does B, then C should do D....but if A does D then C should do? It's one of the things we do to survive. Often acting on our predictions can lead to even greater trouble than if we had more of the humility you speak of.

Quoting bjkeefe: Ultimately, I think if we set aside the people who are just flat-out deranged by the very thought of Obama, whether due to racism, xenophobia, or the brainwashing by the non-stop hysteria of the wingnut media about HITLERMAOSTALINSOCIALISM!!!1!, the main attraction to the "Tea Party movement" is that we have a shitty economy. If unemployment were to go from 10% to 5% tomorrow, the vast majority of those not in the group I just set aside would have little motivation to identify as teabaggers, much less to participate in any of their little sideshows.

Dude! some people in this country don't like socialized anything.
It doesn't matter to them that the Europeans don't mind it. They don't trust what Washington does and there has been so much government involvement in the effort to fix things in the last two years that people have gone a little batty about it and the only way they see to stop it is to hang teabags off their hats and stand in a group and shout about it. And they don't care at all what you think of them. Please don't respond with

Quoting bjkeefe: I think you've left out a key point of what David was saying here, which is that he was saying that the aggressors lost. I don't think he was here making so much a moral argument as he was a realpolitik one, which is that if you start enough fights and lose enough of them, you don't get to dictate terms.

I am not trying to align myself with his views, but merely trying to restate them on this point.

On second listening, I think that this is right; Frum is just stating without argument that he thinks the Palestinians have an incredibly weak moral case, and goes on to talk about how they should have to make concessions because of past military failures. Of course, this raises about as many questions as it answers. For one, he seems to indicate that he doesn't have any problem with wars of conquest so long as the other party initiates hostilities. I'd probably disagree with Frum on the "who started it" question, but even if I stipulate that the Palestinians did, I would consider Frum's outlook fairly crazy. Would it have been kosher for the United States

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Frum sums up what the zionist strategy has been since 1948. Initiate wars; blame it on the Palestinians, and then argue as result of those wars Palestinians are not entitled to what's rightfully theirs. It boils down to 'might makes right'.

The Master Plan

Yikes. Straight out of the Melian dialogue.

Quoting badhatharry: Hear!Hear!

Quoting AemJeff: This turns out to be a pretty good expression of how I feel about the issue.

Encomiums from Jeff AND Harry in the same day! Proof that there is still hope for humanity! I love this website.

Quoting bjkeefe: One thing that bothered me about his characterization of the faction that didn't like what Bush was doing, from pure Conservative Principles™, who somehow just couldn't "find their voice" as I think he put it, was that this is just so much hogwash. "Resentments built up?" Please. They had eight years to figure this out, and they're just getting around to waking up now? The truth is this: as with any and every other possibly troublesome aspect of the doings of the American government, there is a chunk of the population that only sees these things as bad when they happen under a Democratic watch.

It's hard to tell if you are making an argument that people who claim their resentments built up but did not find much expression until recently are 1) honestly expressing such frustrations, but are intellectually inconsistent, 2) statistically likely to be being dishonest about their frustration, or 3) definitely lying. If 1, then I respectfully disagree; if 2, then I vigorously disagree; and if 3, you are just wrong. Though any further arguments I would make depend on which of the positions I've characterized (if any) represents the opposing view, for just about all of them, I would

Quoting jimM47: It's hard to tell if you are making an argument that people who claim their resentments built up but did not find much expression until recently are 1) honestly expressing such frustrations, but are intellectually inconsistent, 2) statistically likely to be being dishonest about their frustration, or 3) definitely lying.

If 1, then I respectfully disagree; if 2, then I vigorously disagree; and if 3, you are just wrong. Though any further arguments I would make depend on which of the positions I've characterized (if any) represents the opposing view, for just about all of them, I would point to rumblings that happened in the second half of the Bush years, including the grumbling of many conservatives in 2006 and their satisfaction at claiming that by staying home they were responsible for handing their wayward party the stinging rebuke they were handed in the election (whether this is actually true doesn't bear on the fact that it was often touted, and a clear sign of resentment building during the Bush years). The anger at Republican Congressmen who voted for the bailout expressed at many grassroots organizations is another example.

Does it make it easier for

I would say that the "one outcome that can be safely counted on" is this: whatever outcome is counted on, the reality will turn out to be quite different. Let's face it -- humanity's track record in predicting the future (which is simply an attempt to gain some illusory sense of control over it) is pretty piss-poor overall.

That may be true, but there are many aspects of the conflict that we can describe accurately and predict with a reasonable degree of confidence. The conflict is 60 years long now, not 60 days, and the myths that sustain a situation that everyone agrees is unsustainable show no signs of abating. Israel-Palestine is a very serious international basket case with huge potential for igniting a shit storm throughout the Middle East and perhaps far beyond. To say "Well, you never know how stuff turns out" is not an option for the people whose lives are at stake.

Quoting Wonderment: That may be true, but there are many aspects of the conflict that we can describe accurately and predict with a reasonable degree of confidence.

The conflict is 60 years long now, not 60 days, and the myths that sustain a situation that everyone agrees is unsustainable show no signs of abating.

Israel-Palestine is a very serious international basket case with huge potential for igniting a shit storm throughout the Middle East and perhaps far beyond.

To say "Well, you never know how stuff turns out" is not an option for the people whose lives are at stake.

Just one itty bitty question....What myths are sustaining the situation?
One that occurs to me is that the US is responsible for doing something about all this.

Just one itty bitty question....What myths are sustaining the situation?
One that occurs to me is that the US is responsible for doing something about all this.

Well, I would certainly agree that the US has done far more harm than good, and that the US voting alone with Israel at the UN has been bad for both countries. And in general, I agree that the US meddling in the political affairs of the entire planet is based on delusional exceptionalism and berserk militarism. There are other more localized myths (so-called narratives) that drive the Israel-Palestine conflict, however. I guess I'd express the main one this simply: Both sides think they have ancestral ownership of the land.

Did anybody else notice that Frum's now justifying the Iraq adventure as a victory for capitalism?

Quoting Wonderment: That may be true, but there are many aspects of the conflict that we can describe accurately and predict with a reasonable degree of confidence...

To say "Well, you never know how stuff turns out" is not an option for the people whose lives are at stake.

Of course -- who would disagree with that? Certainly not me. Obviously, people must evaluate, as clearly as they are able to, the situations they find themselves in and then make decisions according to their best judgment. What I was objecting to in my comment was the tone of certitude I thought I detected in the comment to which I was responding. There is an awful lot of space between "this is the only possible outcome" and "well, you never know how stuff turns out." I completely agree with you when you point out that the entrenched positions (or myths, as you call them) make things seem intractable in the Israel-Palestine conflict. I would argue that if there is to be any hope of dislodging the parties from those stuck places, it would come from there being a little less certainty in predicting outcomes.

I completely agree with you when you point out that the entrenched positions (or myths, as you call them) make things seem intractable in the Israel-Palestine conflict. I would argue that if there is to be any hope of dislodging the parties from those stuck places, it would come from there being a little less certainty in predicting outcomes.

Yes, I agree. We need to remain hopeful and open to unexpected opportunities to advance peace and justice.

Quoting Don Zeko: if [Frum] thinks that the Palestinian moral case for either sovereignty or Israeli citizenship is so bad, can't Frum at least give us a sentence or two explaining why?

Yes, I too noticed that peremptory assertion from Frum and found it a bit jarring. Overall, I thought that Robert Wright did a great job of questioning Frum on his basic assumptions, but I wish he had drawn David out on this one.

Quoting jimM47: It's hard to tell if you are making an argument that people who claim their resentments built up but did not find much expression until recently are 1) honestly expressing such frustrations, but are intellectually inconsistent, 2) statistically likely to be being dishonest about their frustration, or 3) definitely lying.

If I had to pick among those, it's closest to (1), but I don't think it's as much intellectual as it is emotional. There is a fraction of our population that is essentially hard-wired to believe Democrat/liberal=bad, and the key point is, they start their assessments of the daily news from that point. So, for example, if the headline is "Today, the President announced Initiative X ...," how X will be assessed depends simply on whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican. I know you are itching to type "There are Democrats and liberals who are just like this about Republican presidents, too!" and I'll agree that there are some, but maintain that the instinctive reaction is neither as widespread nor as virulent.

If 1, then I respectfully disagree; if 2, then I vigorously disagree; and if 3, you are just wrong. Though any further arguments I would make depend on which of the

Quoting badhatharry: [...]

The bulk of your argument, and I use that term generously, can be summarized thus:

Keep your government hands of my Medi ... WHY IS EVERYONE LAUGHING???1?

As to your assertion that the teabaggers "don't care at all what you think of them," I'll just say: Uh, huh. That must explain the non-stop howling about being "mischaracterized."

Quoting bjkeefe: I know you are itching to type "There are Democrats and liberals who are just like this about Republican presidents, too!" and I'll agree that there are some

Keefe, in the USA I grew up in, this was a near universal sentiment among liberals, and a very virulent one. So I'll have to disagree with you about this:

Quoting bjkeefe: but maintain that the instinctive reaction is neither as widespread nor as virulent.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Keefe, in the USA I grew up in, this was a near universal sentiment among liberals, and a very virulent one. So I'll have to disagree with you about this:

Sorry, you're mistaking anecdotes for data. Look back at the past three or four decades. You'll never be able find any instance that compares to the organized, united, dead-set opposition Bill Clinton or Barack Obama faced -- from the other side's media, the other side's members of Congress, or the other side's grassroots/astroturf organizations -- from day one after Election Day. I'll grant that the farce that was the Florida aspect of the 2000 election did mean Bush faced a bigger core than usual of lefties who were against him from the start, but this is the only exception that even comes close, and it's not even that close. Once the dust was settled, many Dems in Congress and most major so-called liberal media figures looked to find ways they could "work with the president." And, of course, after 9/11, he was virtually given a blank check. Try to imagine that instead of his convincing win in 2008 Obama having been inaugurated after losing the popular vote and

Robert poignantly captures the view of the Israeli right, in which I include David, of how they want the "Palestinian problem" to be solved. Not through negotiation but through whipping the Palestinians into submission. Victory through abject humiliation

Quoting bjkeefe: As to your assertion that the teabaggers "don't care at all what you think of them," I'll just say: Uh, huh. That must explain the non-stop howling about being "mischaracterized."

For some examples of this fury, see Roy Edroso's latest post, "Fundamentally Unsound," which documents the wingnut meltdown over Ben Smith's tame piece on the teabaggers' wish to de-emphasize the radical religious right's pet issues.

Since we're speaking anecdotally I will add: A.) of the many conservative people I know, none of them offered so much as a peep about W until the economy collapsed and even then they were very eager to blame it on Clinton. B.) those same people were already screaming "socialist!!1!" at Obama and having secession fantasies before he had even been sworn in. C.) most of the liberals I know despised Bush but none of them ever went to any organized rally during his time in office*. D.) the news coverage of the people who DID go to those rallies was only for a blink of the news-cycle eye and the hardcore-left were never interviewed or taken seriously by the media. Show me the articles in Newsweek or Time magazine where the Bush/Hitler crowd was championed as an important voice that needed to be heard. Show me the movement whereby those crazies hijacked the Democratic wing of the Senate/House and became a major player in the policies that were passed (or prevented from passing). *Heck, many of them (myself included) not only didn't argue against Bush policies, but in many cases

Quoting bjkeefe: If I had to pick among those, it's closest to (1), but I don't think it's as much intellectual as it is emotional. There is a fraction of our population that is essentially hard-wired to believe Democrat/liberal=bad, and the key point is, they start their assessments of the daily news from that point. So, for example, if the headline is "Today, the President announced Initiative X ...," how X will be assessed depends simply on whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican.

Nothing to disagree with there. But I think that's just human nature. Whether someone is the same party as you will surely influence which way you give the benefit of the doubt in any situation. And it surely influences how much or little you have to loose in vocally opposing someone. I guess I just take it as a granted that much of the electorate is going to be selectively informed and operate on some crude heuristics. Still, I don't think that's the same as "only coming out on the Democratic watch." If, god forbid, John McCain had been elected president in 2008 (yes, I voted for him in the primary, I'm sorry, let's move on) I think you would be

Quoting bjkeefe: For some examples of this fury, see Roy Edroso's latest post, "Fundamentally Unsound," which documents the wingnut meltdown over Ben Smith's tame piece on the teabaggers' wish to de-emphasize the radical religious right's pet issues.

And Blue Texan has more.

Quoting jimM47: [...]

I think we're about as close as we're going to get. You would like to emphasize certain aspects of certain kinds of TP people more than I think is warranted, but I don't think there are enough data available to warrant discussing most of this further. Couple of minor loose ends: I'm interested to note that we pretty much agree on one point ...

... I don't get the feeling that the irredeemables on the left really occupy the same cultural space as those on the right. Frankly they seem so out of the mainstream and institutionally insulated (not to mention uncharitable to the "moderate" democratic party) that they are almost worth ignoring entirely.

... though I'd probably put a slightly different way: real liberals have almost no representation in this country, while the hardcore conservatives dominate one of the two major political parties. A quibble:

Again, I think I am not ignoring the facts, but remember them rather vividly in a different context. Many Republican media figures embarrassed themselves in the Bush era, and that lead many people to give Bush the benefit of the doubt long after it was deserved, but I don't think it is the

Quoting bjkeefe: The bulk of your argument, and I use that term generously, can be summarized thus:
Keep your government hands of my Medi ... WHY IS EVERYONE LAUGHING???1?

Interesting how the left keeps seizing on this dishonest meme regarding the tea partiers. Is it really all they have? Ask any tea partiers what their main contentions are and you'll get much more 'control runaway spending, preserve our freedoms of choice, downsize the runaway governemnt enlargements that are bankrupting the democratic-controlled states, rein in the public sector unions that have caused hundred billion dollar unfunded mandates while they destroy the school systems etc. The Obamacare gimme gimme crowd won't go near these truths. Instead of even being willing to discuss these subjects, they just paint tea partiers as brainless hicks looking for government handouts, while that group is much more represented by the yes on Obamacare crowd. They are completely unwilling to explain how following up social security, medicare and medicaid, all unsustainable ponzi schemes, with a even more bloated entitlement is a good idea (or admit their real goal, making more and more people wards of the state).
For a real good laugh, look at the

Quoting harkin: Interesting how the left keeps seizing on this dishonest meme regarding the tea partiers. Is it really all they have?

Ask any tea partiers what their main contentions are and you'll get much more 'control runaway spending, preserve our freedoms of choice, downsize the runaway governemnt enlargements that are bankrupting the democratic-controlled states, rein in the public sector unions that have caused hundred billion dollar unfunded mandates while they destroy the school systems etc.

The Obamacare gimme gimme crowd won't go near these truths.

Instead of even being willing to discuss these subjects, they just paint tea partiers as brainless hicks looking for government handouts, while that group is much more represented by the yes on Obamacare crowd.

They are completely unwilling to explain how following up social security, medicare and medicaid, all unsustainable ponzi schemes, with a even more bloated entitlement is a good idea (or admit their real goal, making more and more people wards of the state).

For a real good laugh, look at the latest bit of anti-tea party disinformation, a collection of Obama astroturfers being portrayed as middle of the road Coffee

Quoting harkin: Interesting how the left keeps seizing on this dishonest meme regarding the tea partiers. Is it really all they have?

Nope. We can also point out how you're a bunch of clueless racist bitters. And, your empty protests to the contrary notwithstanding, like the part about "keep your government hands off my Medicare!!!1!," it has the added advantage of being true.

Ask any tea partiers what their main contentions are and you'll get ...

Hysteria about socialism!!!1! Plus Hitler!!!1!, questions about the birf cirtifikit!!!1!, bed-wetting about brown people, and a regurgitation of what Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and Palin said during the past 24 hours. P.S. Thanks for the flattery there. P.P.S. You're linking to Prison Planet now? You actually visit Alex Jones's sites and you're not just mining for lulz? Wow, harkin, you've really gone off the deep end.

Quoting bjkeefe: Sorry, you're mistaking anecdotes for data.

Guilty as charged, but I understood us to be having an anecdotal discussion anyway--your statement above, which I responded to, did not include the data to back up your conviction.

Quoting bjkeefe: Look back at the past three or four decades. You'll never be able find any instance that compares to the organized, united, dead-set opposition Bill Clinton or Barack Obama faced -- from the other side's media, the other side's members of Congress, or the other side's grassroots/astroturf organizations -- from day one after Election Day.

Since I don't have the data before me, and you've not supplied it, let's assume for the sake of argument that what's happening at the moment is unique. I'm still not sure it shows us anything about conservatives being more instinctually prone to this stuff. Rather, I'd posit that it shows us how much easier it has become to mobilize opposition. This is Mickey Kaus' Party in a Laptop. And if a Republican were in office, there would probably still be a Party in a Laptop, just of a different flavor.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'll grant that the farce that was the Florida aspect of the 2000 election did mean Bush

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: ... let's assume for the sake of argument that what's happening at the moment is unique.

Let's assume that the very conclusion you'd like to obtain is true from the start? Thanks, but I think I'll pass.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: This is Mickey Kaus' Party in a Laptop.

No, you're just flat-out wrong, and this is such a superficial Villager-style banality that it's all I can do to stand to answer you at all. And I'm not even talking about relying on that clown as an authority. There is nothing new here with this fancy Internet thing, except one extra channel for bullshit to flow through, and I'll remind you, since you appear to have forgotten, that it's been up and running for a bit longer than the past year. When do you think the Drudge Report launched, for example? I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the right-wing noise machine, its organization, its funding, and how long it's been in place. As much as you'd like to be pompous about "the data," I am not speaking from anecdotes related to the people in my immediate sphere when I was a teenager. I am talking

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: I'm still not sure it shows us anything about conservatives being more instinctually prone to this stuff.

I don't know how you would be sure, but this is the way I think about this phenomenon. Is it possible that in a country there is a section of the population that is more likely to believe what they are being told by their authority figures/ leaders without exhaustive questioning or analysis of the message? Would that group be defined by the amount of access to variety in sources of information, educational level, values, cultural and religious norms, etc.? Is it possible that a political party or group would take advantage of the above characteristics and design a propaganda machine that spreads messages that include derogatory, frightening information about their political rivals, even without evidence, knowing that that sector of the population they are targeting will take it at face value? Looking at the base of both parties, which party is more likely to have a greater group that can be defined as above? Which party has been “singing” to the values of that group? The strategy outlined above is very dishonest, but unfortunately effective.

Just sayin' or rather notin':
....Andrew Sullivan Revises History (Again) Mar 12 2010, 8:04 AM ET Jeffrey Goldberg: ...Andrew Sullivan should be thankful that The Atlantic's fact-checking department has no purview over the magazine's website. The magazine's fact-checkers vet each word that appears in the print magazine for accuracy and context, but because they have no authority over blogs (or anything else produced for the web), Andrew is free to publish malicious nonsense, such as the series of map he published yesterday, maps which purport to show how Jews stole Palestinian land. Andrew does not tell us the source of these maps (in a magazine with standards, the source would be identified), but they were drawn to cast Jews in the most terrible light possible. The first map in the series of four is most egregious. It suggests that, in 1946, nearly all of the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean was "Palestinian." Land designated as "Jewish" in this map constitutes maybe five percent of the total. This map is ridiculous, not only because the term "Palestinian" in 1946 referred, generally speaking, to the Jews who lived in Palestine, not the Arabs, but because there was no Palestine in 1946 (nor

Quoting basman: ...

Andrew Sullivan responds. And correctly notes:

The point of the illustration was to provide some background to the now-unavoidable fact that Israel has every intention of expanding its sovereignty to the Jordan river for ever, to segregate Palestinians into walled enclaves within, and to station large numbers of Israeli troops on the Eastern border.

Quoting bjkeefe: Let's assume that the very conclusion you'd like to obtain is true from the start? Thanks, but I think I'll pass.

You've said you don't want to continue the discussion, fair enough. But I just wanted to correct this one thing--I wasn't assuming MY conclusions were correct. Rather, I was trying to make an argument on the basis of YOUR terms. YOU said in the post before this one that I was wrong to say 'both sides do it' because what had happened recently to Democrats in power was different, qualitatively, to the kind of opposition marshaled by liberals against Republicans. You made specific mention of the last two Democratic administrations and the kind of spin unleashed against them. So I was saying, "Fine. Assume that anti-Obama and anti-Clinton vitriol is special. But what if the reason for that is..." and proceeding from there. Just wanted to confirm that. We still disagree about the reasons, but I wanted to be clear that I was adopting YOUR starting place.

Quoting Ocean: I don't know how you would be sure, but this is the way I think about this phenomenon.

Is it possible that in a country there is a section of the population that is more likely to believe what they are being told by their authority figures/ leaders without exhaustive questioning or analysis of the message?

Would that group be defined by the amount of access to variety in sources of information, educational level, values, cultural and religious norms, etc.?

I'd argue that such people exist across the country. I know a great many college-educated, upper-middle-class liberals who believe everything they hear from other liberals and don't really move in circles where they are exposed to any other views.

Quoting Ocean: Is it possible that a political party or group would take advantage of the above characteristics and design a propaganda machine that spreads messages that include derogatory, frightening information about their political rivals, even without evidence, knowing that that sector of the population they are targeting will take it at face value?...The strategy outlined above is very dishonest, but unfortunately effective.

This I would agree that the Republican LEADERSHIP has done more of. But

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: I'd argue that such people exist across the country. I know a great many college-educated, upper-middle-class liberals who believe everything they hear from other liberals and don't really move in circles where they are exposed to any other views.

I'm addressing this in quantitative terms. Relatively speaking, although the phenomenon can be observed across socio-economic/ educational status, it can be argued that it is more likely to occur (higher frequency) in sections of population who are less likely to challenge authority opinions.

This I would agree that the Republican LEADERSHIP has done more of. But what BJ said above that I first responded to was something about the instinctual hatred-of-the-other-side among ordinary people, party members, liberals vs. conservatives, not the leadership of the two parties. I agree that Republicans are better at marshaling this tendency among their base than Democrats are, but I'm not willing to say the tendency itself is more present in the psyches of conservatives than in those of liberals.

I wasn't addressing your discussion with Brendan directly, but rather reflecting on the general topic. I agree that it is the party's leadership that plans out political strategies. If you're trying to measure "hatred-for-the-other-side" in each

Quoting Ocean: I'm addressing this in quantitative terms. Relatively speaking, although the phenomenon can be observed across socio-economic/ educational status, it can be argued that it is more likely to occur (higher frequency) in sections of population who are less likely to challenge authority opinions.

Yes, but I'm not actually sure the tendency to not challenge authority opinions IS more prevalent among conservative populations, or even among uneducated populations.

Quoting Ocean: I agree that it is the party's leadership that plans out political strategies. If you're trying to measure "hatred-for-the-other-side" in each of the bases, you would have to look at a much more complex set of conditions.

Agreed.

Quoting Ocean: I think that, at least in part, Brendan was taking into account the implications of that hatred for each side.

If that were the case, he and I would have less to disagree about, but he spoke specifically about the instinctual sentiments of liberals and conservatives, not the political machinery. He brought up the machinery later in our back-and-forth, but the initial post that prompted my disagreement was about instincts.

Quoting Ocean: The Republican's side hatred tends, in my opinion to be more extremist, as shown for their overt threats of use of violence or more

Matthew Lee reports:

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday delivered a stinging rebuke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his government's announcement this week of new Jewish housing in east Jerusalem, calling it "a deeply negative signal" for the Mideast peace process and ties with the U.S.

The State Department said Clinton spoke to Netanyahu by phone for 43 minutes to vent U.S. frustration with Tuesday's announcement that cast a pall over a visit to Israel by Vice President Joe Biden and endangered indirect peace talks with the Palestinians that the Obama administration had announced just a day earlier.

The length and unusually blunt tone of Clinton's call underscored the administration's concern about prospects for the negotiations it has been trying to organize for more than a year and its anger over Israel's refusal to heed U.S. appeals not to make provocative gestures.

"The announcement of the settlements on the very day that the vice president was there was insulting," Clinton said in an interview with CNN Friday. "It was just really a very unfortunate and difficult moment for

I think people are missing the main point here. Frum contends that the reason the US should not pressure Israel to concede more to the Palestinians than the relative strength of military forces of Israel v. Palestinians would dictate is that the US has nothing to gain from the application of such pressure. But wait. A lof of people think that the US has much to gain in the Mideast from getting this dispute off the table, more or less. What advantage does the US get from the status quo, or from having Israel as an ally? The most I can come up with is the military advantage of the use of Israel's air bases and air capability in a future resource war. Frum asserts that such advantages exist, he does not say what they are, and Wright did not press him on this. But that's a terrible oversight by Wright. The whole point of the Mearsheimer-Walt point of view is that "the strategic alliance" between the US and Israel is no longer in the US interest. Instead of engaging the Realpolitik question, Wright allows the discussion to divagate into the muddy waters of legality, morality, and

Regarding the greater regard for group authorities and stronger tendency to see the world through a lens of group identification: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jo...oral_mind.html

I've noticed with Pinkerton last week, and now with Frum, Bob seems to have become more aggressive in pinning his partners down and insisting they explain and defend their positions. A very nice change. I look forward to the next Bob/Kagan.

Quoting bjkeefe: No, you're just flat-out wrong, and this is such a superficial Villager-style banality that it's all I can do to stand to answer you at all.

I think you over-estimated what you could stand to do.

Quoting cragger: Regarding the greater regard for group authorities and stronger tendency to see the world through a lens of group identification:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jo...oral_mind.html

And a greater capacity to excise people from groups that behave indecently. i.e. a society that promotes and encourages suicide bombings to murder civilians as a strategy for improvement.
That last bit is sorely lacking in too many lefties. They only talk of expanding the circle, widening the "in group" range. It seems far more difficult for some of them to place people outside the circle, even in cases where it is merited. It's is what allows me to condone capital punishment in certain cases, because for me it is not enough to simply be human and alive to warrant more respect than an animal. A fetus is human and alive, so is an invalid in a vegetative state.

Quoting JonIrenicus: And a greater capacity to excise people from groups that behave indecently. i.e. a society that promotes and encourages suicide bombings to murder civilians as a strategy for improvement.

That last bit is sorely lacking in too many lefties. They only talk of expanding the circle, widening the "in group" range. It seems far more difficult for some of them to place people outside the circle, even in cases where it is merited.

It's is what allows me to condone capital punishment in certain cases, because for me it is not enough to simply be human and alive to warrant more respect than an animal.

A fetus is human and alive, so is an invalid in a vegetative state.

A skin cell is human and alive. That's not sufficient.

Quoting look: I've noticed with Pinkerton last week, and now with Frum, Bob seems to have become more aggressive in pinning his partners down and insisting they explain and defend their positions. A very nice change. I look forward to the next Bob/Kagan.

I am still waiting on Bob to get Mickey back on, I wonder if Mickey thinks it will hurt his chances in his race....
If that is the case Mickey... (Bob go yell at him to come to his senses, maybe send Achenbach for the task, he seems like he'd be good at that, it is not changing any results)

That last bit is sorely lacking in too many lefties. They only talk of expanding the circle, widening the "in group" range. It seems far more difficult for some of them to place people outside the circle, even in cases where it is merited.

You're wrong. 'Lefties' don't want to expand the definition of the in group to encompass everyone, they just don't want social relations to be defined in terms of in groups and out groups.

It's is what allows me to condone capital punishment in certain cases, because for me it is not enough to simply be human and alive to warrant more respect than an animal.

The reason some people oppose capital punishment is not because we respect murderers too much, it's because we think it's employed in an unjust way/because we don't believe the state should have that kind of power/because we believe it's cruel and unusual, etc.

And a greater capacity to excise people from groups that behave indecently. i.e. a society that promotes and encourages suicide bombings to murder civilians as a strategy for improvement.

I don't get it. Because there are ugly things

One might surmise from the quoted material that nearly anything is sufficient excuse for a "my group is right, anybody and everybody else is wrong" rant that is quite to the point in exemplifying the primacy of group identification for some folks though.

Quoting JonIrenicus: I am still waiting on Bob to get Mickey back on, I wonder if Mickey thinks it will hurt his chances in his race....

If that is the case Mickey... (Bob go yell at him to come to his senses, maybe send Achenbach for the task, he seems like he'd be good at that, it is not changing any results)

As Bob has surmised, I don't think this is a serious run, but maybe one to get some ideas out or increase name recogition/marketability...wouldn't hurt bhtv, either. Hmmm, maybe it's a Mickey/Bob cabal.

Quoting look: As Bob has surmised, I don't think this is a serious run, but maybe one to get some ideas out or increase name recogition/marketability...wouldn't hurt bhtv, either. Hmmm, maybe it's a Mickey/Bob cabal.

Interestingly, Mickey has stated on KausFiles that his continuing relationship with Slate is undetermined (he gives assurances that the blog will continue to be available at its home address [kausfiles.com].) In the same post he also gestures to toward the notion that he really isn't looking beyond the primary. That seems to me like a lot of skin in the game in order to achieve what appears to be an entirely rhetorical end, but who knows?

Quoting Wonderment: I think Bob asked the wrong (right for 1990) moral question. The real question has nothing to do with the current bogus "peace process," but is whether -- when push comes to shove, as it surely will, -- the West will follow Israel all the way down this rabbit hole to ethnic cleansing, perpetual siege, and/or population transfer.

You mean rabbi hole?

Quoting kezboard: The reason some people oppose capital punishment is not because we respect murderers too much, it's because we think it's employed in an unjust way/because we don't believe the state should have that kind of power/because we believe it's cruel and unusual, etc.

I am with you in radically scaling back the use of capital punishment, that would sate the unjust use. As for cruel and unusual, that is what it is. I just look at it a bit differently. More like a cancerous tumor vs healthy cells. It is like preferring to contain the cancer as opposed to removing the cancer. Why the sympathy for the tumor, why the solidarity? Fellow human being? sentient? Is there nothing that human being could do, no level of destructiveness in their nature that forfeits the same level of protections and considerations as the rest of humanity? I don't think some of people are capable of moving some people that far outside of some sort of circle of humanity to support putting them down as one would a rabid dog. In rare cases, I can. I see no value in entombing unrepentant murderers for the duration of

So Hillary delivered a stinging rebuke. The Israelis are embarrassed and have apologised. Now we have kissed and made up. Wait a minute - every one now assumes the settlements will be built. Funny how that works. The Israelis have established imaginary facts on the ground before there are any real physical facts on the ground. Is it possible the insult was planned ahead of time? This is analogous to what Iran is doing with enrichment. To declare a capability to produce highly enriched Uranium, even though the quantities are extremely minute, establishes a fact on the ground. Everyone falls into a new view of the world. when this happens.

Quoting Don Zeko: Would it have been kosher for the United States to retain Japan as an occupied territory while denying its citizen's suffrage indefinitely after World War II?

Apparently the answer was yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...war_occupation Japan had to buy back Okinawa from the United States.

Quoting The Agreement Between the United States of America and Japan Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands: the Government of Japan will pay to the Government of the United States of America in United States dollars a total amount of three hundred and twenty million United States dollars (U.S. $320,000,000) over a period of five years from the date of entry into force of this Agreement. Of the said amount, the Government of Japan will pay one hundred million United States dollars (U.S. $100,000,000) within one week after the date of entry into force of this Agreement and the remainder in four equal annual instalments in June of each calendar year subsequent to the year in which this Agreement enters into force.

Not a great deal of money(1), but Japan still hasn't gotten back Korea or the Kuril Islands, and probably never will. === I think a big problem with the diavlogue is that neither Wright nor Frum are realists and

Quoting AemJeff: Interestingly, Mickey has stated on KausFiles that his continuing relationship with Slate is undetermined (he gives assurances that the blog will continue to be available at its home address [kausfiles.com].) In the same post he also gestures to toward the notion that he really isn't looking beyond the primary. That seems to me like a lot of skin in the game in order to achieve what appears to be an entirely rhetorical end, but who knows?

Wow, I didn't realize that. I knew he'd taken a pay cut. I'm sure the Mickster will come out on top, though.

Quoting Simon Willard: So Hillary delivered a stinging rebuke. The Israelis are embarrassed and have apologised. Now we have kissed and made up.

Wait a minute - every one now assumes the settlements will be built. Funny how that works. The Israelis have established imaginary facts on the ground before there are any real physical facts on the ground. Is it possible the insult was planned ahead of time?

This is analogous to what Iran is doing with enrichment. To declare a capability to produce highly enriched Uranium, even though the quantities are extremely minute, establishes a fact on the ground. Everyone falls into a new view of the world. when this happens.

Good catch.

The whole Clinton-Biden-Netanyahu tizzy seems bogus to me. The Israeli tail continues to wag the American dog, whether a right-wing extremist prime minister with an openly racist Foreign Minister is in power or not. The Biden diss and the Hillary scold are just atmospherics. Obama (like all US politicians) is intimidated by Israel (instead of the other way around). Netanyahu feels free to do as he pleases, since there will be no consequences (or end to Settlements) in any case. The Israelis have a long history of getting away with murder and mayhem and having the USA cover their ass. They have no reason to believe that will change in the foreseeable future. Obama's AIPAC campaign speech demonstrated clearly where he's coming from.

Quoting Wonderment: The whole Clinton-Biden-Netanyahu tizzy seems bogus to me. The Israeli tail continues to wag the American dog, whether a right-wing extremist prime minister with an openly racist Foreign Minister is in power or not.

The Biden diss and the Hillary scold are just atmospherics.

Obama (like all US politicians) is intimidated by Israel (instead of the other way around). Netanyahu feels free to do as he pleases, since there will be no consequences (or end to Settlements) in any case.

The Israelis have a long history of getting away with murder and mayhem and having the USA cover their ass. They have no reason to believe that will change in the foreseeable future. Obama's AIPAC campaign speech demonstrated clearly where he's coming from.

Did you notice how the main objection of the Obama Administration is only about the timing - apparently there was nothing wrong with it in principle-of Israel's settlement plans? I'm glad Israel outted the US.

Funny how Frum says the Palestinians have no moral claims worth considering when these kinds of daily barbarous acts by the IDF go unnoticed in the US media. Ten year old Palestinian boy abducted from his bed

Spanish Republicans fought to their deaths.

None of his examples were apt, but the German examples of East Prussia and Silesia probably illustrate what he's trying to say... and that is that the Arabs lost. Might has and will always continue to make right. And they, the Palestinians, can't diplomacy their way back in to what once was... because they're Palestinians, i.e. the people of Hamas, intifada, and suicide bombing. Does Germany get to have East Prussia or Silesia back? They don't. Why? Cause they lost control of the land through war and won't ever get it back because of what they did to lose that land. edit: sort of what bjkeefe said.

Man, you're getting smart girl. Loves it.

Quoting Lyle: None of his examples were apt, but the German examples of East Prussia and Silesia probably illustrate what he's trying to say... and that is that the Arabs lost. Might has and will always continue to make right. And they, the Palestinians, can't diplomacy their way back in to what once was... because they're Palestinians, i.e. the people of Hamas, intifada, and suicide bombing. Does Germany get to have East Prussia or Silesia back? They don't. Why? Cause they lost control of the land through war and won't ever get it back because of what they did to lose that land.

This sounds awfully similar to the views that i assumed Frum wasn't actually advocating. The key point about the Palestinians is that they are not citizens of a sovereign state, but are essentially under the control of a government that has not granted them the franchise (plus the checkpoints, bombings, etc.). Comparisons to East Prussia work if we're talking about, say, Egypt's rights with regard to the Sinai or Syria's claims on the Golan Heights, but the main conflict today is between Israel and the people that live on the land that it

One would think Andrew's current Israel hatred is premised on Palestinians supporting gay marriage.

Did you notice how the main objection of the Obama Administration is only about the timing ...

Yes, exactly. As if it all was good provided Netanyahu waited a decent interval after Biden left. Wotever.

Wonderment, you are far more knowledgeable on this stuff than me so here's a question for you: is the problem that the Jewish-American electorate is on such a hair-trigger regarding what they perceive to be good for Israel, and so good at voting together as a block, that any politician risks career suicide by taking positions that are too critical of Israel? In other words, though many liberals are disappointed that no President ever seems to have the balls to stand up to Israel, isn't that just a case of representing the will of our electorate (ie- avoiding the predictable vengeance of the AIPAC community)? The only data set that I have witnessed since becoming politically aware about a decade ago, would be the fallout that Jimmy Carter suffered for his "apartheid" remarks. I could see it being a case that it's just the Marty Peretzes of the world who have great influence in the media and fund-raising sides of things, rather than the actual populace, but I would be curious to know other examples of elected officials who dared to cross the path of Israel's perceived interests

It is very difficult to predict the future. It is usually people with skin in the game who try to argue the inevitability of outcomes.

Wonderment, you are far more knowledgeable on this stuff than me so here's a question for you: is the problem that the Jewish-American electorate is on such a hair-trigger regarding what they perceive to be good for Israel, and so good at voting together as a block, that any politician risks career suicide by taking positions that are too critical of Israel?

Israeli Zionists have done a very good job in brainwashing American Jews. They are quite good at it, exploiting feelings of guilt, insecurity and ethnic solidarity. It's hard nowadays to find a synagogue in America that doesn't have an Israeli flag standing next to the Torah (typically, the Torah Ark is flanked by Israeli and American flags). The Zionists especially focus on youth. Zionist organizations offer all-expenses-paid "birthright" trips to any Jew under 30 from the USA. Most of the publicizing of these freebies is done on college campuses. The trips include round-trip airfare and a week or so of propagandistic tourism. That's a lot of investment, and the return on the investment is a lifelong identification with Zionist ideology. Also, Jews everywhere --often for good reason -- are

Quoting themightypuck: It is very difficult to predict the future. It is usually people with skin in the game who try to argue the inevitability of outcomes.

yes...and thereby hope to influence those outcomes.

Quoting Simon Willard: This is analogous to what Iran is doing with enrichment. To declare a capability to produce highly enriched Uranium, even though the quantities are extremely minute, establishes a fact on the ground. Everyone falls into a new view of the world. when this happens.

Most advanced closed cycle nuclear power plants recycle whatever actinides are left in spent fuel to later incorporate them into various MOXes. The recycling technique PUREX is capable of producing Pu 239. So does Iran already have a fleet of nuclear power plants, or are they just straight up using a fleet of centrifuges?

I think you may be reading a little to much into the flag thing. I spent a number of years in several different dojangs that all flew the Korean flag. As far as I could tell, it meant exactly diddly. Random question: What the heck is a jew? A religion? An ethnicity? My grandparents were practicing jews, but my mother has been non-practicing since before I was born. So what does that make me? 50% jewish? 1%? 0%?

Random question: What the heck is a jew? A religion? An ethnicity? My grandparents were practicing jews, but my mother has been non-practicing since before I was born. So what does that make me? 50% jewish? 1%? 0%?

You get to decide for yourself, Star, but I can tell you two things of interest: 1) You qualify for instant Israeli Jewish citizenship if you should so desire (one Jewish grandparent and you're in)*; and 2) If you're under 30 you can score that free trip to Israel. Invest a few extra bucks and you can maybe catch Jordan and Egypt while you're in the neighborhood. *To jack up the population of Israeli Jews a few decades ago, the Israelis let in 1,000,000 immigrants from the Soviet Union. A third of them were not really Jews at all. For example, if a Soviet citizen had one Jewish grandmother, he qualified along with his spouse, kids, parents, etc. These "Jews" are now largely right-wing Zionist secularists -- a huge support group for Likud candidates, especially Ariel Sharon who spoke fluent Russian.

Quoting Wonderment: So yes, the minute either Democrat or Republican pols dare to utter a word of criticism to Israel, the wagons are circled. There's nothing to be gained by US politicians challenging the Zionist line, and there's much to be lost.

A couple of examples here, that I just happened across during my regular feed-reading last night, from Blue Texan and TBogg. Also, follow the last link TBogg gives, scroll down a bit, and marvel at the number of words of fury on this one microtopic (the WH response to the Bibi stunt).

Quoting themightypuck: It is very difficult to predict the future. It is usually people with skin in the game who try to argue the inevitability of outcomes.

And people without say: One thing we know for sure: the next six months will be crucial.

Thanks Wonder. Speaking annecdotally, I have known a couple friends who became drastically more pro-Israel after college/pilgrimage trips, so apparently it's a pretty effective method.

Nah, I've already been to Egypt and Jordan, but thanks for the info. I think I finally understand how Israel maintains such a vigourous diaspora.

They have the right to self-determination, just not in Israel (unless they live in Israel). Gaza and the Palestinian West Bank is what they have and is all they'll ever have. The Sinai is something Israel didn't want to keep. Probably because it is not "Israel". Silesia and East Prussia were definitely part of "Germany" though. Maybe Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon will throw the Palestinians a bone and carve out some of their land for them.