Sympathy for the Palestinians is not “strange” or “academic.”
While yes, there are unfortunate side-effects of trying to wage war against a country, as the Palestinians have done over the years, and before 1967, and the IDF, like all militaries, makes some mistakes, which includes war crimes time to time, as did the allies in WWII and every army to ever fight a war, the actions of the Palestinians would never be tolerated against any other nation. Blowing oneself up, hijacking planes around the world, murdering Olympians, things like the Achille Lauro, etc. were not features of other recent “national liberation” movements; except of course the Palestinians.
Well according to the polls, it is. At least in the nation that twice elected a racial minority member as President, that freed the world from fascism and communism, that invented modern representative democracy, and produced much of the innovation that has moved the world forward since 1776. When you’re outnumbered by over 4:1, its time to wonder why.
You’re still ignoring the grey area. Not every bad thing in the region is the fault of Palestinians.
Sorry, you don’t get to define ANYTHING about ‘real Americans.’ The only thing you can define is your own narrow view of the world (which, btw, you’re doing a pretty good job of). You (of course) conveniently ignore atrocities committed BY Israelis. How democratic is that, either on your or the Israelis’ part?
Believe it or not, there are ‘real Americans’ who disagree with you strongly. Sorry if they don’t fit into your definition.
Right. Israeli atrocities are acceptable because they’re under attack. But Palestinians aren’t because they’re under attack. Yeahrite.
Supporting one side or the other doesn’t mean supporting everything done by one side or the other. And quit perpetuating the MYTH that the US ended fascism and communism. You say the same thing over and over again, without any evidence, and in the face of evidence that disproves that insular, exceptionalist view.
This is the poster who excused the nuclear bombings of the Japanese cities by making the bizarre and surreal argument it was necessary to save the Japanese from the Communists, and it was the great American thing to do… apparently he was ignorant that the Soviets were neutral to the Japan and had to be heavily pressured by the Americans to enter the war…
The moral compass is an Alice and Wonderlands game… there are no facts, only the assertions to support the fantasy.
That’s a little true of everyone… It’s why there it is possible for perfectly rational people to hold strong disagreements on moral issues.
Maybe not so much “we each have our own facts,” but we each (and all) choose how much emphasis to put on various facts. To one person, Palestinian crimes “count for more” than Israeli crimes; for another person, the other way around. Neither person is exactly wrong, just employing a different moral calculus.
ETA: Israeli/Palestinian issues are the one subject my brother-in-law and I cannot discuss. We simply differ too strongly in our value-assessment of the matter.
Derek - this is obviously a very important issue for you. Have you ever been to Israel to see firsthand what’s going on there? I think it would be very enlightening for you to go talk to Israeis, Palestinians, and the various expats who work there. I bet your view of everything would benefit.
so Berners, see how the Dems voted down the attempt by Bernie to throw Israel under the bus? http://www.timesofisrael.com/democrats-approve-platform-with-sanders-mark-but-not-on-israel/
Watching the Democratic party distance itself from Israel hasn’t been fun. That combined with their unquestioned embrace of PC culture has alienated a lot of traditional Democrat voters. It’s become a very common liberal position that establishing the State of Israel in the first place was a mistake. It’s hard for me to figure out how helping to foster the creation of the most tolerant, democratic and economically diverse country in the Middle East could ever be a mistake. Not to mention being one of America’s most stalwart allies.
You wouldn’t think liberals would be so quick to abandon that country in favor of their fabled Palestine, led by internationally-recognized terrorists, with abysmal human rights and equal rights, Sharia law, and all the rest. Doesn’t the Middle East have enough countries like that already? It’s not as though we’re running low.
The Palestinians have declined a number of deals. They chose Hamas and missiles over a two-state solution. Hamas’ official position is the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews worldwide. The renewed calls for a deal every time there’s an attack in Israel are cringeworthy. I wonder how we would react if illegal aliens were committing attacks in the US to try to force their way and get citizenship. Would that make Americans more likely to sit down at the table, listen and act? How would we react to voices around the world telling us, “See! Give them what they want or they’re going to keep killing you. We warned you.” Thinking of this scenario always reminds how classy and responsible Israel is, even in the face of constant threat many of these peanut gallery countries would never tolerate themselves.
This does not accurately describe the position of most Democrats, including the President.
Thankfully, liberals aren’t doing this, in general.
I see it a little like American Flag lapel pins. The Republicans made such a fetish of it, that it became a symbol, not so much of America, but of being a Republican. The same thing has happened with support for Israel: conservatives have made such a religious (literally!) issue of it that it is difficult for some liberals to maintain their own support.
Also, conservative thinking (as demonstrated in this very thread) tends to be extremely “black and white,” and any nuanced criticism of Israel (e.g., wanting them to stop building settlements in occupied territory) is seen by them as “disloyal” and “an attack.”
It was conservatism that gave us the slogan, “My country, right or wrong.” But sometimes my country is wrong, and that needs to be criticized, openly and publicly.
It’s always interesting when someone who’s clearly from the opposite philosophical side portrays all liberals collectively. Saying that Israel is the most democratic and economically diverse country in the Middle East is like saying that sugar is the sweetest thing in a collection of potato chips.
And you wouldn’t think that a conservative would justify killing by Israel in massive overreaction.
How many deals has Israel declined? Oh right, that doesn’t matter.
sadly, Gruff’s right. Liberals are the only political group whose sympathy for Israel has gone down since the turn of the century.
Luckily, the moderate Democratic majority stands with Israel in as big number (Pew’s numbers) as the American population on the whole. When President Hillary fixes the crap Obama did with Bibi, the numbers will increase.
Like which ones? I’ve barely even heard other Palestinian apologist claim Israel turned down deals. Usually, they claim that the Terrorstinians turned down “bad” deals.
If Mexico’s government were sponsoring, or sitting by, while terrorists consistently shot rockets into the US, I doubt America would just sit back and try to analyze the terrorists with post-colonialism. That is neither liberal or conservative. Well, it shouldn’t be.
Remember, each rocket is meant to kill at least one person.
There is no such crap to fix, except your refusal to accept that this characterization of Obama is entirely without basis.
Thou ain’t helping.
Let’s see…the Oslo Accords. The Taba Summit. The Arab Peace Initiative. Or how about the Israeli offer at the Camp David Summit in 2000 that even Ben Ami said he would have rejected? You really should know the history before you spout off about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict
I am no apologist for either side. I recognize the fact that there is a middle ground between “Hamas/Hezbollah bad” and “Israel bad,” and neither extreme is correct. See post #175. I know, it makes you feel better if you paint me as on the black end of your black-and-white thinking, but neither I nor the situation fit into it.
I never mentioned the President. I could, but I mentioned instead a piece of the liberal coalition specifically that I’ve been watching grow in strength. I’ll tell you this, Saudi Arabia’s hand in 9/11, its human rights violations, haven’t animated liberals on college campuses. Only Israel seems to do that. And the mass subjugation of Middle Eastern women appears to be an ancillary concern, if a concern at all.
Sort of like the OP, I’m actually very liberal on the environment and on economics. To a greater extent than most of the Democratic party. I’ve always been in favor of LGBT rights. Even back when Californians approved Prop 8 and it was widely believed that gay marriage was dead for the foreseeable future. One thing I don’t like is the way in which, “Could you please find it in your heart to see that gay people deserve the right to marry their loved ones, raise their children etc. etc.” so quickly became, “Don’t use the wrong terms. Support everything we say and promise you’ve always held that position or you’re a bigot and you need to die out.” Growing pains, I hope.
My staunch support of LGBT is one reason I’ve been so frustrated by the pivot away from Israel. It’s labeled pinkwashing when Israel touts its record on LGBT. Many lambast it as a distraction from the so-called atrocities committed against the Palestinians. If support for gay rights, protection from discrimination, the freedom to live out, serve in the military, and on and on, is a distraction, it’s a distraction I wish many more countries in the Middle East would adopt.
If the Iraq debacle, a foreign conflict I was against, has taught us anything, it should be how difficult it is to build or sustain a stable democracy in the Middle East. We have exactly one already. Israel. I could never be convinced of the wisdom of walking – or hedging – or pivoting away from that.
If only the rest of the “collection” were really as benign or as relatively tasty and worthwhile in their own right as a a bag of potato chips.
What you call massive overreaction I call amazing, inspiring even, restraint. To think of how America was ripped from the Native Americans by people with much less claim to the land of Israel than Israelis and Jews. The slaughters, the humiliations. Native Americans denied their land to this day, ignored and forgotten, somehow have far fewer advocates in the media, on college campuses, in the UN, than the Palestinians. I try to have some perspective here. Israel is held to an impossibly high standard by virtually the entire world.
How bad can things be if the Palestinian leadership turns down a deal including 95% of what they wanted in it and their poll numbers rise for having done so? Oh right, that doesn’t matter. They’ve turned down constructive deals, only to support war, Hamas, missiles, tunnels, and continuing to teach pervasive anti-Semitism in schools. Why would Israel give back land they won in defensive wars or unilaterally make concessions on settlements without a deal in place, especially when they’ve done all of those things in the past and it hasn’t gotten them a deal, international credit, or even a break from rocket fire.
That ‘collective’ thing was directed at Derek. But let’s look at some numbers from the recent past:
Gaza crisis: Toll of operations in Gaza
Operation Protective Edge (2014): Palestinians 2104 dead, Israelis 72.
Operation Pillar of Defense (2012): Palestinians 167 dead, Israelis 6.
Operation Cast Lead (2008-9): Palestinians 1,391 dead, Israelis 13.
Of the Palestinian dead, it’s estimated that roughly half overall were civilians.
How many people have died from Gaza rockets into Israel?
Israeli deaths due to rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel, 2001-2014: 44 (30 of which were civilians). Note that this does not include attacks on Israelis within Gaza.
If that’s restraint, I don’t want to see what happens when Israel goes crazy.
Alas, that is restraint. When Israel goes crazy, they invade Gaza with tanks.
To me, the rocket attacks fully justify the retaliation. I know it’s a hoary cliche, but what would the U.S. do if someone lobbed rockets over the border into Texas or Michigan? We’d probably take out the enemy capital city with (conventional) strategic bombing. When the U.S. goes crazy, we do it on a large scale!