Because you’re addressing the issue instead of engaging in obnoxious insults, I’ll answer.
It wasn’t a tense change; it was a voice change. I said that I could hold Israel accountable; you changed this to me saying that only Israel could be held accountable. By changing my statement from the active voice (in which I was referring to what I, as an agent, could do) to the passive voice (in which the lack of an agent made it seem as if I was making a universal statement), you totally changed the meaning of my post.
I don’t know how to make this clearer. Palestinian terrorists are doing a horrible thing–but they don’t give a shit about my saying that. I have no leverage over them. What am I going to do, encourage my government to fund their enemies?
The Israeli army is also doing a terrible thing–but I do have some control over that, since they’re doing it with weapons supplied by my government, and I get to elect my government.
This is not absolving the Palestinians of moral responsibility; rather, it’s recognizing where I can make a difference. How on earth is such a realpolitik lunacy?
I never said it would happen fast. In fact, I implied that it would take a while.
(off topic)Of any country in the region where I think Democracy would have a chance due simply to the inclinations of the populace, pre-GWII, I would have guessed Iraq and possibly Iran. I don’t think Iraq, once things are allowed to calm down and they are able to realisticly take the helm (6/30/4 is not realistic) I think that the population of Iraq may actually have a shot. But it aint gonna happen overnight.
Daniel, it was perceived as lunacy because when you tack it on to a post asking why more people don’t decry the actions of the Palestinians and instead engage in the villification of the Jews, it appears as if you are supporting their actions because you failed to acknowledge the reason why more people don’t find outrage in Palestinian attacks. Just because you’re pissed that your money goes to actions in Israel is no reason not to be vocal over Palestinian actions, just like you are about Israel’s actions.
As an aside-no, you have no control over what your country does with their money. THey never asked you to vote on money for Israel, just like they didn’t ask you to vote on money for the war in Iraq.
What good does it do? Yes, of COURSE I decry the actions of Palestinian terrorists. Very few people don’t, and on the rare occasions that anyone defends Palestinian terrorists, everyone jumps all over their ass, and rightly so.
They never ask me to vote directly on ANY federal issue. In our representative democracy, instead i vote for representatives who share my views on issues such as funding human-rights-abusers, and then those representatives vote on the issues the way I’d like them to. Am I missing something here?
Due respect, Daniel, but isn’t it rather the case that in theory they vote on the issues the way you’d like them to, but in actuality they often vote the way you’d rather they didn’t for the purpose of political expedience, and you don’t really know exactly how they’ve voted on every issue? (Note: Please don’t take this as any sort of attack on your political philosphy; it is an indictment of them, not you. The only possible reflection on you might be a bit of naivity.)
You’re giving up too easily! I suspect the poor harried clerks in my reps and sens offices recognize my name when I email them. I hope (but doubt) that the elected official will recognize my name too!
On a related note, never fill out those form letters to your elected official. They have didsdain for fake grassroots mass mailings. In fact, they even have a disdainful name for it. Astroturf-roots. A well thought out and posited note will outweigh a thousand such missives, and have a better chance at actually landing in the hands of the elected official. The old days of the staffers counting a “Positive on this issue”/“Negative on this issue” tally on incoming correspondance are thankfully withering.
Of course; my influence over my representatives is undependable, to say the least. Still, it’s better than my influence on Palestinian terrorists.
About all I can do is slap down terrorist apologists when they rear up, which is rarely. I can try to convince more Americans to lessen their support of Israel until Israel shapes up; that has some chance of having some effect.
No, I mean that at the ballot booth I don’t get to vote on issues. Of course, I’m unforgiveably slack about writing to my representatives about issues; I suppose it’s remotely possible that Elizabeth Dole and my local corrupt-as-hell congressman Carles Taylor will listen to me, but I really ought to be sending more letters to John Edwards.
No one here ever said they weren’t. The Palestinians are held accountable for the acts of a few freaks who blow themselves up…they are held accountable by the Israeli army blowing up a crowd of protesters…
Likewise, the Palestinians want to hold the Israelis accountable for their bullying…but lacking an army (and a nation) they resort to crude means (see above). And since they have no army to attack Israel’s army (well they could throw stones at tanks or something) they have to blow up civilians (and themselves).
The cycle then continues…and so on and so forth…over and over…ad infinitem
This whole story is about the big guy vs. the little guy. The big guy has lots of tanks and guns, and lots of money (and powerful friends). The little guy doesn’t even have a home, has nothing but rocks and crude bombs to blow himself up with. They are not even close to being on a level playing field. THIS is why it infuriates me when Israel (who is supposed to be a civilized Democracy) does such a barbaric thing. I expect barbarism from the Palestinians, not Israel.
Daniel, at what point would you stop lessening support for Israel? Suppose that all parties continue with the eye-for-eye tooth-for-tooth business just as they always have and your wish comes true. Would you stop lessening if its defense became untenable? Would you be bothered by the destruction of Israel by Arab and/or Palestinian forces? What would be the effect of an Israeli defeat in a pan-Arab war?
And you sympathized with Timothy McVeigh’s plight and motivation — the crudely armed struggler against oppression who had no choice but to do what he did, right?
I hesitate to do this, because this thread has gotten really, really stupid, but what the hell.
I mostly agree with NurseCarmen, except that I think he’s far too optimistic when it comes to the so-called “Palestinians” establishing a stable, independent nation, complete with a democratic government, in the West Bank and Gaza. The Israelis offered them that at Oslo and they turned it down. In fact, I belive that their greatest victory came when they conned the rest of us into calling them “Palestinians.” Given that 80% percent of them support the suicide bombings, I feel comfortable lumping them all together.
Keep in mind that the PLO was founded (and started blowing stuff up) four years before Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. This is not about the noble liberation of a visciously oppressed people; it’s about the destruction of Israel and the death of all those “filthy Jews.” When you are surrounded by people who aren’t interested in your capitulation, or receiving concessions, but just want you dead and the memory of your existance wiped out, you have to fight back.
I have to ask you, nyctea scandiaca, what in hell do you think they mean by “from the river to the sea?”
I’m responsible for my own actions, not for Israel’s. Let me answer with a few questions of my own which will, I hope, help you see where I’m coming from:
In the interests of eradicating political naivete, do you really think that Israel would rather collapse under an invasion than change its brutal military policies?
Do you think maybe you’re excluding a middle position thereby?
Why is a libertarian like you arguing in favor of foreign aid?
Is this really the best place to spend our foreign aid, in terms of helping promote the cause of world peace and democracy?
Here’s how I’m suggesting it’d work. The US says, "okay, guys, we’ve all sat around the negotiating table for decades, and we’ve come up with plenty of good peace deals. The one flaw these deals had was that you bastards chose not to implement them. So here’s the deal. Six months from today, we go either with this peace deal I’m holding in my hands right now, or else we go with whatever new deal we’ve negotiated by then.
"Israel: your obligation will be to comply with your side of the deal, regardless of whether the Palestinian authority complies with their side of the deal. If, six months from today, you are not in compliance with the peace deal’s timeline, we’re cutting your military aid by 10%. We will continue to cut your military aid by 10% for every month that you are out of compliance. WE’RE NOT FUCKING AROUND HERE.
“Palestinian Authority: we’ve got another pot of money here, not as big as Israel’s, but still significant. Six month from now, if you’re in compliance with the peace deal, you get this pot of money to spend on nonmilitary goods. If you’re not in compliance with the peace deal, it goes to Israel, and they can spend it on weapons or whatever they want. WE’RE NOT FUCKING AROUND HERE.”
The US has tremendous influence over Israel: without us, Israel wouldn’t exist. We have a moral obligation to use this influence.
How the hell is this a survivable position for the Israelis?
Remember how the current intifada started? Same thing. We brokered a peace deal in which Israel offered to give the Palestinians everything they asked for, then somebody noticed there there were still some Jews actually breathing, and they started blowing stuff up again.
Remember the Road Map. Remember how the Israelis began implementing their Phase I obligations in good faith, while the PA didn’t even try to do a goddamned thing? It’s a recurring pattern. We only get a “truce” or “cease fire” when the various terrorist organizations run out of Semtex and suicidal fanatics, and need breathing room to recruit and rearm. Then Israelis start dying again.
They never ask me to vote directly on ANY federal issue. In our representative democracy, instead i vote for representatives who share my views on issues such as funding human-rights-abusers, and then those representatives vote on the issues the way I’d like them to. Am I missing something here?