Right Wing Nut House



Filed under: Middle East — Rick Moran @ 9:54 am

My traffic has been down this holiday season so I thought a headline like the one above might draw the curious - and at least some liberals and far right wackos who think it an accurate statement and wish to read something with which they agree.

Sorry to disappoint, but the truth is a lot less prosaic. The fact is, even a lot of Palestinian sympathizers are wondering what the hell Hamas was thinking. The terrorists launched hundreds of rockets at Israel, trying to kill babies - hoping to kill babies - and as is their right under the UN Charter, the Jewish state is choosing to defend itself.

Even the “Blame Israel First” crowd is acknowledging these facts. So what’s the beef? Incredibly, it seems that the quality of Israel’s arms and their supremely competent air force is the problem. They are hitting back and it’s just not fair.

Ezra Klein:

Hamas lacks the technology to aim its rockets. They’re taking potshots. In response, the Israeli government launched air strikes that have now killed more than 280 Palestinians, injured hundreds beyond that, and further radicalized thousands in the Occupied Territories and millions in the region. The response will not come today, of course. It will come in months, or even in years, when an angry orphan detonates a belt filled with shrapnel, killing himself and 25 Israelis. At which point the Israelis will launch air strikes killing another 70 Palestinians, radicalizing thousands more, leading to more bombings, and so the cycle continues.

The rocket attacks were undoubtedly “deeply disturbing” to Israelis. But so too are the checkpoints, the road closures, the restricted movement, the terrible joblessness, the unflinching oppression, the daily humiliations, the illegal settlement — I’m sorry, “outpost” — construction, “deeply disturbing” to the Palestinians, and far more injurious. And the 300 dead Palestinians should be disturbing to us all.

There is nothing proportionate in this response. No way to fit it into a larger strategy that leads towards eventual peace. No way to fool ourselves into believing that it will reduce bloodshed and stop terrorist attacks. It is simple vengeance. There’s a saying in the Jewish community: “Israel, right or wrong.” But sometimes Israel is simply wrong.

The idea of “proportionate response” is a favorite among liberals. It appeals to their sense of “fairness” and besides, it makes them look like statesmen. Rather than using their jets, Israel should build an airforce of Sopwith Camels and drop cowpies on the terrorists. Better still, they should ask citizens to build the Israeli version of the Kassam rocket in their basements complete with crude homemade launchers and the occasional accident that prematurely blows up and kills a few kids along the way.

Klein’s laughable thesis boils down to this; Israel refuses to commit suicide. The idea that this or any other military action should fit into a “larger strategy that leads to eventual peace” could only be uttered by someone so clueless (or dangerously naive) that they are ignorant of the fact that the only “peace” Hamas has ever indicated that it wishes from Israel is for every Jew to be lying peacefully in their grave. And they have proven this singular attitude time and time again over the years. If this sounds simplistic, it is. There is no nuance in the Palestinians desire to kill the Jews and take their land. Those who purport to see any are fools.

Somehow when Klein - or Lambchop - berates Israel for defending itself, this notion of extermination and the Palestinians refusing to recognize Israel or any Israeli’s right to exist never seems to make it into their arguments. Instead, they prattle on about Israel not fighting fair, a la Klein and his “potshot” theory. Where in God’s name do liberals get these cockamamie ideas that it is necessary for a nation under attack to restrain itself or limit its response just to please the opinion and sensibilities of critics? Any nation has a right to defend itself as it sees best - except Israel and the United States who must play by a different set of rules than their bloodthirsty adversaries. “Don’t act too beastly towards the terrorists,” is not a military strategy.

I don’t like picking on Mr. Klein who, after all, is brighter than your average liberal and seems a very nice fellow. But this kind of sophistry has to be shown up if only to highlight a certain blind spot present in many on the left who believe that no matter what the provocation, Israel should refrain from carrying out sensible military actions like trying to degrade their enemy’s ability to fire rockets at their citizens because it is not helping the peace process. Klein lists many actions Israel has taken to defend itself short of war - checkpoints, restricted movements the “joblessness” (Israel’s fault Hamas is lousy at governing?), the “unflinching oppression” (Huh?), and still criticizes the Jewish state even when they don’t send in the IDF.

Evidently, Klein believes Israel is carrying out these measures not for purposes of defense but because they enjoy oppressing the Palestinians. Indeed, Mr. Klein and his liberal think alikes believe that Israel should just sit there and take the blows delivered by Hamas and try to woo the terrorists attempting to kill them all with soft words and grandiloquent gestures.

This is the “Obama way” and it is an attitude prevelant on the left because they refuse to believe that there are people and nations on this earth where talking does no good, where dialog is used as a tactic to further war aims rather than as a means to reach a settlement of differences. Israel is under no illusions when it comes to the intent of Palestinians. Why should lefties like Klein and Greenwald create them?

And speaking of Lambchop, Robert McCain has a great takedown of Greenwald’s diatribe against the Israelis who have incurred the sock puppet’s wrath because they refuse to stand down in the face of naked agression. McCain uses General Sherman’s thoughts on war to blast Lambchop’s idiotic posturing:

Greenwald correctly asserts: “Opinions about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute are so entrenched that any single outbreak of violence is automatically evaluated through a pre-existing lens, shaped by one’s typically immovable beliefs about which side bears most of the blame for the conflict.” And he is certainly not exempted from the effects of entrenched opinion and immovable belief, unequivocally placing himself in the Blame Israel First camp.

Are there no innocent Israelis, no “numerous children” imperiled by the haphazard Hamas rocket and mortar attacks of recent days? Did not Israel warn Hamas that a continuation of the attacks would not be tolerated? It seems to me that one must either justify the Hamas attacks or else admit Israel’s right to act in self-defense. Greenwald and other critics might argue that Israel had a right to act, but has overreacted. However, in doing so they seek to make themselves arbiters of Israeli defense policy.

Sherman’s remonstrance that “war is hell” is lost on those who insist on believing that war should be fought the 17th century way - a contest between gentlemanly combatants where both sides refrain from firing on officers else the battle would get out of control and mobs of commoners would have at each other. Israel can’t use its jets because Hamas doesn’t have any - that’s unfair, don’t you know. Israel should forswear the use of its armor or sophisticated artillery - that just wouldn’t be “proportional.”

Israel should take being showered by rockets, smile, and invite Hamas for a cup of tea - that’s the way to demonstrate seriousness in peace negotiations. The fact that Hamas is not serious about peace is never the issue. After all, why criticize someone who would laugh in your face and spit in your eye for suggesting such a ludicrous idea as “peace.?” Better to rail against the Israelis who have to listen to the US, their best and most important ally rather than be tortured with the thought that Palestinian terrorists could give a fig what you think.

If there’s anything a liberal hates it’s being ignored.


  1. they refuse to believe that there are people and nations on this earth where talking does no good, where dialog is used as a tactic to further war aims rather than as a means to reach a settlement of differences.

    This notion is as ridiculous as your position, Rick. This conflict will end the day it stops being massively advantageous to the agendas of all countries/parties involved. Period.

    Comment by Chuck Tucson — 12/29/2008 @ 12:04 pm

  2. Right wing Israeli religious groups have laid claim to a wide swath of local territory in the belief that they have a divine right to recreate the kingdom of David. As a result settlement building has been criticized for decades by the Israeli left and both Republican and Democratic administrations for being contrary to the peace process. But who cares about the people being displaced, they have been living there for centuries but evidently their divine right is not as old as the Israeli divine right. When the Zionist movement was deciding where to build their state other alternatives to present day Israel were discussed, but they ended up where they did and it’s too late to change things now. But this decision has consequences and one of them is that he people living there did not feel they should give up their land because Europeans felt guilty about their Antisemitism and the Holocaust. Not that I give the Palestinians a free pass either, they chose terrorism to right their wrongs and are now also justly reaping the consequences of their decisions. I don’t care if Israel wants to kill Hamas babies, or if Hamas wants to kill Israeli babies we just don’t need to subsidize it at over 2+ billion a year. Want to see middle east peace? Pull the subsidy and let the state of Israel come to grips with the true cost of constant warfare and the right wing desire for recreating their divinely ordained kingdom. And spare me the “good ally Israel” argument, they support us only as long as the money keeps coming, ultimately they act in their own interests and have always disregarded the U.S. when it suited them.

    Comment by grognard — 12/29/2008 @ 12:12 pm

  3. Good post.

    I like Malone’s philosophy (from “The Untouchables”)- “If they pull a knife, you pull a gun. If they send one of your guys to the hospital, you send one of their guys to the morgue.”

    Everybody has a right to defend themselves and their country. I suspect that Klein would feel a bit differently if those rockets were being lobbed into Buffalo from Canada.

    Comment by lionheart — 12/29/2008 @ 12:19 pm

  4. Sorry, Lionheart, Klien and his ilk will only complain if the rockets hit their own houses. And then they will complain, but only that Bush did not connect the dots.

    Klein and Greenwald know that Israelies won’t hurt them and Muslims will. So they screech at those murderous Jews, that way the get to sound all smart and brave, knowing that there will be Jews and Republicans on the front lines.

    Comment by Peter — 12/29/2008 @ 1:00 pm

  5. I state unequivocally that I would sacrifice my life to defend my Jewish brothers and sisters. (Yes, I am half Jewish.) That noted, let’s add a couple talking points to the discussion: What was Israel thinking in expanding settlements into the Occupied Territories? And more recently blockading Gaza for the past year, which is an act of war plain and simple?

    The next several days will follow an all-too-familiar pattern of pointless finger pointing and messages sent but not received: Arab states will pile on Israel. Washington and a few other Western government will rush to Israel’s defense. The price of oil will spike. The radical Palestinian leadership will bury their dead but determinedly not learn from the errors of their ways while their people sink deeper into poverty and hopelessness.

    And the Israelis, who long ago squandered their moral superiority by building settlements in the Occupied Territories while oppressing the Palestinian people, will revel over their big dicked but small-minded chest thumping.

    Comment by shaun — 12/29/2008 @ 1:29 pm

  6. Did someone say Sherman?

    Comment by epaminondas — 12/29/2008 @ 1:44 pm

  7. My hand to God, “The Untouchables” was exactly what I was thinking of as I read Klein’s words

    Since when does being a good ally mean being a good bitch and putting someone else’s well being above your own. Punk.

    Comment by DS — 12/29/2008 @ 1:55 pm

  8. Great post, Mr Moran — and thank you for your clear thinking. Clear thinking vis-a-vis Israel — and, especially, vis-a-vis Israeli use of force against its enemies seems to be in very short supply these days.

    Your suggestion of squadrons of IAF Sopwith Camels is hilarious: Still, the Liberals would have problems with those, as well. (After all, how many Sopwith Camels are there in the Hamas Air Force?)

    Comment by man_in_tx — 12/29/2008 @ 2:00 pm

  9. “Where in God’s name do liberals get these cockamamie ideas that it is necessary for a nation under attack to restrain itself or limit its response just to please the opinion and sensibilities of critics?” Well, many of us call it the Geneva Convention, to which the US is a signatory. Collective punishment, bombing of civilian targets (for pete’s sake, they bombed a women’s college dormitory), refusing to allow medical relief. These are all war crimes of the first order. Sure, we can reject the Geneva Convention, not to mention the US constitution, but the rest of us do not support fascism as you apparently do.

    Why is it you who cry “war crime” at the drop of a hat never mention that Hamas deliberately places its military installations in the heart of residential neighborhoods? Is it too much to ask to give a little context to your screeching and blubbering? And the college was used by Hamas leadership - no doubt to plan where the next rocket attack would be launched where they could deliberately target civilians.

    The “bombing of civilian targets” is not entirely accurate. Israel bombs military targets that happen to be close to - or in dual use with - civilian targets. I am sorry if you can’t see the difference between launching a rocket praying that you will kill an innocent and dropping a bomb praying that you won’t. I realize that kind of moral clarity is too blinding to your delicate sensitivities which weeps for the destruction of an enemy while hoping that enemy can continue its attacks on babies with impunity.

    Comment by Pjerome — 12/29/2008 @ 2:39 pm

  10. Shaun has it about right in his comment #5 above. Of course Israel has a right to hammer Hamas. It’s always fun to watch terrorists being blown up. But settler policy undercuts Israel. (And us as their patron.)

    It’s true that liberals tend to see this in terms of some abstract notion of fairness. Like it’s a prize fight and everyone should fight within their weight. It’s not a prize fight, it’s a bar fight where an idiot 98 pound weakling picks a fight with the biggest dude at the pool table.

    Here’s a thought: if you don’t want to get your ass kicked don’t pick fights with people bigger than you are.

    Comment by michael reynolds — 12/29/2008 @ 2:39 pm

  11. Ezra seems to think that the morally superior way to wage war is to make sure that your enemies kill more of your people than you kill of theirs. It’s an interesting notion.

    Comment by Brainster — 12/29/2008 @ 2:51 pm

  12. And how about giving the palestinaians their land back (and stop torturing them in their daily lives), and live happily thereafter in peace with your neighboors? Have you ever thought about that???

    Question, Mr. Dunderhead: Where do the Jews go?

    Jus’ askin’…


    Comment by Simplistic — 12/29/2008 @ 3:28 pm

  13. Rick Said:

    I am sorry if you can’t see the difference between launching a rocket praying that you will kill an innocent and dropping a bomb praying that you won’t.

    This is classic. And in the end, what happens? Innocent people get blown up. Awesome. But oh! I did PRAY for it not to happen, so at least I’m cool with God.

    This entire argument, the entire thesis of this post is a distraction and a waste of time. This conflict will end the moment its existence stops benefiting so many people/parties/countries. It would be nice if the dialog shifted in that direction for a change, which it won’t.

    But hey, you guys have built the frame for the argument, and heaven forbid anyone think outside that frame for a second.

    Comment by Chuck Tucson — 12/29/2008 @ 3:32 pm

  14. It is up to Muslims to reform Islam. Until that happens, it is up to Israel to defend itself.

    Comment by Gary Ogletree — 12/29/2008 @ 3:40 pm

  15. Could someone explain how ending West Bank settlement expansion would be tantamount to “national suicide” for Israel?

    For the record, no rockets are being fired from the West Bank. Yet that has not stopped Israel from confiscating Palestinian land, demolishing Palestinian homes, and constructing new colonies populated by far-right Jewish fundies.

    Comment by AJB — 12/29/2008 @ 3:44 pm

  16. The biggest enemy of the Palestinian people ever since the end of the Ottoman Empire has been the Palestinian leadership. (From the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem right on up to Hamas, these folks have a knack for fucking their people over big time!) That being said, Israel seems determined to hand Obama his first big crisis right on January 20.

    Observe how Obama is stating the “one president at a time” mantra; he seems just as confused as the rest of us as to how to solve this problem. Of all the things he has promised to fix, the Israel/Palestine perpetual crisis seems the least likely to get solved in the next 4/8 years. For while Israel might change its leadership to one more likely to make peace, the odds of the Palestinians doing so are slim to none.

    PS- “If there’s anything a liberal hates it’s being ignored.” Rick, you are sure this doesn’t apply to conservatives too? Your headline betrays that statement…

    Heh - got me there. Actually, the last couple of days I’ve received more notice than usual - not all of it welcome.


    Comment by Surabaya Stew — 12/29/2008 @ 3:47 pm

  17. pejrome said:
    ” Well, many of us call it the Geneva Convention, to which the US is a signatory. ”

    I wish that people who say, “The Geneva Convention says … ” would actually READ it. One of the things it DOES say if that if both sides in a conflict are not signatorites, it is not binding on the side that is a signatory.

    Comment by jay stevens — 12/29/2008 @ 4:09 pm

  18. Rick Moran, you are the man.
    (I agree with you.)

    Comment by Nat — 12/29/2008 @ 4:17 pm

  19. Chuck Tucson,

    Allow me to put it in more familiar terms for you. As you no doubt are well aware, the law in this country, and in most, differentiates between premeditated murder and involuntary manslaughter (in this case the analogy would be accidentally killing an innocent bystander while trying to fend off your attacker). The only difference is intent, but one carries life in prison or the death penalty, the other carries a few years in jail - maybe.
    Understand now?

    Comment by Ed 4 — 12/29/2008 @ 5:24 pm

  20. Defending your borders equals fascism. Right.

    And it makes no difference if settler policy and the blockade are acts of war. I’m pretty sure Hamas sees itself as at war with Israel. They’re not lobbing donuts over the border. And when another party is at war with you it would be bad manners, not to mention a drain on the longetivity of your country, to not respond in kind.

    In PJ O’Rourke’s book Peace Kills (I think that’s the title) he talks about an Israeli couple with different political beliefs though each blamed the hostilities on leadership: Sharon won’t/wouldn’t end the war because it keeps him in power, and Arafat won’t/wouldn’t end the war because it keeps him in power. O’Rourke sets that up as an equivalency. But is it?

    If it is an equivalency it’s only because Israel doesn’t truly fight back. The Palestinians have a position that is untenable without the full backing of the Western media, even to the point of fauxtography to back their fantasys. So the media, and the Hamas apologizers above, give unrealistic hope to the Palestinians. As if Israel can be destroyed without the rest of the Middle East going to glass. So the problem isn’t Sharon or Arafat using war to maintain power. It’s the Western media’s influence that makes the positions impossible to maintain: keeping Israel from truly defending itself and giving Palestinians hope that Israel could realistically be dismantled.

    Comment by East Bay Jim — 12/29/2008 @ 5:39 pm

  21. The idea of “proportionate response” is a favorite among liberals. It appeals to their sense of “fairness” and besides, it makes them look like statesmen.

    That, and the rule governing the use of force amongst civilized nations for the past two centuries.

    To put it another way: if force doesn’t need to be proportionate, would you consider Israel carpetbombing Gaza until everyone was dead legal?

    The whole point is that Israel would never do that and takes extraordinary steps to minimize civilian casualties despite their enemies shameful and evil method of embedding their military infrastructure with civilian housing. You know full well they would never carpet bomb Gaza. But if they had the means, could you say the same thing about Hamas?

    There is no moral equivalence here - except for sophists like Greenwald and Klein whose arguments conveniently ignore the 800 lb gorrilla in the room - Hamas wants to destroy the Jewish state while Israel is willing to live with the Palestinians as long as they have security.


    Comment by Geek, Esq. — 12/29/2008 @ 6:33 pm

  22. And, until Israel stops *expanding* the settlements that will need to be dismantled for any shot at peace, I really can’t take their claims of good faith or self defense seriously.

    Comment by Geek, Esq. — 12/29/2008 @ 6:36 pm

  23. Thanks Ed 4. It’s not that I don’t understand, it’s that I just don’t care. It’s very comforting to know that my tax dollars are being used to explode people, some of them accidentally.

    This entire argument has been framed by both the right and the left in such a way as to make it totally pointless and without merit. The real debate should be about preventing all countries/parties/factions involved from benefiting from the conflict.

    Until that happens (and it never will) debating the finer points is a complete waste of time. But hey, thanks for the really awesome analogy.

    Comment by Chuck Tucson — 12/29/2008 @ 7:34 pm

  24. First of all, if we don’t subsidize the conflict, others will, and acquire influence at our expense while empowering the worst actors on the scene.

    Second, why all the concern about settlements built (and “expanded”) on land won in a defensive war? What was Israel to do–sit on the land for decades while waiting for the Arabs to condescend to consider peace? Without the Arab fear that Israel would indeed gobble up all the land, they wouldn’t have ever even gestured in the direction of a peace treaty.

    Comment by prospero — 12/29/2008 @ 8:25 pm

  25. I don’t remember hearing much whining when Palestinian bombs, rockets and mortars were falling on Israeli cities. Now when the established and recognized state of Israel decides it has had enough and aggressively defends itself the Arab world and the Euro Trash are beside themselves in their agony. I wonder how many bombs and rockets France would let German terrorists send their way before they decided to react? Could you say “none”? If the Palestinians in Gaza truly want to have peace it is entirely within their power to have that happen. They have decided they hate Israeli’s more then they love their own children.

    Comment by Kenny Komodo — 12/29/2008 @ 9:30 pm

  26. “This is classic. And in the end, what happens? Innocent people get blown up. Awesome. But oh! I did PRAY for it not to happen, so at least I’m cool with God.”

    Why do we even consider motive in a court of law, you certainly don’t think it has bearing on anything. By your logic, bombing a factory in Germany during WWII and causing the deaths of nearby innocents is as horrific and evil as marching a group of people into a gas chamber.

    I do, however, agree that the settlements should be dismantled in the West Bank (they’re all gone from Gaza, folks). However, keep in mind that if Hamas put down their weapons there’d be peace, if Israel puts down its weapons there’d be no more Israel.

    Do I believe if Israel disengaged from the West Bank as it did Gaza that there’d be peace? No. But it could finally turn to its more ridiculous critics and say “told you so”.

    Comment by Shawn — 12/29/2008 @ 9:52 pm

  27. And, until Israel stops expanding the settlements that will need to be dismantled for any shot at peace, I really can’t take their claims of good faith or self defense seriously.

    Since Israel withdrew from Gaza three years ago, also withdrawing Jewish settlers from Gaza, only to suffer three years of rocket attacks from an area where Israelis had withdrawn, your statement doesn’t make much sense.

    Comment by Gringo — 12/29/2008 @ 11:40 pm

  28. @21: Ed, you didn’t answer the question. If the Israeli
    government can kill seventy Palestinians for each Israeli citizen who died in the preceding rocket attacks, you’re way past the point where you can claim mere self defense or good intentions. It’s also to the point where any sane, thinking person has to be wondering, is there anything Israel now sees as excessive?

    The question stands: Would your notions of “self-defense” justify Israel wiping out every Palestinian in the Gaza strip? After all, it’s the only way they can absolutely guarantee an end to the rocket attacks.

    If not, why not? If not, what is the ratio at which even you would step back and say, “C’mon guys, this is getting excessive?” 70/1 apparently is well short of that threshold. What about 700/1? 7000/1?

    I don’t expect you to answer. Rather, I expect that no matter how high the Palestinian death toll climbs, you’ll continue hocking this increasingly transparent shtick about how they’re taking every possible measure to avoid casualties.

    Comment by Bryce — 12/30/2008 @ 1:26 am

  29. Why is Israel controlling their own border considered a blockade and an act of war. Every other country is allowed to control their borders. Before 1967 nothing crossed the Israel-Gaza border and they somehow managed to survive.

    Comment by mrzee — 12/30/2008 @ 2:37 am

  30. Death ratios of the contending sides say absolutely nothing about the justness of either sides claims in the war. The American war against the Nazis didn’t become less just as we became better at killing Germans and they became worse at killing us. The Israelis are justified in doing whatever they need to in order to shut down rocket attacks–if that would indeed require massive killings among the Palestinian civilian population (I don’t believe that it does, at present) then you might consider what kind of “civilian population” the Palestinians have become. If a large majority of Palestinians would rather be killed than cease attacking Israel, what are we dealing with, and would it be better to deal with it further down the road?

    Comment by prospero — 12/30/2008 @ 10:40 am

  31. It is unfortunate that “proportional” has been [deliberately] misunderstood.
    It means you do what is necessary to remove the threat and no more. That’s the GC/ICC definition. Paraphrased.
    IOW, you kill and destroy until the other guy quits. Then you stop.
    HAMAS hasn’t quit.

    Comment by Richard Aubrey — 12/30/2008 @ 1:41 pm

  32. The question is not what Israel is doing to Hamas, or what Hamas has done to deserve it, or who did what to whom how recently, when and how often.

    The question is why the United States is subsidizing it all. The United States has no, zero, nada critical national interest at stake in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Right now, everything Israel does in the Middle East is seen, correctly, as being done by the United States. It is a mystery to me how any American can think that is a good thing for the United States.

    The elimination of military and economic aid to Israel is in the best interests of the United States, and should happen. It would have the side benefit of removing the basis upon which Americans can legitimately claim a right to be critical of Israeli military policies.

    Why, when so many Americans feel that way, are the political elites from the farthest right-wing Republican, to the leadership of the Democratic party, including every notable gasbag in the corporate media, unwilling even to discuss why American policy to Israel should always and forward take the form of an unquestioning blank check?

    Comment by David — 12/30/2008 @ 4:03 pm

  33. There never were “Palestinians”, there are no “Palestinians” now, and there should never be “Palestinians”.

    There were no Israeli arab muslims, there are no Israeli arab muslims now, and there should never be any Israeli arab muslims.

    If Israel does not adopt the proceeding two sentences as their National Mantra and remove all arab muslims from their land, as arabs have removed all jews from their land, then (and my heart sinks as I say this) there will be no Israel in 75 years.

    When I say Israeli land, I mean ALL of Gaza and Judea and Samaria.

    Comment by cdor — 12/30/2008 @ 8:31 pm

  34. There are no innocent “palestinians”. They elected of their own free will, Hamas. Their government has ALWAYS stated as their ultimate goal the total destruction of Israel and death to all Jews. They train their children to hate Jews. These children are psychotics by their 6th birthday.

    Most of the posters here are NUTS. If I were an Israeli, I’d tell you all to kiss my A$$.

    Unfortunately, many Israelis are just like you. Their need to be liked preceeds their need to survive.

    Comment by cdor — 12/30/2008 @ 8:40 pm

  35. If we imagine a Middle East with no Israel, and therefore no effective resistance to the ambitions of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and al Qaeda, and then consider whether such a Middle East would be preferable to the present one, we will have the answer to David’s question.

    Comment by prospero — 12/30/2008 @ 9:00 pm

  36. You know, as with most things, this can be distilled down rather easily: Hamas/ Palestine bad, Israel good. For libtards, it’s easiest understood as a sort of rock, paper, scissors game: good beats bad.

    This is a perfect example of needing adults to be, well, adults. “Look at all those dead Hamasians (ok, whatever)!!!”, the child (liberal) screams. “Yup, look at em….” the adult (conservative) says…

    Comment by JWS — 12/30/2008 @ 9:38 pm

  37. I got banned yesterday from redstate.com yesterday for posting what I’m about to basically post.

    I am no longer willing to support Israel until they change their course of action in dealing with the situation at hand. This is not to meant to be taken as I’m suddenly supporting Hamas. Frankly I’m inclined to never support them.

    However for over a decade Israel has acted in response to these events in the same manner and nothing has changed. It is therefor time to consider a different course of action. Either man up and kick them out of the contested areas or sit back and wait for them to screw up the support they do have in world opinion. The with the support you have you can force a peaceful resolution to the issue or you can force a non-peaceful conclusion to it.

    Yes I’m actually suggesting they not respond to these missile attacks. Since 2000 with the hundreds of launches that have happen only 14 Israelis have been killed. We essentially have a fight going on between a kid in middle school and a kid in high school. Every time Israel responds it looks like they are being a bully.

    Certainly they have every right to respond to this attacks. After ten years of this I’m tired of watching it. Even if I am over here and not there. It is insanity to expect different results from the same actions. Therefor I’m not long willing to support the insanity any longer. And neither should anyone else in America.

    Comment by Chance_Haywood — 12/31/2008 @ 6:44 am

  38. Geek Esq. said: “To put it another way: if force doesn’t need to be proportionate, would you consider Israel carpetbombing Gaza until everyone was dead legal?”Inter arma silent leges.What is the source of this “law” that would make carpet bombing Gaza “illegal”? Who or what is the sovereign from which this “law” issues? And what is the power which compels obedience to this “law”?

    Comment by gokart-mozart — 12/31/2008 @ 7:16 am

  39. A lot of war, it seems to me, involves doing pretty much the same thying over and over again until one or the other side (not bored and frustrated viewers) gets tired of it, which is to say no longer has the wiull or capacity to sustain their efforts. If Israel hasn’t yet brought the Palestinians to that point, the answer is to intensify their efforts, not cease them. It’s hard to imagine a more trivial reason for absorbing attacks without responding than fear of looking like a “bully”–anyone who ever wins a war would have to look like a bully once they started winning. Let’s hope most suporters of Israel have more fortitude and common sense than Chance Haywood.

    Comment by prospero — 12/31/2008 @ 10:01 am

  40. Why would anyone expect a people not to respond violently when blocaded/starved/deprived/ their land stolen, illegal jew approved settlements, walls, and etc. come to my house and treat me that way, see what happens.

    Comment by David — 1/6/2009 @ 10:21 am

  41. Oh yes, with the full support of the American tax dollar.

    Comment by David — 1/6/2009 @ 10:25 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress