River Valley Blogs

Michael Welch: But I Sure Do Admire Sir Isaac Brock At That!... wrote on Feb 1, 2008 10:52 AM:

" I guess I don't quite understand what the Israel defender is implying? It seems obvious that Israel IS a 'westernized' state amid authoritarian Arab entities. And the hostility and rivalry for the land of 'Palestine' hasn't dissipated for over 60 years so we don't expect it to anytime soon. Now I admire the Canadians and wish 'we' were more like them but I'm not about to 'die for Canada' in the abstract -- yet if the Russians invade the Great White North the US should consider the specific circumstances sure. And if Venezuelan Jews need a refuge the United States ought to be a ready option. The world is cruel -- see Kenya and the Congo at the moment -- but I prefer an American 'refuge' over an American 'aggressor'... "

To 10:55, 11:20 wrote on Jan 31, 2008 1:24 PM:

" Fully agree on Suharto, Somoza, the Shah, Marcos, Allende, and Chavez. I'd like to point out, though, how the bogus linking of Israel to the imperialist West is more than just words in a blog: as the little guys grow solidarity against the bully (US), this left-right divide draws a basically decent leader, Chavez, into an alliance of convenience with an idiot like Ahmendinajad. Sharing poisons, then, the Jewish community in Venezuela bears the brunt with government raids and paranoia. Now, Michael, I MAY go live in Israel someday--as may one or more of my children; in the meantime, I'll try my best to NOT be the American whose primary mandate is to load land-fills with my manic consumption.

"

Michael Welch: Lost In Yonkers?... wrote on Jan 31, 2008 11:20 AM:

" I don't expect Jews to 'disavow' Israel or leave a declared 'Jewish state' with all its mythological-religious associations out to 'dry.' I guess however if one is going to 'die for Israel' maybe you ought to actually go live there so the rest of 'US' don't have to uh 'die' with you? The first line of defense for that country is after all IN that country; and as one Jew once wrote in the NYTimes, to him the USA was 'the promised land' and the river Hudson was more meaningful than the river Jordan. I suggest watching Woody Allen's wonderful 'Radio Days' in which 'Joe' snitches money for a 'homeland in Palestine' ('somewhere in Egypt' he decides) to buy a decoder ring from his favorite radio show hero. Joe's a Jew -- but a thorough American... "

Bugs to 1:45 pm wrote on Jan 31, 2008 10:55 AM:

" Here's American foreign policy in a nutshell. We'll consort with the most vile, evil dictators in the world if they cooperate with the exploitation of their natural resources. Hence we've buddied up with Suharto, Somoza, the Shah, Marcos etc. Leaders who won't cooperate are targeted by the CIA for removal-Allende, Mossadegh are prime examples. They're gunning for Chavez right now. As to Israel, it's a rogue nation. You can swear your fealty to it. It's still a rogue nation. "

Woke up this morning. . . wrote on Jan 30, 2008 1:45 PM:

" Woke up this morning to the BBC decrying the Gaza blockade and revisiting Israel's 2006 aggression against Lebanon and wondered how many countries would be condemned for responding to a cross-border kidnapping and indiscriminate rocket fire. I'm glad, Bugs, Michael, that we all agree on Suharto--and probably on the Shah, Somoza, Marcos, etc--but I want you to understand how painful The Left's chorus of criticism is to Jewish Lefties. Can you IMAGINE how awful it is to have to listen to the likes of Kristol or Krauthammer to have the hard-won homeland of your people vindicated? But here's one from the heart: I'm proud of what the American Concept stands for, but Israel is the country I'd die for. "

Michael Welch: "Not A Dime's Worth A' Difference!"?... wrote on Jan 29, 2008 12:39 PM:

" 'Bugs' makes a very pertinent point especially re: Carter, not because Carter per se was 'worse' than other presidents but because he was far more like them than the oft misleading 'liberal'/'conservative'-Democrat/Republican dichotomies alway imply. Carter CONTINUED the policies of Ford-Kissinger re: Suharto just as earlier administrations (back to Eisenhower) worked to overthrow Sukarno (no 'angel' either; see the best Mel Gibson-starred film 'The Year of Living Dangerously') with such as Suharto -- AND just as Reagan continued Carter's aid to the Afghans that produced -- the Taliban!... "

Bugs to 10:46 am wrote on Jan 29, 2008 12:15 PM:

" Why the focus on Israel? Because Jimmy's blog here concerned Israel. "

Bugs to 10:46 am wrote on Jan 29, 2008 12:04 PM:

" Suharto had plenty of help from the CIA in his slaughter of some two million Indonesian peasants. He later had the support of Ford and Kissinger when he invaded East Timor. 200,000 East Timorese would die as a result. When the Indonesian forces ran low on war materiel, our 'good' president, Jimmy Carter, provided it and the deaths continued. Suharto was totally evil, but he was a US ally from the time he took power until he was deposed. The media are downplaying that, of course. "

Michael Welch: The First "Endless War"... wrote on Jan 29, 2008 11:16 AM:

" 'Bugs' has simply said that Israel's statehood, as it is, is regrettable, that it was in effect 'programmed' for conflict from the beginning that would surely embroil the United States which was poised between its oil interests and its own domestic political ones. As I said before if it hadn't been for Hitler's 'extermination' policy it would have been unlikely that such UN, even US, support could have been mustered in 1948. The US of course SUPPORTED Suharto's coup as well as his murderous machinations to establish 'order' but decades later an 'order' of sorts has indeed prevailed. Not so in Israel-Palestine; it's just another literally endless war... "

To: 10:58 (con't) wrote on Jan 29, 2008 10:46 AM:

" You know though, Bugs, as much as Israel's conduct may sometimes be a bit unsavory--they are, after all, threatened constantly and quite irritable--their crimes quite pale in comparison to those of Suharto's Indonesia or Burma or a host of other nations that just don't happen to be on the UN's "hit list." Why the focus on Israel? Is it just because the plethora of Islamic nations in the UN have the voting power to choose a "rouge nation?" Surely it can't be by any quantifiable measure. "

To: 10:58 wrote on Jan 29, 2008 10:41 AM:

" Yeah, the bibical narrative makes it sound like quite the battle. Battlefield victories are the main stuff legends are made of; maybe, "We came, mixed and married, shared cultures, and our culture emerged as the more dominant" doesn't make for much of a tale to tell the kiddies. Modern archeology is depicting the "conquest of Canaan" in this latter light, though. And, indeed, the Israelites still felt they still "held title" to the land as per Abraham's purchase a few centuries prior. The REAL dispute of consequence is who is Abraham's chosen heir, Ishmael or Isaac? (If you want to get into a fight with a Moslem, call Ishmael's mother, Hagar, a "hand-maiden.") "

Michael Welch: Careful What You Pray For?... wrote on Jan 28, 2008 11:44 AM:

" The Hebrews were a Canaanite tribe that I believe subsumed aspects and themes of the Sumerian and Egyptian civilizations (see the Noah story in particular; see the monotheism of the pharoah Ahknaton) and the various stories were promulgated in scriptures with differing 'takes' -- for example there are clearly TWO accounts of the creation in the first chapters of Genesis. Conquest of course is an ugly process of killing, subjugating and then laying over a 'new' interpretation of society and culture. The Bible includes a CONTINUOUS conflict within the Israelite-dominated Canaan over the proper 'God' versus the old 'gods.' Using a religious book as an historical claim is a nebulous and risky angle; obviously it 'invites' other religious responses one may not have expected... "

Bugs to 9:53 am wrote on Jan 28, 2008 10:58 AM:

" Well, go back a little further than the Babylonian conquest to the Israelite genocide in Canaan. See the book of Joshua for details. "

Michael Welch: Many "Promised Lands" Really... wrote on Jan 28, 2008 10:39 AM:

" Well actually Europe 'worked out' for centuries; there was a vibrant Yiddish civilization roughly from Hamburg to Minsk for a millennium and in the Iberian peninsula for 700 years or so. How long does that compare to Israel-Palestine? Pretty comparable. Plus the European Jews were indeed EUROPEAN, with many converts via intermarriage as well as from disillusionment with the rigidities of 'official' Christendom. Jews are Germans, Russians, Spanish, Italian, Polish et. al. and now most are Americans, the most welcoming of all 'promised lands' with the usual caveats of hyper-Christian idiocies. And Israel is a giant sore suppurating constantly that many Jews sigh about yet know they have to attend... "

To 12:41 PM wrote on Jan 28, 2008 9:53 AM:

" The Jews were egregiously displaced from their lands beginning with the Babylonians in the 7th century B.C.E., the Assyrians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Moslem Conquest, the Christian Crusaders, the Ottomans, and the British. The places they fled to--Spain and Portugal, eastern Europe--clearly didn't work out. The "paper wall" closed off America when sanctuary was most needed. So: where on this planet is a Jew--a Russian, a Yemenite, a Moroccan, an Ethiopian--assured of sanctuary when their host nation wants them assimilated, dead, or just out? One place: Israel. The reason that violence is so inevitable is that the Palestinians, sadly, have been retained as a surrogate army by the nations that could not defeat Israel militarily. For a primer on how Israel reponds to peaceful gestures, see Anwar Sadat. "

Bugs to 10:20 am wrote on Jan 25, 2008 12:41 PM:

" Sorry, but the creation of Israel was a horrific mistake because the Palestians were egregiously displaced from their lands and the injustice of that resonates til this day. I condemn all attacks on Israeli civilians. The truth, however, is that those attacks will continue until the grievances of the Palestinians are resolved and Israel returns the lands it has illegally occupied since 1967. "

Michael Welch: Wishing For "Godot(stein)"... wrote on Jan 25, 2008 12:40 PM:

" I've stated what some may discern as a rather 'fantastic' wish -- and it doesn't matter now of course -- that the US among other states had had the perspicacity to 'take' as many European Jews as Adolf cared to send. We'd have been the beneficiary indeed as we have been for all those who came since the 19th century and before. (The 'first' Jew in America was apparently one Joachim Ganz, a metal worker who accompanied John Smith's company to Jamestown at the beginning of the 17th century.) Israel exists and therefore it has to be protected but it cannot be so if there is no 'Palestine' -- if the conflict is as intractable as it seems then it's 'endless war' forever and ever etc.... "

Michael Welch: Hear O Israel!... wrote on Jan 25, 2008 10:46 AM:

" Israel has its own 'raison d'etre' as, well, Hitler's surprise 'legacy,' his most ironic of course but still the gift that keeps on giving. If it weren't for the horrendous (and military resource-stealing) effort to eradicate the European Jews, allied support for 'a Jewish state' would likely have been tepid. Israel began with a -- also ironic -- almost utopian yes socialist! vision (Ben-Gurion and Weizmann were secular socialists) of a 'garden state' of kibbutzim and technological wonder. Only the Arabs got in the way. Israel now deeply depends on US military materiel and support for it's a proverbial 'garrison state' under constant siege... "

To: 7:44 wrote on Jan 25, 2008 10:20 AM:

" Bugs, I won't content that Israel has been in violation of UN rules but I WILL contend that its violations are quite mundane compared with other violations in the world--particularly among its neighbors--and the focus on Israel is precisely because Islamic countries have the numbers to dominate the narrative. The Euros, having ethnically cleansed THEIR Jews, will happily play along. Rachel Corrie was in plain sight of the onlookers but not of the driver. I will ask you, though, Bugs: how would YOU respond to neighbors who fired rockets at you and sent suicide bombers into your cafes? I won't except "Israel is a mistake" because the Jews have as much a claim to the land as anyone, having been driven out in prior epochs. And remember, a sizable percentage of Israel proper was bought, fair and square, from the Ottomans. "

To Bugs 7:35am wrote on Jan 25, 2008 10:12 AM:

" As do I. "

Bugs to 3:34 pm wrote on Jan 25, 2008 7:44 AM:

" I think the UN condemnations of Israel over the years have more to do with blatant Israeli violations of international law and human rights abuses than Muslim prejudice. Rachel Corrie was in plain sight of the person operating the bulldozer, who ran her over intentionally; Israel has a large arsenal of nuclear weapons and will not allow international inspection of its nuclear facilities; finally Israel launched an unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty killing some 30 or 40 Americans and injuring numerous others; at the time the Liberty was picking up information from its surveillance equipment that Israel was executing Egyptian POW's in the Sinai. "

Bugs to 3:01 pm wrote on Jan 25, 2008 7:35 AM:

" I am opposed to abortion, support the legalization of marijuana and prostitution. "

To 10:56: wrote on Jan 24, 2008 3:34 PM:

" You don't think that the UN's constantly condemning Israel might have something to do with Islamic nations comprising dozens of the 192 member nations? I'm sure that Rachel Corrie was a sweet kid, but sitting down in the blind spot of a bulldozer, I'm afraid, isn't a safe thing to do. I don't particularly care for the policy of destroying a suicide bomber's family's home, but I'm at a loss as to how else to deter such a person. The Israeli nuclear program may have been essential from an energy standpoint (the Arabs, because of their illegal boycott, won't sell them oil) and it's hard to argue with the defense issue when they're outnumbered 100's to 1 AND constantly threatened. On the U.S.S. Liberty I have no comment other than a reminder that Israel wasn't really a U.S. client at the time--that came later. "

To:Bugs wrote on Jan 24, 2008 3:01 PM:

" True. And most agree that absolute freedom would be disastrous. BUT, most would also agree that you SHOULD have the freedom to make your own individual choices, so long as you don't infringe on others rights by doing so. Unfortunately, that is not the case in this country. In a lot of cases, we have it backwards. Abortion, which is a human rights violation, is perfectly legal. Prostitution, which is an act between consenting adults and violates no ones rights, is illegal. "

Michael Welch: Don' Know When But Yer Doin' It Again... wrote on Jan 24, 2008 12:30 PM:

" Whoever blew the holes in the 'security wall' between Gaza and Egypt were 'heroes'; a people was being starved and reduced to degradation and penury essentially for having acted as if they were 'free' -- free to elect their own leaders. Israelis who think that somehow 'crushing' your enemies will fix the situation are continually courting this perpetual reality: when you got nothin', you got nothin' to lose. Israel has 'secret' nukes that EVERYBODY knows about -- because a state having nukes nobody knows about is worthless effort -- but 'we' all are to pretend Israel doesn't while excoriating Iran and north Korea (but not Pakistan!) for even thinking about having them. Hmmm... "

Bugs to 9:17 am wrote on Jan 24, 2008 10:56 AM:

" Well, let's talk about all those condemnations by the UN for Israeli invasions and human rights violations. Let's talk about Rachel Corrie. Let's talk about Israel's nuke program and how they won't allow any inspection of it. Let's talk about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in l967. A rogue nation indeed, just like its senior partner, the US "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Jan 24, 2008 10:52 AM:

" Freedom? Yeah, it's relative. No such thing as total freedom. "

Michael Welch: Free To Be Uh You 'N' Me -- I Guess... wrote on Jan 24, 2008 10:19 AM:

" Yes 'Bugs' and I are obviously 'free' (all TOO free in some folks' perceptions!) to pontificate and rant and whatever about the injustices we see in our government's behavior, especially abroad; but speech is um 'liberal' precisely because it is mainly cathartic and really serious dissenters against the zeitgeist are uniformly and regularly marginalized in the general media with ridicule and blithe dismissal. Many folks understand these 'limitations' -- a trillion and more dollars can (and will!) be spent to secure Iraqi oil but some billions added to unemployment comp or food stamps or (the horror!) a national health care program suddenly threatens 'US' with imminent 'socialism.' Free to grouse sure; free to 'change' the system no... "

Free country? wrote on Jan 24, 2008 9:41 AM:

" We are not free. Yes-we enjoy certain freedoms that our Government chooses to grant us. But we are not truly free. We are not allowed to smoke pot, 18-20 year olds are not allowed to drink, prostitution is illegal, etc. Of course, your freedom should be limited when you would choose to infringe on others rights. But, as long as victimless crimes continue to be illegal, you can't say that we are free. "

To: 9:03 wrote on Jan 24, 2008 9:17 AM:

" I won't defend US behavior but Israeli incursions were HARDLY unprovoked. Crossing borders and kidnapping people is not exactly law-abiding in external relations. As for the "inhumane" treatment of Gaza: do YOU send food and fuel to people that are firing rockets and you? "

Just another word for nothing left to lose wrote on Jan 24, 2008 9:13 AM:

" A few of the autocrats listed--Pakistan, for sure--came into existence around the same time as Israel. While they can play the blame game to great and pitiful effect, it IS true that the most recent imperialist forces played a great part in shaping regimes, establishing borders (to the end of Western interests), and completely disrupting any indigenous stability that may have existed. As one pundit so aptly put it: "We like democracy for nations that are strategically inconsequential."

We must remember, though, that THIS round on conquest is simple the overlay on many before: Ottomans, Romans, Greek, Euclids, etc. When does occupation/exploitation become incurably toxic? I dunno. . . When two people want to live on the same land? When one is enslaved? You'd get different answers from me and Rachael Corrie. "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Jan 24, 2008 9:03 AM:

" I'd just add this perspective-there's no correlation between a nation's internal "freedom" and its external behavior. Citizens of the US and Israel have great freedoms, but the two nations are basically rogue when it comes to international law. The US invades and occupies other countries whenever it wants. Israel has invaded Lebanon twice and continues to occupy territory that doesn't belong to it. The autocratic regimes mentioned are mostly law-abiding in their external relations. "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »