Pat Buchanan, at It Again
Tags:
The latest edition of Paleo-Con isolationist / talking head Pat Buchanan's magazine "The American Conservative" has a wanted poster on its latest cover. With the picture of an Israeli Jew. Accusing him of being the mastermind behind US foreign policy.
Hmm, why does this seem familiar?
You made it sound like it was a nameless Jewish caricature on the cover. It's no secret that the Bush admin has tapped Sharansky as sort of a consultant on some matters. So, he does have some influence on certain policies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5556-2004Nov22.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosenberg200411190851.asp
Taking a more blatant pro-Israel stance and using Israeli hawks doesn't help our world image.
Posted by: O'dell on March 29, 2005 1:21 PM | permalinkIf supporting Israel means pissing some countries off, so be it. Why should we care so much about "our world image"?
Posted by: Nicardo Autobahn on March 29, 2005 1:31 PM | permalinkIf you think about it, there is something inherently wrong with loving one group and fucking over the others as much as possible, as well as helping that loved group to fuck the other group over.
Ideally you would strive to find some kind of compromise to be on good terms with both sides. Difficult, yes, but it's something we don't honestly try to do.
When you blatantly tell Muslims to piss off, and many of them are angry, they are more likely to join a fundamentalist group rather than a more peaceful reform.
The true rulers of the United States are those who make lots of money from strife in the world. Iran and Iraq fighting each other? Let's secretly back them both (Iran contra scandal) and make a nice profit. If we hadn't meddled with Iran's affairs during the the 20th century, the nation would probably be fairly moderate today.
It's easier to win friends with "bread and circuses" than it is by forcing them to do as you say.
Posted by: O'dell on March 29, 2005 1:56 PM | permalinkI don't think that we should conduct our foreign policy on the basis of not hurting the feelings of bigots, dictators and terrorists.
The fact that a former Soviet dissident, turned politician on the front lines in the war on terror, is influential shouldn't even be noteworthy.
You've been reading your lunatic fringe sites too much again (e.g. DU, Indymedia) if you seriously think that the US and Israel do as much as possible to fuck over the Palestinians (or the Arab world, or Muslims) and that they, themselves, bear no responsibility for their current situation.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on March 29, 2005 2:53 PM | permalinkThere's nothing worse than a zealot, reagardless of their belief system.
Pat == Osama == PETA == ELF
All of them equally deserving of 126 grains of lead. (hello, irony!)
ObJoke (oldie but a goodie):
The Prime Minister of Israel sits down with the head of the PLO at the beginning of negotiations regarding the resolution of the current conflict.
The Israeli Prime Minister requests that he be allowed to begin with a story. The Palestinian replies, "Of course."
The Prime Minister begins his story: "Years before the Israelites came to the Promised Land and settled here, Moses led them for 40 years through the desert. The Israelites began complaining that they were thirsty and, lo and behold, a miracle occurred and a stream appeared before them. They drank their fill and then decided to take advantage of the stream to do some bathing--including Moses. When Moses came out of the water, he found that all his clothing was missing.
"'Who took my clothes?' Moses asked those around him.
"'It was the Palestinians,' replied the Israelites -- "
"Wait a minute," objected the Palestinian immediately, "there were no Palestinians during the time of Moses!"
"All right," replies the Israeli, "Now that we've got that settled, let's begin our negotiations."
Sure, "Palestinians" as a well-defined group (as identified by self and others) did not exist pre-Israel.
But I think we can speak meaningfully of Palestinians today as being more than just an arbitrary subset of other Arabs of the Levant.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on March 29, 2005 6:33 PM | permalinkFirst of all, I'm sick of your continual accusations of reading "lunatic fringe" website. No, I DO NOT read those websites. I've told you this more than once. I read stuff like Washington Post and listen to NPR and make my own decisions. Name calling and accusations don't make a good arguement.
Secondly, try looking back more than 30 years. We've been building up these people for a long time now. You probably have no clue why Libya was pissed off at us enough to bomb an airliner. It's taboo in this country to discuss why people get angry at us.
Sure, everyone is involved in today's problems, as a part of the viscious cycle of violence, but a lot of these people have been built up to it over the past 100 years.
Posted by: O'dell on March 29, 2005 6:41 PM | permalinkGetting back to what started this thread...
Let's face it: Everyone with a voice "influences" our government policy in some way - that's the whole point of democracy! Palestinains and other Arabs definitely "influence" US foreign policy. So does Israel....and France, Britian, China, Japan, Canada, Mexico and every other country with an opinion on this or that US policy decsion. Heck, the UN does it, too. In fact, most - if not all - influence US policy vis-a-vis Palestinians, too! Does that make them fuckers for expressing their opinion? C'mon!
So what's my point? The debate should be about the ideas - not the ethnicities - that are influencing us. Pat B's "wanted poster" showing Sharansky is just an attempt to get a reaction out of an obvious "Zionsit-conspiricy" charge that has become far too common, and far too misguided. Obviously, he wants to cause a stir, as most self-loving editorialists do!
Posted by: Josh on March 29, 2005 9:12 PM | permalinkI fail to see the connection between the cover drawing and anti-semitism. Furthermore, as a Jew and Israeli citizen, I agree wholeheartedly: Sharansky is a man of double standards.
Sharon
Posted by: Sharon on March 30, 2005 4:41 AM | permalink"I fail to see the connection between the cover drawing and anti-semitism."
Pat Buchanan has a long history of (debatably) anti-Semitic remarks, opinions and actions. The notion that Israelis control US foreign policy (and, before that, that Jews manipulate the world powers), is a well-precedented tenet of anti-Semitism.
"Furthermore, as a Jew and Israeli citizen, I agree wholeheartedly: Sharansky is a man of double standards."
The fact you're a Jew and an Israeli is irrelevant to this discussion. And so is whether or not Sharansky has double standards.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on March 30, 2005 7:55 AM | permalinkJosh is correct - like it or not, various groups do have a strong influence over what goes on here.
Over the past 30 years, the US has vetoed at least 30 UN resolutions that were against Israel (the US has only cast something like 70 vetoes since the UN was started). One must notice that this is really fucking bizarre.
Are all nations simply anti-Semetic? Were *all* of these resolutions something unjustified? Probably not.
Why is it that I can't do business with Cuba, but I would be *fined* if my business wanted to boycott Israel (you can boycott anyone else you want). Very strange.
In the end, it comes down to how you word it. You simply can't deny that most policy is favorable with what Israel would want.
Posted by: O'dell on March 30, 2005 1:19 PM | permalinkWhat is bizarre is that there are so many resolutions against Israel, of all nations. There wasn't a single one against any Arab nation until the (first) Gulf War. Should Israel be immune to criticism? Of course not! Should Israel be so disproportiately the focus of criticism and rage, in a world with so much injustice? No way. Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan execute people for apostasy or blasphemy; Israel, which has Jews, Muslims and Christians in its parliament, builds a wall to prevent suicide bombers from sneaking in -- and who gets pilloried?
Why are there special protections against anti-Israel boycotts? Because Israel, and any companies or countries doing business with it, were specifically targeted by the Arab nations! It was reactive legislation, not proactive.
In the end, it does *not* come down to how you word it. The means are just as important as the ends, and there is a big difference between the US favoring Israel because they are a western, capitalist democracy in a strategically valuable region vs. the US being beholding to Jewish puppeteers and Christian messianism.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on March 30, 2005 1:39 PM | permalink"What is bizarre is that there are so many resolutions against Israel, of all nations. There wasn't a single one against any Arab nation until the (first) Gulf War."
I'll agree with you on that.
But I'll still say that the anti-boycott laws, as well as certain country restrictions (Saudi Arabia is ok, but not Cuba???) are crap.
Posted by: O'dell on March 30, 2005 6:01 PM | permalinkWell sure, I will agree that America isn't fair regarding several countries. Cuba is another great example.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on March 30, 2005 6:38 PM | permalink...don't get me started on Cuba. The Oval Office has held my stogies hostage for too long.
Then again, Fuente makes a damn fine cigar regardless of the Cubans.
/prefers Bolivar and Punch
Posted by: Bubba on March 31, 2005 10:48 AM | permalinkNo more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.