More Republicans Side with Israel
Michael Barone, senior writer at US News & World Report, discusses a poll that shows more Republicans than Democrats side with Israel (Hat Tip: Powerline blog).
posted by Helen at 4:33 PM
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Katrina Fatigue
- Selfish or just Realistic?
- Summer Reading
- Is Mel Insane?
- Just Tell it Like it is
- Warning: Men Not Working
- No Wonder those Little Dogs Never Stop Barking
- I was surprised one day recently when I stopped by...
- Andrea Yates found Not Guilty
- The Carnival of Homeschooling
41 Comments:
The article does not distinguish between the neo-con and the conservative. The neo-cons are all for Israel without circumspection while conervatives, who are not all Republicans,are mixed in their support for Israel.
What would be interesting in this poll is if Jewish Democrats support Israel more or less than non-Jewish Republicans.
This shows the lie about the "Israel lobby" thing - no politician (outside of NY) supports Israel in order to get Jewish votes.
Yep, those "Neo-Cons" are trouble. Has anyone on the Left or Paleo-right ever given a definition of just what exactly a "Neo-Con" is or is it just a general term for those they don't like?
To paraphrase a former classmate: Neo-Cons are like Jesus Christ and Jack Daniels; they all get blamed for a lot of things they didn't do.
Catholicgauze,
If you want to know what a neo-con is go to the following link. I disagree with your friend, the neo-cons get the blame that is due.
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1205-editorial
The analysis is intriguing and enlightening (to me, anyway), but my first reaction to the headline was, "This is news?"
I gotta be more careful of judging books by their covers - er, articles by their titles.
"Jewish Trotskyites -- and other Jewish Leftists" Ah! So Neo-Cons are anti-Communist Trotskyite (what the?) Jews!
Anti-semeticism is abound in this article. Why else do they keep writting "Jewish neocons?" Why does their religion matter?
I do not know what "their" religion matters, but my religion matters when it comes to support of Israel in specific and Jews in general. And I am not alone!
As a practicing Christian, I see it as my religious duty and in my own enlightened self-interest to support Israel and the Jewish people. In terms of religious duty, the Jewish people have a documented and special relationship with God. For this they deserve and get my respect and support. In terms of enlightened self interest, the Bible states that people who bless Israel will be bless and people who curse Israel will be cursed.
Looking at the last 75 years of history I see that as being at work. And the Bible is very important to my thought processes in general. Some of the other conservative supporters of Israel do so for very similar reasons. Our religion is KEY and CENTRAL to understanding our support.
Trey
Have to agree with tmink.
If you are a Christian, then you know that the Jews are God's chosen people. It really doesn't matter what we "think". This is a Scriptural Fact.
g
tmink and George,
There are Jews who will point out to you that supporting the state of Israel is not the same as supporting the Israel as a people, Jews - in fact there are groups of Jews who think that establishing the state of Israel went against God's will because only the Messiah can do that properly; and there are plenty of people inside and outside Israel who will tell you supporting this or that Israeli policy ios not the best way to support Israel as a state, or the Jews as a people.
I may be reading the comments wrong but... The reason I said "why does their religion matter" was because I was attacking the anti-Semetic article from New Oxford Review.
Catholicgauze,
Elaborate why their religion should not matter
Anonymous,
No. As long as one is interested in giving orders: Explain and defend the use of the term "Jewish Neo-con" while not using "Christian Neo-con" or "Agnostic Neo-con" for other "Neo-cons". Scoop Jackson was Presbyterian. Gene Abdallah is Catholic. I will save you the trouble and answer my own question: New Oxford Review is an anti-Semitic group among other things.
/Conservative Catholic personally denounced by NOR for not favoring Latin Mass.
I always regarded the term "neocon," as it has been used in the last 4 or 5 years, to be codespeak for Jews who, seeing the horror and devastation of 9/11, have to some degree abandoned their former liberalness and now favor the war, and further they make a direct connection to the terrorist acts and terrorist killings occuring in Israel, and advocate a strong US alliance with Israel to fight terrorism, and for Israel's survival generally.
But I also think that there are many leftist lightweights out there who see it as a cool buzz word and so they throw the term around loosely, and any conservative qualifies under their definition.
Catholicgauze,
You are irrational. If you want to engage in a discussion define your terms. No one, especially me, really gives a damn about your opinions, the object of all debate and circumspection is the truth. If you cannot define your terms than admit you are no more than a sophist.
For the record:
Democrat
Sidin' with Isreal (sort of)
LOVED Leon Wieseltier's take at http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060814&s=diarist081406
Not Jewish, vaguely Episcopalian ex-Catholic, support the two state solution
And, only slightly off topic, Go Joe!!
zeb quinn,
alas, you are right in the second paragraph, about the leftist lightweights.......sigh! I don't love having the same voter-registration designation as these flag-burning, America-hating, Michael Moore-huggin' losers.
However, the roots of the neo-cons date back to the eighties, when Jimmy Carter (pre-Afghanistan) and the neo-liberals drove most of the intellectual heavyweight Scoop Jackson liberals, like Jean Kirkpatrick and Bill Kristol, into the arms of Ronnie Reagan.
The difference between today's neo-cons and their founders has to do with economic and social domestic policy, rather than foreign policy.
Ya know what would be cool? If the neo-cons and the paleo-liberals got together, ironed out our domestic policy differences, put a little nuance into our foreign policy PR, formed a third party, and took over this country.
http://www.neoconned.info/
I hope this one is not 'anti-semitic' Catholicgauze
Anonymous,
Thanks for the second link. I'm glad the site links to and discusses policy with PLO terrorists and Baathist terrorists supporters: http://www.neoconned.info/al-mohar%20editor.html
But on a more direct note: The book Neo-Conned! was paritial written by Hillarion Capucci. The "good bishop" has been arrested before for arms smuggling. http://www.tkb.org/Incident.jsp?incID=157 More on his sins here http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word0221.htm
Thank you for showing another, if not anti-semetic, clearly pro-terrorist side of your argument.
Catholicgauze,
I have not presented an argument at all. The terms have not been defined. The links merely are cud to chew on. When you define your terms and answer the question 'why should religion matter' we can begin the 'argument'
Anonymous,
Please get your sides straight. I asked you to define terms first. I also asked the question why should religion matter and you asked why it shouldn't (in America people are based by the content of their character; not their religion- bigots base people on their religion: like NOR does). Next time you get into a discussion remember what side is asking what.
/Washing my hands of your mess
Catholicgauze,
All I needed to know about you is encapsulated in the following letters:
nationalcatholicreporter
That says so very much about your 'Catholicism'
NCR has a pacifist, pro-Palestinian point-of-view, and even wrote about the dangers of "neo-conservatism." I think you are confused again.
Since you link to NOR and have a dislike of NCR (like I do) I will jump to the conclusion that you are more of a traditionalist Catholic. A very respectful belief and one that I sympathize with. As a conservative and a conservative Catholic I may disagree with your political views but I will not attack your religious beliefs.
Vaya Con Dios
-"Catholicgauze"
Catholicgauze,
We do not disagree on political views either unless you advocate the abandonment of the Maronites as has been done since the late 70's. No one who believes in the nation-state concept will condemn Israel for stopping threats to their borders but Lebanon is not a country whose sole inhabitants are members of Hezbollah. The plight of the Maronites is forgotten in this misadventure. I am with the Maronites since they have been decimated, intimidated and driven from their lands, by muslims, since the late 70's and the U.N. and the U.S.A. did not bat an eye. Israel is not the golden calf and moreover to utter a word in criticism against Israel does not warrant verbal-bomb throwing such as bigot, anti-semitic and the like--words which illustrate that most specious logic of the present age. Those words don't dupe me or stop me either in my words or in my footsteps.
What a bunch of neo-crap. This discussion highlights labels that are too easily thrown about, often signifying nothing to the recipients of said labels.
Paleo-label slingers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249JaIaubVw
To the bunch of you,
There is no neo-con here, no 'paleo-con' here. This issue is very old and believe you me, war is a purgative and it is coming to a nation near you--it is necessary to purge people like you. You sit here opining all day long like a drunk at a bar and you probably have never done a damn thing for your country other than contributing to the tax base. I hope this war comes to American soil and then American citizens will finally know what it means to suffer. Then all the feminists will run and hide behind men who are incapable of defending their children and the women who beseech their aid. You are all an incompetant lot. As for all the neo-cons, both Jewish and Protestant, espescially Protestant, you can destroy the Dome of the Rock and resurrect a temple but you will not reestablish a priesthood. The priesthood is already in your midst. You are blind and let your brothers die everyday by heretics following the chief heresiarch Mohammed. Blind leading the blind. Rebels from and apostate 'church'. Surely you will be the ones of whom our Lord says "I did not know you." The Jews need to accept their King. Bring on the conflagration, because if you think the 'most noble democracy of America can fix the problems of this world, you are the most foolish of persons.' The modern world has abandoned the truth, has distorted philosophy, theololgy and her children and you are so blind to think that America will save the world? This county is founded upon Protestant errors and as such is destined to crumble. All wars are by their nature religious and so is this one. What do you think? Shall we spread that noble democracy, (not the true government of the U.S.A. which is a republic) throughout the entire world? What, spread the gross plurality which cannot make the neccesary distinction between freedom and license? Institute the N.W.O.? Please God let me die before that day comes. I pray for war, I pray that every family in this country knows the cost of war and of life. As it stands today Americans are lost in incessant pleasure seeking, dulling their conscience and compounding temporal joy after temporal joy. The truth of the matter is, the whole basis why you debate is that you are afraid of death. You love this life, this world far too much. It is the very reason why a war should ignite this world.
Don't feed the troll people.
/I learned that too late
Hi Doc,
The 6th "Israeli-Arab" war looks increasingly like a case of Persian chess vs. Neocon roulette.
Someone said «[Prime Minister] Siniora [of Lebanon] seems flush with a sort of confused moral power that is the special trait of a leader whose country has been leveled ».
Yeah…
Maybe…
But who leveled his country in the first place?
Several clues lead me to believe that the “pro-Western” puppet-government of Fuad Siniora (pro-Saudi Taliban in ties and suits would be a more fitting appellation…) wished (or shall I say plotted for?) the Neocon to flex their mighty muscles and help them “flush out the (allegedly pro-Iranian) Shiite scum” out of South Lebanon once and for all.
Problem is that you don’t kill an idea with clusters bombs: read Gary Brecher’s luminous article in the Exile to understand what tough cloth Hezbollah and their numerous followers are made of.
Destitute Shiite Muslims make up more than 40% of the Lebanese population: that would be like say “flushing out” the Irish working class from Massachusetts and New York circa 1890!
As I said earlier, the Siniora government and its Saudi protectors sincerely thought Cheney, Bolton & Co. would be happy to satisfy their monarchic good pleasure and get rid of those pesky Hezbollah lumpen-prolétaires for them.
Siniora (and president Chirac and King Saud with him) probably thought this could be done in a week time, with “surgical strikes” targeting exclusively Shiite villages in the south of the country: THAT was a tragic mistake.
In real life (i.e. outside of Arabia’s air-conditioned palaces), no one will do a dirty and expensive job on your behalf for free…!
"Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true” comes to mind...Ironically, this is an ancient Indo-Iranian proverb that the West imported from Persia long time ago- together with polo, chess, Satan and other ancient Asian niceties.
Just like the Faustian characters of old, Prime Minister Siniora is starting to freak out, for the Neocon devils have their own agenda and never intended to do bona fide donkey work for Beirut’s corrupt government in the first place!
Ethnic cleansing work in progress...
To be continued in the coming days.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060810/NEWS07/608100415/1009
Experts say the Christian population in Israel and the Palestinian territories has fallen steeply in recent years and may number only about 50,000. Since 1948, when Christians were estimated at 20% of all Palestinians in the region, their numbers have dropped to roughly 2%, according to the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation, a group based in Bethesda, Md.
Thanks Neo-cons and Israel. I guess the only Christians that matter are the rebels (protestants) who blindly follow the Jews in everything
"I guess the only Christians that matter are the rebels (protestants) who blindly follow the Jews"
Wow. Simply wow. What an excellent example. At least you dropped the masks of Neo-con or Zionist and just said "the Jews"
/Excellent example of Catholic love
both/and not either/or Catholicgauze wake up from your myopia
Agreed. Some people are just hateful
Agreed.
/Some people are just invincibly ignorant
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-0815-make_sense_of_madness.htm
I prefer a more knowledgeable Catholicism to a more 'loving' Catholicism.
"And now there remain faith, hope, and love, these three: but the greatest of these is love."
-1 Corinthians 13
"And that he should be loved with the whole heart, and with the whole understanding, and with the whole soul, and with the whole strength; and to love one's neighbour as one's self, is a greater thing than all holocausts and laws. And Jesus seeing that he had answered wisely, said to him: Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question."
-Mark 12:33-34
To place laws, tradition, or knowledge before love is a big no-no. Gnostics valued knowledge more. Also, beware your use of "traditional Catholic" sources; we all know what happened to the poor ex-Archbishop Lefebvre.
Catholicgauze,
You are quite presumptuous, I am not an SSPXer or an apologist for their cause. As such, you are confused and you show that you have continually viewed me through this template or shall I say--gauze. You are presumptuous again to assume that I place gnosis over charity, as it is originally translated in the Greek. As such, you transgress your own exhortation to charity in relation to Archbishop Lefebvre, (though a bishop may receive censure their sacramental character in virtue of their holy orders remains) since you attach the prefix 'poor'. You act as if you know his status and the society of St. Pius X. You obviously do not. The official commision established to deal with the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre (Ecclesia Dei), led by Cardinal Hoyos, has stated that they are not excommunicated but rather in a complicated canonical stricture known as 'canonical irregularity'. You violate the virtue of charity by calumniating the Archbishop and spreading spurious notions about his character on this forum. The reunion of the society is imminent. You should consider what you say before you say it. Moreover, the Archbishop stands in good sted as far as history goes. There have been innumerable saints who for one reason or another were excomunicated and then reinstated while alive and after death. St. Joan of Arc comes to mind to mention just one. Further, the fallacious notion that there is 'traditional Catholic' with its obvious correlation 'liberal Catholic' resources establishes a grevious error in your thinking. There is but one Church known by its four marks--I trust that you know them? Finally, this thread is based upon a different topic and it does not relate well to this topic. If you want to continue this dialogue somewhere else let me know.
/by the way this is not a novel idiomatic ending just as it is not novel to relate that the devil can quote scripture
Well, well... It's rather too bad that foreign relations is the complex, multi-variate monster that it is. Otherwise, even neocons might have learned by now that applications of force cannot solve terrorist problems. There are always variables that differ in comparisons of different situations. Supporters of such uses of force are thus correct when they mention that this or that current situation is different. However, consider this: Can you give even one example of a terrorist problem solved through the use of military force?
I can give many examples in which it has failed. It has failed to solve Chechen terrorism, terrorism against Israel, terrorism by Pakistan against India, Tamil Tiger terrorism in Sri Lanka, terrorism in Iraq, terrorism in Afghanistan, Basque terrorism in Spain, terrorism in Mexico and many other parts of Latin America, terrorism in the Philipines, and terrorism in Indonesia... I feel like I'm forgetting some examples.
In many of the examples above, many varied military strategies have been employed for decades, such as in Israel and India, including full scale invasions and assaults, to no avail. Military strategies for addressing terrorist threats have been almost universally applied for the better part of a century, yet the problem gets worse every year. I refer you to the most recent State Department statistics on worldwide terrorism for last year. The report concludes that terrorism was up 400% last year worldwide, and up significantly in Iraq, despite the international war on terrorism, the focal point of which is supposedly Iraq. Of course, it seems quite clear that things in Iraq this year are far worse than even last year and seem to get worse by the week, if not the day. But, back to my question: Can anyone give me an example of a terrorist problem solve through the use of military force?
neurmoath: Have other plans been successful?
What a great site Success clomid black asian butt Asian miniskirt http://www.amateur-fucking-9.info/asian_marriage_vows.html turquois jewelry ace rent a car uk Asian kiana
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home