« Obamacare Chances | Main | I believe we've found our ObamaCare icon »

Might we juxtapose a moment?

I sat in the midst of a gathering this weekend and the strained relationship between the U.S. and Israel became, briefly, the focus of conversation.  Someone wondered aloud what right the U.S. had to criticize Israel and someone else responded it had much to do with all the money given by America to the Jews (as if the U.S. gave nothing to the Palestinians).  I mused aloud why the U.S. would be criticizing something that only months ago was praised (and by the same people) but then decided to simply shut up.  History has shown that this topic isn't one easily discussed amongst this bunch.  And so rather quickly, the topic changed.

Today I come across two pieces.  One brought by Mike Todd, a self -described progressive Christ follower and to which I think one could easily add the moniker of anti-semite. 

Here's a Huffington Post piece Mike calls "a good and direct editorial" that I believe substantiates the charge:

For me and countless other Americans, Israelis, Palestinians (and anyone anywhere who reads beyond the front page) the billboard could just as well refer to the Israeli government's persistent defiance of international law, the Fourth Geneva Convention, dozens of U.N. resolutions and U.N. fact-finding committees (e.g., the Goldstone Report), and some basic rules that govern common decency.

Enough already!

Or as the name of Peretz Kidron's Israeli anti-occupation group states, "There is a limit!"

Israel's victory in the Six Day War of 1967 does not give it license to oppress its neighbors and continue building Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Ironically, it is the Fourth Geneva Convention Rules of War, adopted in 1949 by the international community in response to Nazi atrocities, which forbids a victorious military from occupying, building, expanding, and then moving its citizenry onto conquered land. U.S. Vice President Joseph R. Biden was correct last week to condemn Israel's plans to build an additional 1,600 housing units in hotly contested East Jerusalem.

But then he fumbled, bumbled, and played the lapdog. For him to later temper his criticism by saying that the United States has "no better friend than Israel" is absurd. Anyone who has traveled off the beaten path in the Arab world (and many who remained on it) knows that friends like Israel are what generate enemies for the United States.

Never mind that many of the assertions made as premises to the argument are disputed and hotly so.  It's a good and direct editorial according to Mike and according to many a progressive Christ follower.   I guess I'd like to understand what's good about it.  Especially when I compare what you've just read with what you're about to read:

Fatah just held a ceremony in Ramallah, naming a central square in honor of a terrorist. Keep in mind that Fatah are viewed as "moderates."

Also keep in mind that Barack Hussein Obama has created a major crisis with Israel over Ramat Shlomo, a Jewish neighborhood in Jewish Jerusalem in the Jewish State.

Not a word from Obama, Biden, Clinton, or Axelrod about Fatah's glorification of Jew-killing.

Let's take a look at the bloodbath these savages choose to honor:

On the morning of March 11, 1978, [Dalai] Mughrabi and her Palestinian unit of eleven members, including one other woman, landed on an Israeli beach, killed an American photographer named Gail Rubin and hijacked a taxi, killing its occupants. They proceeded along the coastal highway shooting at traffic along the way. They next hijacked a bus and later a second bus, from which the passengers were transferred to the first one. The bus was finally stopped at a police roadblock. A shooting battle ensued. Eventually, Mughrabi blew up the bus which became a large deathtrap of fire. Many of the passengers were killed. In total, Mughrabi and her team killed 37 people, including at least 10 children. Some 71 people were wounded. Mughrabi and several other attackers died.

Via Wikipedia

Look, I have no illusions about the so-called Palestinians. They are a proudly Jew-hating group who have no desire to establish a state, only to destroy Israel.

The so-called peace process is a fool's errand.

As is the notion that the first piece can be called good... by a self-described Christ follower.

There are no perfect nations... and I'm sure that Israel has at times acted in ways that make peace loving people cringe.

But what modern day nation faced with similar circumstances hasn't?

To ignore that she is surrounded by those who desire her annihilation and who make that desire the centerpiece of their ideology is to side with her enemies.  I simply can't get around that.

Seraphic Secret, the author of the juxtaposed piece, concludes:

Peace will come, as it did to Japan and Germany, when the West--meaning America--gets fed up and utterly lays waste the Arab Muslim terrorist states.

Arab Muslim terrorists cannot be appeased.

The beast is always hungry.

Unconditional surrender is the only language barbarians comprehend.

Barack Hussein Obama spent over twenty years as a faithful member of Jeremiah Wright's openly anti-American, Jew-hating Church. Obama is a man of the hard left who has spent his entire life in the company of fashionable anti-Zionists and rabid Jew-haters. It's in his intellectual DNA.

The notion that he is a reliable ally to Israel is proof that the 78% of American Jews who voted for Barack Hussein Obama exist in a willfull state of cognitive dissoanance.

Here's the crux of the matter: Barack Hussein Obama cannot dictate where Jews can and cannot live.

Jews have the right to live anywhere and everywhere.

We have the right to live in Ramat Shlomo, Brooklyn, Paris, Cairo, London, Los Angeles, etc.

Once you accept the notion that one patch of earth is legitimately made Judenrein, than the Jewish people are doomed.

And then the Arab Muslims will come for you.

It's a hard and ugly truth I agree with completely. 

It's a hard and ugly truth progressive Christians ignore at great peril.

Crossposted(*).


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/38509.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Might we juxtapose a moment?:

» Brutally Honest linked with Might we juxtapose a moment?

» Wizbang linked with "Can we have that conversation?"

Comments (10)

Do you what difference betw... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

Do you what difference between a moderate muslim and an Islamists is ?

Proximity to jews, access to a weapon and the opportunity to use it.

the Israeli government's... (Below threshold)
galoob:

the Israeli government's persistent defiance of international law, the Fourth Geneva Convention, dozens of U.N. resolutions and U.N. fact-finding committees (e.g., the Goldstone Report), and some basic rules that govern common decency.

Wow, criticizing Israel's fanatic Likud government and pointing out their international law violations, he's obviously an anti-semite! Like Hitler. As is Goldstone himself. Wait, Goldstone's a Jew? Well then, he's an anti-semitic Jew!

Anyone who has traveled off the beaten path in the Arab world (and many who remained on it) knows that friends like Israel are what generate enemies for the United States.

Well that's just what GEN Petraeus said, that Israel's actions are causing hate against the USA and getting our soldiers killed, so if Todd's an antisemite, Petraeus must be too.

In fact, you're all anti-semites unless you support an Israel from the Mediterranean to the Jordan. Or the Euphrates, whatever Likud wants. And starving all the Arabs in Gaza to death.

None of this America first crap for me - Israel first! Five billion dollars is not enough - let's give them ten billion dollars!

Galoob:Look at the t... (Below threshold)
epador:

Galoob:
Look at the twisted and deformed shiny things!
Over here!

At one time, I was pretty s... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

At one time, I was pretty sympathetic to the Palestinians. But over the years, I started seeing something badly wrong with the Palestinian culture. I saw that Arafat pushed for more and more - and when the Israelies gave him pretty much what was demanded, he refuses what they offered and started up the Second Intifada. That made no sense from a standpoint of wanting peace...

So I looked a little further into the history of the Palestinians. When they were 'displaced' by the founding of Israel, instead of accepting the actuality of the UN resolution, their militancy in their 'adopted' homeland of Jordan led to 'Black September' in 1970. They tried to take over that country, and King Hussein ended up killing hundreds of thousands of militants and expelling them from the country.

And then something else struck me about the Palestinians - they're focused so intently on getting back the land Israel occupies, but when they do get it (as in the return of Gaza) they destroyed what they ostensibly wanted. They destroyed the greenhouses that would have given them valuable cash crops - ripped up sewer systems to make unguided rockets to fire over the border, and did everything they could to provoke the Israelies into ANY response which could then be used to justify their continued fight against Israel.

I was hopeful that sanity would prevail when Arafat died - but if anything, lacking an authoritative figurehead has made the Palestinian society even more chaotically destructive.

They don't want peace. They don't want coexistance. They've done everything they can do fuck up every opportunity for coexistance.

And I've got one hell of a lot more sympathy for Israel than I used to. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place, nothing they can do will be right. The Palestinians push and kill randomly, the Israelies try to focus their response and not create civilian casualties - and Israel is the bad guy.

Yeah, it makes no sense at all.

Epador - "Twisted and defor... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Epador - "Twisted and deformed shiny things..." I think you just described galoob.

galoob,What is your ... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

galoob,
What is your position on United States military aid to other countries? This is a serious question because I am trying to figure out whether you have a problem with aid to Israel in particular or foreign aid at all in general.

Far as I'm concerned, the "... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Far as I'm concerned, the "Palestinians" can rot in hell. Talk about an inbred group of idiots. Their Arab 'brothers' have been using them for the last 60 years and they still don't get it. "Palestinian" is just another name for "loser".

DaveD:I am only in... (Below threshold)
galoob:

DaveD:

I am only in favor of military aid to proven allies in support of vital national interests.

For example: Turkey and Thailand during the Cold War, since they were under threat of Communists, or in the case of Turkey, were a threat to Communists in their neighborhood. In both cases, they were allies who fought on our side (Turkey in Korea, Thailand in Korea and Vietnam) were NATO or SEATO members and gave us bases against the Communists.

Israel does not pass that test - we have no vital national interest in helping Israeli expansionism. They have 200 or so nukes and can defend themselves from the Arabs and don't need our help. They have bit our feeding hand many times. Remember the Liberty. They passed Pollard's secrets to the USSR. They regularly thumb their nose at our faces as they expand into the West Bank. Because we give them aid, their policies are perceived as our policies in the Arab world, which causes hate against us.

They are not a true friend. I say save our money and put America's interests first.

Galoob-"The... (Below threshold)
914:

Galoob-

"They are not a true friend. I say save our money and put America's interests first."


You must certainly be anti Obama then?

It amazes me how often the ... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

It amazes me how often the Geneva Conventions are referred to when very few countries adhere to them anyway. Also they are more often than not referred to incorrectly. Fourth Geneva Convention Rules of War referred to "occupied" territories not conquered territories. There is a deference. "Occupied" territories refer to land that is expected to be given back once hostilities cease. Also name one military that hasn't build a base or something in occupied territories. The above reference is obviously incorrect and\or taken out of context.

Conquered territories are pretty much any land in the world. I can't think of any land that wasn't conquered at one time or another. There is no rules in Geneva Conventions that say you can not build on your own land.

Many of the oh so great U.N. resolutions Israel has not followed are the same ones that the other side have not follow. It is like condemning one side for not upholding a treaty or contract when the other side refuses to follow their obligations first. Let's scream when a car gets repo but overlook the fact that the owner refused to pay on the loan.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy