Home / In Praise of Obama’s “Inconsistency”

In Praise of Obama’s “Inconsistency”

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I'm the sort of man who likes to give credit where credit is deserved, and it is in this exact spirit that I applaud Barack Obama for supporting a U.S. boycott of the United Nations Racism Conference.

Israel, Canada, Australia, The Netherlands and Italy have also boycotted the conference, and Germany is strongly leaning toward doing so.

Not only is the U.N. ineffectual and corrupt, it is also blighted by double standards, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the Holocaust-denying, Jew-hating scum who will participate in this so-called conference on racism, and the seriousness with which they'll be greeted.

The Mohammeds, Ahmeds and Jamals in attendance will demand their usual condemnation of Israel and the reinstatement of the U.N.'s 1975 General Assembly Resolution 3379 which stated that Zionism was a form of racism and racial discrimination. (Resolution 3379 was revoked in 1991.)

The 2001 U.N. Conference on racism in Durban, South Africa was disastrous due to rancorous language condemning Israel, and Obama said that if the language from Durban did not significantly change its anti-Israel and anti-Western bias—
which it hasn't—then the U.S. could not take part in the latest conference.

Democratic congresswoman Barbara Lee did have a point when she made clear her disagreement with the President: "This decision is inconsistent with the administration's policy of engaging with those we agree with and those we disagree with…" she said. "The US is making it more difficult for it to play a leadership role on UN Human Rights Council as it states it plans to do. This is a missed opportunity, plain and simple."

Mr. Obama is indeed being inconsistent here, given his desire to pal around with the evil likes of Castro, Chavez and Ahmadinejad; listening to their every anti-American grievance, no matter how silly or psychotic. But I'm glad the Prez is being inconsistent here. If our absence from the conference does indeed make our job in helping to craft U.N. bullshit … er, "human rights" more difficult, then it will have been well worth it and anything but a missed opportunity.

Powered by

About Nightdragon

  • Jack Bilperson

    “A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.” ~George Washington, ~page 269 of The 5000 Year Leap.

    “The nation which indulges toward another habitual hatred or habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interests.” ~ George Washington

    “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

  • Ahmedinejad’s reprehensible behavior yesterday—having took place hours before this piece was published—completely validated Mr. Obama’s concerns.

    The Iranian president is treating this conference as a joke, as a platform for his anti-Semitic paranoia, and making a mockery of the conference’s goal, as noted by a very disappointed Ban Ki-moon, the U.N. Secretary-General. The British should never have had a presence in Geneva in the first place, but at least they walked out, along with other European delegates, when Ahmedinejad started spouting his tired old claptrap about a Jewish world conspiracy and “racist” policies of the Israeli nation.

    This is the same man that our Messiah thinks we can have an everlasting peace with if only we just had dialogue? I hope that now Mr. Obama is a bit more enlightened with respect to the fact that President A. is a madman.

  • Good points. I also am glad he wasn’t in attendance. Although the UN is now not much more than a hand-slapper when someone drifts away from the straight and narrow.

    Hmm… What is the point of the UN again?

  • Mark,

    Little confused. In your main piece, you comment #2, not you’re against it. Did I get it right?

  • Meant: “the article is for it, your comment against it.”

  • Mark,

    Nice article.

    But the US of A is still dipping itself in mud. It has chosen to attempt its candidacy on whatever joke of a council the UN has these days for “human rights” (the way the bastards at the UN write it, Jews are not human). The “Blessed of Hussein is still trying his damnedest to shove a terror state down our throats here in Israel, and make at least a quarter million of us homeless.

    The American Sect’y of Defense has killed a whole slew of joint weapons projects with Israel, and for all of its absence from the room when Ahmadinejad made a mockery of humanity with the filth of his “mouth”, it is this fool that the “Blessed of Hussein” seeks to talk.

    So, in spite of the tiny step of boycotting the joke of a conference in Genève, The US pf A is still headed firmly in the wrong direction – straight over the falls of disaster.

  • Jim Jeffers

    No guts — no glory!

    Boycotting the conference is a coward’s way out.

    A man’s way is to listen and challenge.

    Otherwise, it could be concluded that some of what was said cannot be refuted.

  • Or otherwise, kick them out of the NY headquarters and stop paying the dues.

  • Jim Jeffers

    “Or otherwise, kick them out of the NY headquarters and stop paying the dues.”

    Exactly what the UN Charter says we should do when there is political disagreement.

    Go back and read it.

  • Well, it’s becoming a disgrace, nothing short of a farce.

  • Jim Jeffers

    The UN became what it is after the US began using its veto power in blind support of Israel.

    It started in 1967 when UN Res 242 called for Israel to withdraw from all occupied territory. The US agreed to the Resolution but then refused to enforce it.

    Since then the US has used its veto power in the UN whenever Israel demands it.

    Hundreds of times.

    That’s the disgrace.

  • You may be right. If you overuse it, you abuse it. So now the shoe falls on the other foot.

  • Clavos

    The UN has been shit from the beginning.

  • Anyway, sorry for past remarks. It wasn’t fair of me.

  • Roger, re: #4 — I’m neither for nor against the conference from a purely theoretical viewpoint. The U.N. can idle away its time fingering its collective buttholes if it likes, that’s all it’s done during its lifetime and I expect no better of it; I just simply wish that, as a taxpayer, I didn’t have to help fund their geopolitical scatology.

    My point is, if the U.N. is to have a world conference on racism, the airing of anti-Semitic greivances is inconsistent with that agenda, not to mention downright hypocritical. Ahmedinejad is treating it like a joke, acting like the rock star of the event, turning it into his personal platform for all the other brain-damaged lunatics in attendance to applaud for. Obama was right to boycott this charlatanry and for reasons that have now become all too obvious.

  • Ruvy, no argument there with regard to shoving a terror state down your throats, and making a quarter million of you homeless. I concur.

    However, despite that I know this was mere lip service and posturing from Obama, it was still nice to see, even if it was a largely empty gesture.

  • zingzing

    is ahmedinejad treated like a celebrity, or is he treated like someone they have to let speak? obviously the point of this is not to have some big jew-hating happening… but in the interest of getting every side (or every idiot) to have their spot, is it not… hrm, what’s the word… politically correct, at least, to let him speak?

    i think he should speak. if this thing is about racism in the world, why not let the racists speak? if they do, this world is free, and we can see them for what they are, so we know what’s out there.

    if not, what’s this thing supposed to be about? a bunch of people saying racism is bad? oh, dear god, enlighten me.

    this is what the u.n. is for. maybe it’s foolish, but it’s better than just yelling from another country that this guy or that guy is a racist. might as well be there to say it to their faces.

    i don’t see why obama boycotted this, and i don’t see why you people don’t recognize the fact that racist people and nations need to be taken on face-to-face, not from little blogs and medias based miles and nations away.

    what are we saying by staying away? “we don’t want to hear you,” or “we don’t think what you’re saying matters,” or “we feel like you need to be less racist,” or some such pussy nonsense. just go up there and tell him that he’s an asshole.

    what we’re doing here is being big old wimps. there’s a reason these things happen, and it’s not to waste everyone’s time. we should confront each other about this on a national level, in a place like the u.n. that’s where this shit should occur.

  • Jordan Richardson

    racist people and nations need to be taken on face-to-face, not from little blogs and medias based miles and nations away.


  • I like your comments, Zing. UN is what it is, but it it a forum which at least affords peaceful confrontation rather than armed conflict, so we may as well use it. Airing of differences and possibly resolving them would be too much to hope for; someday perhaps. But then again, how different is it, really, from the BC culture here. Not by very much, I’m afraid. So we may as well use it for what it’s worth – if only to identify the nuts.

  • Jim,

    You seem to think the United States should have thrown Israel under the bus publicly a long time ago. Whether you realize this or not, that is what the “Blessed of Hussein” is doing now. So don’t despair for what you want. Your are getting it.

    You will get what you want, Jim, and it will all go wrong.

    But first you should know what the Americans should have done.

    1. Having refused entry to thousands of Jews prior to the Nazis exterminating them in Europe, they should have, after the invasion of Normandy, the USAAF should have bombed the tracks to the concentration camps in Germany and Poland, and bombed the concentration camps to powder. The Americans had the planes, bombs and air superiority to do those things in 1944-45. Millions of Jews (as well as Gypsies, homosexuals and others targeted by the Nazis) would have been saved, escaping to the forests in the chaos of the air raids. It is appropriate to tell you this the day after WE commemorate our fallen heroes and martyrs in the meat-grinder known as World War II.

    2. After the war, they should have pressured the Brits (by threatening to withhold food) to allow the doors of Mandate Palestine to open to Jewish refugees. The DP camps in Europe would have emptied out. In addition, they should have pressured the Brits (again under the pain of not receiving food shipments) to fulfill their Mandate in Palestine and make possible with all speed a Jewish State in the Land of Israel. This was their original charge. This they refused to do. The duplicitous Brits should have been held to their word.

    3. The United States should have armed the Jewish military in the new state to the teeth. In the likely event of a war with the Arabs and likely Jewish victory, Americans should have used gunboat diplomacy to force neighboring Arab states to sign a peace treaty recognizing Israel as a Jewish State.

    There would have been NO UN resolution 181 partitioning the western quarter of the Mandate. A Jewish State would have existed in the entire western quarter of the Mandate, from Metulla to Eilat and from the Mediterranean to Jericho.

    There would have been NO Arab refugee problem; there might have been a war, but it would have been quickly won by American-armed Jewish forces. Had the Americans done all these things, from step 1 to step 3, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives would have been saved, and it is likely that this entire region now would be prospering under a Middle Eastern Economic Union, with Israel as its driving engine. I strongly suspect, the world would be a far more prosperous place, far less wracked by war and death than it is now. It is easy for me, a Jew, to see the alternate history opening up in front of me, as alternate history is my favorite form of science fiction.

    There would have been Six Day War; their would have been NO UN Resolution 242; there wold have been NO Yom Kippur War; there would have been NO Arab terror. THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ugly as it was WOULD STILL BE STANDING! There likely would have been NO invasion of Iraq, a war that has drained you to penury.

    The next time any of you asks me what America should do for Israel – go back and read this comment! By their fruits shall you know them; they who pursue righteousness bring only goodness to the world. Your nation would be prosperous, having firm and true friends in the Middle East, instead of having to reach out an uncertain hand to Arab and Persian murderers.

    The question is not “what do you want from America?” The question is “what should America have done?”

    America did wrong, terribly wrong in so many ways, and now, Jim, your nation is paying the wages for its wrongdoing, and we are all suffering world-wide as a result. And the suffering world-wide will get worse, as your nation continues its slide to disaster.

  • That should have read, “There would have been NO Six Day War;”

    And I missed closing an HTML code for italics in the second paragraph – a thousand apologies….

  • what are we saying by staying away? “we don’t want to hear you,” or “we don’t think what you’re saying matters,” or “we feel like you need to be less racist,” or some such pussy nonsense. just go up there and tell him that he’s an asshole.

    what we’re doing here is being big old wimps. there’s a reason these things happen, and it’s not to waste everyone’s time. we should confront each other about this on a national level, in a place like the u.n. that’s where this shit should occur.

    I don’t know about you zing, but so far as I’m concerned, we should say nothing. When the SOB gets back to to Tehran, the place ought to be vaporized – not by Americans. G-d forbid you pussies should be bothered to do the RIGHT thing – no, by us Jews. They should die as Haman died with the very weapons they have chosen to kill us off.

    Then you can jump up and down and scream bloody murder after we will have saved your contemptibly sorry asses yet another time.

  • M a rk

    fuck that

  • What? You don’t like the idea of nuking?

  • M a rk

    …tourettes, sorry

    comes on when I read Ruvy’s murderous bile

  • fuck that

    Exactly what I think of American foreign policy – and all the shitheads, no matter who or where they are, who support it.

    They are succeeding in dragging their own country to hell in their stupidity, which they call “realpolitik”. I only pray we in Israel do not have to follow too far down the sewer you Americans are being flushed into.

  • I like your excuse, Mark. Now, I, too, am gonna have to develop a disability of some kind and add it to my repertoire.

  • Well, with that much bile, he might as well spit it out lest it becomes toxic. I’d hate to be, though, at the sight of Ruvy’s gun. I’ll settle for talk.

  • BTW, Mark, you do know that language is a motor function.

  • M ark

    …I’ll keep that in mind.

  • Well, that applies to all ejaculations – verbal included.

  • Too bad, Roger and Mark, that you can’t handle the cold hard truth and that you attempt to deflect it away with stupid comments.

    FOR US IN ISRAEL the Iranian regime is a security threat that must be removed – not because we don’t like them but because they have already demonstrated that they are willing to go to war by proxy, because their puppets call for our extermination, and their puppets are willing to act on their words, AND their leader called for our elimination from the map publicly. All this has been demonstrated amply in the past.

    There is no value in relying on America. The American government double-crosses its “allies” on a regular basis – start with Saddam Hussein, for example – and is obviously ditching Israel under a bus in order to deal with Iran.

    Fine – they can do that if they wish. But given that the Iranian regime is an existential threat TO US, it must be destroyed at its root – Tehran. It must be crippled in such a way that the Persian state will no longer pose any threat to us in Israel in future. FULL STOP.

    That means totally destroying Tehran and possibly Isfahan. For Israel to do that requires our nukes. Thank G-d we have them – even if our government does not want to admit it.

    If the Iranian government is willing to spend four to five million Iranians to fulfill their genocidal ambitions, let the government perish along with its citizens, so that at least a terribly distasteful action to preserve our lives is not wasted.

  • Ruvy,

    “FOR US IN ISRAEL the Iranian regime is a security threat that must be removed – not because we don’t like them but because they have already demonstrated that they are willing to go to war by proxy, because their puppets call for our extermination, and their puppets are willing to act on their words, AND their leader called for our elimination from the map publicly. All this has been demonstrated amply in the past.”

    I know you’re going cite Hitler and his Nazi talk as an example, a preamble. But can you make that equation?

  • And BTW – that “ejaculation” remark wasn’t directed at you but at Mark’s “f” word. So don’t get uptight.

  • Oh, by the way, save your moralizing bullshit for the fools who do not have a good memory. I know that my relatives died in Treblinka at the hands of the Nazis. I know that six million other Jews died at the hands of the Nazis and none of you sons of bitches or your grandparents did a damned thing to stop this barbarism. I do not need anyone to explain to me the morals of war – least of all, any of you.

    The Nazis and Americans both proved that mass murder is a weapon of modern warfare. If you can’t deal with that reality, go hide in a fuckin’ cave. That is where you belong.

  • I wasn’t moralizing you at all, so I don’t see where you’re getting that from. Only asked a simple question if present talk from Iran is the same as Nazi talk prior to World War II, and if it should be equated as representing the same kind of danger.

    Apparently, you don’t want to answer that question but choose instead to go into a tirade. OK with me.

  • Ruvy, it doesn’t seem to matter whether we talk about ancient history, recent history or the future, you simply don’t live in the same world as most of us. You are actually in the same wonderland as people such as holocaust deniers as far as I can see.

    Setting aside your historical issues for a moment, let’s look at your military “solution”. You seem to think that the use of the six or so nukes that Israel possesses would solve your adopted country’s problems, but I think that is naive.

    Let’s assume for a moment that somehow Israel had the political will to actually do such a high risk manoeuvre and the ability to deliver those weapons to any six targets you like. What would happen after that?

    You seem to assume that would be the end of the hostility but I think it would prove to be just the start of even bigger problems for Israel.

  • I’d go further than that and say that if it becomes known that Israel is planning a preemptive nuclear strike, it should be stopped in its tracks before it can deliver it.

  • Roger, my statement about moralizing was not aimed at you in particular. It was aimed at the lot of you who might find what I say objectionable.

    As for equating Ahmadinejad with Hitler, that is for screed writers with too much time on their hands. The point is that Iran and its puppets are an existential threat to this nation, and therefore, their ability to operate as a single country must be eliminated. I must emphasize here, that I do not care if the Iranians have nuclear weapons, per se. We have nuclear weapons, too.

    The issue is that they have made utterly clear BY ACTS AND BY WORDS their intent to use their nuclear weapons and other weapons that can be extremely deadly to eliminate the State of Israel. That makes them an existential threat to us – therefore their ability to make good on their intent must be stopped.

    I’d go further than that and say that if it becomes known that Israel is planning a preemptive nuclear strike, it should be stopped in its tracks before it can deliver it.


  • Ruvy

    To deal with your own observations, Chris, Israel has sufficient weaponry to destroy Tehran – with plenty left over for other targets elsewhere. And you are right, attacking Iran would be the beginning or many problems, rather than the end – but the existential threat that Iran poses would be eliminated. Other existential threats need to be eliminated, but Iran is at the top. In addition, the example of the destruction of Tehran would act to deter, rather than to exacerbate, the threat of war.

    Arab states fully aware that Israel would use its nuclear arsenal to destroy an enemy will think long and hard on attacking this country.

  • Ruvy,

    You’d have worldwide confrontation – not just from the Arabs. Do you think Russia would sit still? They have vested interests in Iran.

  • Ruvy, even if Tehran was destroyed, there are over 70 million people in Iran alone and it is likely their anger would outweigh and outlast their sorrow.

    I reckon if Israel did such a thing, the entire militant Islamic world (with the silent or not so silent support of many other people all over the world) would likely set out to destroy Israel, with everything from their own nukes and other military options, if necessary by walking there and fighting you all with swords and manpower. There is no way such a tiny country as Israel would ever survive once it had raised the stakes in that way.

  • Do you think Russia would sit still? They have vested interests in Iran.

    Without the mullahs to run Iran, and thereby limit their scope of action, the Russian “vest” would get a lot bigger, don’t you think?

    Iran, without Tehran, would fall apart into smaller states that could be easily dominated from the north (Russia) the east (Afghanistan, Pakistan) and the south (Saudi Arabia). So, Azerbaijan and the northern plain and mountains in Iran would likely fall under Russian control, as they did a century ago. Only the Americans would feel they got screwed…. (sob, sob, sniff)

  • Well, maybe you’re right about that; the question still is whether the world would tolerate a preemptive strike by a “lesser” power.

    For all I know, there may be a myriad of reasons why he talks shit. Number one, he’s a figurehead, as you know, since the mullahs are in charge (and they all have accounts with Swiss banks and Dubai). I view his talk as a provocation. Why? I don’t know. Anyway, I think there’s more to it than meets the eye.

  • I reckon if Israel did such a thing, the entire militant Islamic world (with the silent or not so silent support of many other people all over the world) would likely set out to destroy Israel….

    We had to fight the bastards before, Chris. We’ll have to fight them again anyway – they are spoiling for a fight – so, why not do it on OUR terms instead of theirs? You are so used to seeing Israel wait for attacks that you forget that the best military strategy is to strike first, to strike hard, and to strike brutally.

    I believe in applying the basic concepts of krav magá to warfare, Chris. You fight to win and you fight to destroy the enemy – you never worry about rules; the only rule is to survive to win. When the uncivilized savages who would murder you are dead, then you can afford to pretend to civilization. Until then, you must be at least as savage as your most savage enemy.

    That is how YOUR world works, Chris. So, that is what WE must do to survive in it. You Brits and Yanks let the Nazis get away with genocide. All we can do is learn the brutal lessons YOU teach us – and apply them.

  • That was the case before the nukes. The whole idea of the nukes was a deterrent. And it worked.
    You’ve seen Dr Strangelove.

  • Roger,

    MAD does not apply to this region – at least not where Israel is concerned. One of the essential things you need for MAD to work is strategic depth. America and Russia had strategic depth. Israel has no strategic depth. Israel, at present, is 70 miles wide, and the IDF is admitting that the entire country is under missile threat from the south or north (proxies of Iran) as well as Iran itself. Israel’s missile shield just is not good enough to afford serious protection.

    So, to make the analogy easier for you to comprehend, look at the story of David and Goliath. Goliath was a giant, armed in heavy armor, covered almost from head to toe, far bigger than the ruddy boy from Bethlehem who dared go up against him. David, a shrimp in comparison to Goliath, had nothing but a shepherd’s cloak, a stick – and a slingshot. The nukes are the pebbles in the slingshot, Roger. David aimed for the one spot that Goliath’s helmet didn’t protect – his forehead – and killed the SOB.

    In order to deal with the enemy, Israel must strike first, hard and viciously, getting the most damage on the first shot. None of the Marquis of Queensbury bullshit here, Roger. None of the Geneva Convention bullshit either. Not when dealing with an enemy that constantly talks of your own extermination. It’s krav magá. Strike to kill. Strike to win.

  • Ruvy, you are so committed to your delusions, it would be comedic if it weren’t so tragic.

    There aren’t enough weapons in your nuclear arsenal or enough soldiers and tanks in your army to stop a serious attempt to destroy Israel by a Muslim world united by such a pre-emptive action.

    I’ve no idea what you’re on about with all that guff about that’s how “my” world works, but presume it is all part of your factually inaccurate and not a little mad assertions about the role of the Allies in WW2.

    Finally, I’ve not yet seen any sign at any time that you are capable of learning anything, indeed, I’ve never even seen a sign of honest enquiry from you, just an intellectually corrupt effort to try and find evidence to support your fixed knowledge.

  • Have you thought, Ruvy, that that’s precisely what Iran might hope for – to provoke you to some such action to give them an excuse. The mullahs will be far away safely, waiting for the dust to settle. They don’t give a shit about some population loses. And Iran would emerge as an undisputed leader of the Islamic nations.

  • you are so committed to your delusions, it would be comedic if it weren’t so tragic.

    You haven’t made your case at all, Chris. I could equally assert that you are so devoted to your militant atheism that anything that seems to doubt it is dismissed by your closed mind. I’d be right, but so what? I will not have said anything to counter your words.

    I’ve set forth a strategy. Go ahead, pick it apart and criticize it if you do not agree with it, but demonstrate where and how it is faulty. You’ve done nothing of the sort.

    In addition, the only strategy you seem willing to even consider, concessions by our country that fatally weaken it have already been tried – and have failed. But you offer nothing else.

    We have already fought the united might of the Arab world – and won. Using our nukes to judiciously destroy Arab nations will only cement that victory – again. You need to consider our win/loss record, and how we have wiped the sand with our enemy when we unleashed our forces fully – in 1967 and 1973.

  • “the only strategy you seem willing to even consider, concessions by our country that fatally weaken it have already been tried – and have failed.”

    Well, that might work on analogy with what happened in Bosnia and under NATO’s jurisdiction. Treat it as a demilitarized zone until the passions and the feud subside, and only then relinquish control.

  • Well, that might work on analogy with what happened in Bosnia and under NATO’s jurisdiction. Treat it as a demilitarized zone until the passions and the feud subside, and only then relinquish control.

    You might want to explain exactly what you are saying, Roger. Also, do you feel comfortable putting your relatives in Israel in further danger than they are in?

  • Baronius

    Mark, you’re right. This conference is exactly the kind of event I’d expect Obama to participate in. Good for him for abstaining.

  • Well, create the fucking Palestian state – you tell me where – and a demilitarized zone under NATO command – strictly enforced, zero tolerance policy – so there’d be no excuses from either side to engage in the hostilities. Then, who knows, after ten or twenty years, maybe longer, they’d learn to live in peace.

    How would that jeopardize my relatives in Tel Aviv?

  • I don’t know enough about details – that’s for others to work out. But it seems to me you’ve got to have a neutral and substantial military power in the region to put an end to what’s happening at present. And it must be effective if it is to work.

  • Roger, you take too much for granted with these ideas you toss out.

    First of all, there already is an Arab entity on our land, called Jordan. It controls 77% of the original territory of Mandate Palestine. We signed a treaty with the rulers of this country, so we are estopped from claiming it again for ourselves. This country is more than ⅔ populated with Arabs from the Land of Israel. Why should there be a second Arab country on OUR land? Why do the Arabs, who have over 20 states already, rate another one?

    Secondly, if we to agree to such a thing, who runs the Arab entity? If it is the present bunch of terrorists, it doesn’t matter who you have sitting there with guns – the Arabs will attempt to kill us off anyway. The British here as a mandatory power were supposed to be neutral. They kissed Arab ass all thirty years they were here! Why should we assume that NATO, composed mostly of nations that are anti-Israel, would be any different?

    Finally, your plan violates a basic principle of Jewish survival – we can never again put our fate in the hands of goyim. That’s why six million Jews died in Europe. Our fate was in the hands of goyim. Putting our fate in the hands of goyim would endanger your relatives terribly, Roger.

  • One final point for you all to chew on.


  • OK, let’s resume it later.


  • Here is a link to an article in the Atlantic Monthly on line edition suggesting that the Palestinians may prefer stateless to having a recognized state.

    Better the glory of victimhood, combined with the power of radical abstractions! As a stateless people, Palestinians can lob rockets into Israel, but not be wholly blamed in the eyes of the international community. Statehood would, perforce, put an end to such license.

    The author of the article cites an essay by Jakub Grygiel, where it is http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/41708942.html>suggested that

    Many of today’s nonstate groups do not aspire to have a state. In fact, they are considerably more capable of achieving their objectives and maintaining their social cohesion without a state apparatus. The state is a burden for them, while statelessness is not only very feasible but also a source of enormous power. Modern technologies allow these groups to organize themselves, seek financing, and plan and implement actions against their targets — almost always other states — without ever establishing a state of their own. They seek power without the responsibility of governing. The result is the opposite of what we came to know over the past two or three centuries: Instead of groups seeking statehood through a variety of means, they now pursue a range of objectives while actively avoiding statehood. Statelessness is no longer eschewed as a source of weakness but embraced as an asset.

    The author of the Atlantic article nevertheless urges,

    Even if Grygiel’s theory is right, the United States should apply ample pressure on the new Israeli government to compromise with the Palestinians—ratcheting up the rhetoric and slowing down arms deliveries if necessary. It should do this because it is the right thing to do, and because it will help the U.S. to reestablish credibility in the Muslim world. But the U.S. should also brace itself for an Israeli-Palestinian conflict that may never end, because the Palestinians may already have what they want.

    It seems to me that characterizing this as the “right thing” to do even if Mr. Grygiel is correct, and favoring it in order to reestablish U.S. credibility in the Muslim world, provide rather a wimpy conclusion, taking Israel’s interests little into account. I can think of no valid reason to put increased pressure on Israel to continue making concessions if the result is very likely to be an abject failure.


  • Tony

    We need victory not peace….ok Patton. I think I may jump over to that side. The U.S. should just sprawl itself over the entire world (not in the economic hitman style it is now, but with some good old fashion Alexander-esqu imperialism). Then, instead of attempting to dictate our culture, beliefs, governmental and economic systems, and way life to everyone, we can just enforce them at the tip of a nuke.

    Then we’ll have peace, and everyone will be good Christians who love capitalism and “democracy.” And, we finally won’t have to worry about those rogue countries like Sweden and their sacrilegious socialist wasteland.

  • Tony,

    Let’s amend that just a drop for you….


    You Americans need peace badly. Your badly fought wars have driven you to the poorhouse!

  • Dan,

    the “Palestinians” may prefer statelessness to having a recognized state.

    I’ve known this for several years already. So long as we allow a terror organization (or group of terror organizations) to “run” the Arab controlled areas of the country, statelessness – and the constant propaganda victories it ensures – is far preferable to the responsibilities of governing.

    So, my solution is simple – annex all of Judea and Samaria, and give the Arabs control of their own cities, towns, villages and townships – autonomy without a foreign minister or army. But we need to kill all the terrorists. They must be dead – not exiled – dead. Dead terrorists do not make tapes or podcasts pushing revolution or terror.

  • “But we need to kill all the terrorists. They must be dead – not exiled – dead. Dead terrorists do not make tapes or podcasts pushing revolution or terror.”

    Why not let NATO be in charge of that – if they’re to ensure peace? I know your reservations about “the Goyim.” But don’t you think a neutral force in the region is possible?

  • This is where it all goes wrong for you, Ruvy: “I could equally assert that you are so devoted to your militant atheism that anything that seems to doubt it is dismissed by your closed mind.”

    That is what you like to think but it isn’t actually true. Firstly, I’m not a militant or an atheist, I just can’t stand unsubstantiated nonsense and your beliefs are just one of many examples of that in the world today.

    You have never, ever, come up with anything that could be considered credible in support of your views and then you retreated to the position that it simply wasn’t possible to do so.

    On the other hand, there is plenty to substantiate my views that can be readily perceived by anybody who can actually think as opposed to believe.

    And if we want more proof of your gullibility, you think Israel could ultimately win a serious war that it started against a newly united in horror and rage Muslim world and its appalled allies?

    And that the US culture and economy are irretrievably broken?

    Not desperately trying to justify that relocation much?

  • Dan (Miller)

    But in light of your #60, establishing a statehood might just be the right thing to do in that it would thwart those ambitions and do away with all excuses.

  • Roger,

    We do not need some damned outsider to tell us how to govern. We need to expel the outsiders and govern. In the case of the Arabs, we need to kill the terrorists and make it clear that terrorism will get Arabs six feet of earth buried in a pig-skin. In other words, they will die, and in death get no respect either. They can do what they damned please in Jordan or in Malmö, Sweden. But in Israel, they have to learn to act like human beings – or die.

    This is unacceptable, as it this and this. These are all reports from this evening over the last couple of hours. All this is terrorism, behavior promoted by constant anti-Jewish and anti-Israel propaganda. The only way to rid ourselves of this murderous behavior is to kill those who indulge in it, and kill those who promote it.

    Outsiders are the last thing we need. All the funds for the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda in our country comes from outsiders, usually from Scandinavia. Nota bene, all the Scandinavian countries except Finland and Sweden are NATO members, and every damned one of them are developing records for Jew-hatred.

  • Chris, you waffle around a whole lot, and make a whole stack of accusations, but still have not addressed my arguments at all. Assertions are not arguments.

  • Last quick point, Roger. NATO. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Not Eastern Mediterranean or West Asian. When Israel moves up to the north Atlantic, we’ll talk about NATO. Till then, keep the bastards outta here.

  • Later then.

  • Ruvy, yeah, I suppose. However, is Israel up to dealing with claims that being nasty to terrorists is not the “right thing” to do? Surely, there must be some way to reason together, and if all else fails, to kill them with kindness. Otherwise, Israel may face even more distressing problems in such places as Norway, where it seems that “top Israeli officials, including former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert,[may be brought to trial] for their actions in Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.”

    Dear me! How can a country deal with stateless people committed to death and destruction, not only of the people and things of their wicked oppressor but also of their own people and things? Wouldn’t it be more humane and therefore better for Israel to bring out the white flags and teach the IDF gently to hum Kumbaya? Perhaps Hamas et al would eventually join in. Surely, it must be worth trying.


    Goes to make sure that no venomous snakes are being molested.

  • This is for later, Ruvy, because I know you’re retiring.

    Not to tell anyone how to govern. Each entity have their own autonomy – just to enforce peace in the region by a neutral body.

    There’s at least one advantage from such an arrangement: Israel won’t be blamed for retaliatory actions. Something to consider, I’d say.

  • Dan,

    I read about those self-righteous bastards in Oslo, and left this comment at another site:

    quoting another poster – We cant deal with all the worlds evils in one go but Israel has committed many evils in its short history and it is way past the time to deal with it. So if you have any morality, stop blubbering and do something now

    Speaking as an Israeli with morality – and a proud Jew, I’ll tell you all some home truths.

    If you haven’t got the guts to deal with the real genocidists on the planet, the Sudanese and Rwandans – and obviously nobody on this list has that kind of moxie – stay out of our affairs. It’s none of your business what we do here in Israel.

    To be blunt, the Arab terrorists in Gaza got what they deserved – they deserved far more deaths: something that can yet be accomplished by executing the terrorists who now are daily fed by the Israel Prison Service. There is no reason to feed this human trash when Jews in this country are going hungry or homeless.

    As for those of you blubbering about our half-hearted attempts to defend ourselves, you haven’t a moral leg to stand on. YOUR GRANDPARENTS DID NOTHING TO STOP THE SATANIC EVIL OF THE NAZIS. So, you have no right to open your mouths now. Your grandparents, by ignoring our plight 70 years ago, stripped you any moral authority. FULL STOP.

    Thus, IMHO, the appropriate response to the Norwegians who have decided to issue arrest warrants for Tzipora Livni, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert is to close down the Norwegian Embassy in Tel Aviv, recall our ambassador in Oslo, get him and his family out of Norway, THEN seize the Norwegian ambassador and his staff, and tell the Norwegian government that as long as they are considering actions which constitute acts of war against the Jewish State, their ambassador and his staff can rot in an Israeli jail. If the Norskies want to send soldiers over, we can always transship them back to Norway in body bags on the next Maersk liner docking here….

    Mind you all, I think that Tzipora Livni, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, along with Shimon Peres and others, should be arrested, tried for treason and hung by the neck (the penalty for treason in Israel). But that is OUR BUSINESS not yours.

    If you can’t deal with the true evils in the world, stay out of our affairs and be grateful we don’t interfere in yours.
    — Ruvy

    I think you get the idea, Dan. I’ve learned a lot from those nasty Persians who seized American embassy staff in Tehran in 1979. Terror pays – unless it is suppressed so firmly that it is made not to pay. If the Norwegians want to intervene in our internal affairs, they can – so long as their embassy staff rot in our jails.

  • “It’s none of your business what we do here in Israel.”

    It is if it might lead to general conflagration. Then, it’s everyone’s business.

  • Oh, by the way, Dan, I’m trying to figure out how to “play” “Kumbaya” using the bullets of an M16 or Galil rifle. The only way Arab terrorists will understand “Kumbaya” is if their bodies are used for “sheet music”.

  • It’s a parting shot, I guess. I’m not certain, however, that Dan approves of this sentiment. I may be wrong, of course.

  • Baronius

    Ruvy, if you can’t play the notes, you can at least keep rythym.

  • Roger,

    Try answering my questions at comment #57 before you go hustling NATO intervention like a cheap suit.

  • I’m not hustling NATO, just brought it up in absence of any other body that’d be able to perform on that level. If you can think of another force with the same enforcing power, fine with me.

    Yes, perhaps each Arab state should contribute to carve out the territory to form a separate state as it were, Jordan included. This could be part of the plan, and it is doable.

  • Shit, Ruvy,

    You’re turning me into a statesman, above Kissinger and beyond. I’ve have never thought I had such talents as a strategoi. Thanks for awakening this latent genius in me. I should apply to the State dept. and pass with flying colors.

  • Cindy

    NATO: North American Terror Organization.

  • How about asking the U.N. Human Rights Council to monitor the area and giving it plenary authority to resolve all conflicts. Surely, Ruvy would agree to that, as would all other right thinking people.


  • Any credible body that’d have sufficient firepower to back it up – that’s my answer.

  • zingzing

    somebody needs to make one of those video edits of “downfall” (the scene where hitler gets the news that berlin is surrounded) with ruvy’s words as the subtitles, just so we can see what he looks like.

    seriously, ruvy. do you not understand just how much your reasoning mirrors that of the arab terrorists? hell, it even mirrors hitler in its singling out of one group.

    think about all of your gripes and then find the mirror in 1930s germany and present day palestine/iran/etc. you’ll be surprised, i’m sure.


  • That would be a hell of a clip.

  • zingzing

    i’ve got a friend who edits video… maybe he could whip something up. seriously, the disconnect to be found in hitler talking about defending israel would be pretty funny to almost anyone, but to those of us in the know (that this is about ruvy), it would be absolutely hilarious.

  • Well, zing. That’s the ticket. Hitler’s electrifying speech at Reichstag with Ruvy’s subtitles.

    It would beat any Woody Allen movie or the Great Dictator.

  • Baronius

    Look, we all know that the Nazi analogy is overused, especially on the internet. We should cut back on it in general. But in this particular case, it should never be used. Comparing a Jew to Hitler is worse than calling a black person a “nigger”. I don’t care if the most extreme Israelis grow tiny mustaches and wear swastikas; I’m not going to compare them to Nazis. That’s outside the realm of civil discourse.

  • But Baronius – Ruvy is advocating a pre-emptive nuclear strike, no if, ends, or buts. The intent may be different but not the ends.

    Nobody’s accusing Ruvy of being Hitler. All we’re trying to do is to appeal to his senses.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Ruvy –

    Israel has no more right to the land that is the nation of Jordan than the Palestinians have to the land of Israel…for just as Jordan’s land SHOULD have been Israels, Israel’s land SHOULD have belonged to the Palestinians, for it was promised to them by the British Empire before Chaim Weizmann (as his reward for saving the British Navy in WWI be developing ‘synthetic gunpowder’) asked for the Jews’ historical homeland.

    That’s why Israel/Palestine is sometimes referred to as the ‘twice-promised land’.

    I don’t have an immediate solution to the problems of the Middle East…but I would point out that as I understand it, many of the Arab countries DO tolerate Jews within their borders – even if as only second-class citizens – but it’s the Zionists that they hate…and as you know a Jew is not automatically a Zionist.

    I don’t have a problem with Israel dealing from a position of strength…but as long as your prime minister and Knesset return hateful language with hateful language, and return violence with greatly disproportional violence, such actions will only further convince the Arab rank-and-file that they are right, that the Jews are evil…

    …and the violence will only continue to escalate eventually to the point that the nukes will fly…and NOTHING is worth that.

    IMO what Israel SHOULD do, since they ARE dealing from a position of military strength, is rise above such antagonistic responses to terrorists, to refrain from using disproportionate violence and hateful rhetoric…for such is the ONLY way you can reliably keep the goodwill of the western world…and like it or not, you DO need us.

    I know that pursuing such a peaceful path in the face of Wahhabi hatred is repugnant…but speaking in the long term, I believe that’s your only real option.

  • zingzing

    baronius:”Comparing a Jew to Hitler is worse than calling a black person a “nigger”.”

    that’s ridiculous. the first instance is because ruvy is calling for tehran to be “wiped off the map.” a little bit hitler, a lot exactly the same bullshit he’s fighting against. using the n-word is a far different thing. this serves an OBVIOUS political purpose.

    “I don’t care if the most extreme Israelis grow tiny mustaches and wear swastikas; I’m not going to compare them to Nazis. That’s outside the realm of civil discourse.”

    no, it’s exactly what they need if they’re going to change their ways. to realize they’re becoming that which they once fought against. i’m, of course, not saying all israelis are going there. obviously not. but ruvy is, has been and will continue to go there if he can’t see that this unrestricted violence is not the answer. he’s looking to up the ante. it’s sick and blind and stupid. it’s his kind of thinking that needs to die, not innocent people in tehran (or israel). his kind of thinking infests that region, and the world. if you put a stop to the ruvy’s of the world, you’ll put a stop to this problem.

    and i know they’re on both sides. it’s just that i’ve seen better of ruvy, and i see him getting worse.

  • zingzing

    no here’s where ruvy says i have no idea what i’m talking about (it’s simple), that i don’t live there so i shouldn’t say a thing (too bad), and that i’m a pussy (i like pussy…).

    here it comes…

  • Baronius

    Zing, if you think it’s sick and blind and stupid, then call it so. But calling it Nazism is beyond the pale. Do you think it’s going to persuade a Jew? Do you think that Israelis haven’t thought about the difficulties of the Palestinians, but that calling them Nazis will open their eyes? It’s as indecent as crank-calling rape victims.

  • I’ll speak for myself, Baronius.

    If the level of discussion has to deteriorate to this kind of comparisons, then it is better to disengage. And I, for one will, because it is a dead end. It would be nice, however, to see you once in a while intervene and try ameliorate his comments, for his sake, rather than just jump on some of us, like me or zing, for example, for braving our efforts. Sure, I may have overstepped and I take it all back.

    So you deal with it now. It’s your baby.

  • Ma ® k

    While there is an argument among legal-eye rabbis concerning the legality of using nukes, all seem to agree that threatening their use is acceptable.

    Best response to Ruvy’s ‘idea’ is to register a hearty ‘fuck that’ and move on.


  • Baronius

    Roger, I wasn’t speaking for you. I was, if anything, speaking against you because you were signing off on that Jews=Nazis idea. I found it offensive and said so.

  • I’m well aware, Baronius, you were speaking against me, and the reasons why. Do we still we still have a quarrel here, or shall I chuck it?

  • Baronius

    We both said our piece, so I guess it’s done.

  • Roger, you still haven’t answered my questions in comment #57. Glenn tried, however unsatisfactory his answer might have been to me, but he tried. Props for the effort. I’ll answer him separately.


    We do not need any damned outsiders to tell us how to run our lives. The Brits undertook, as a matter of international law, to establish a Jewish National Home, a term understood by all at the time of its adoption into international law, to mean a Jewish State.

    Regardless of whatever promises the Brits made to the Arabs during WWI, it is a matter of international law that Jewish sovereignty vests in all of the territory of the Bashan (Golan Heights), and all the territory from the Mediterranean to Iraq. The Mandate established NO political rights for the Arabs to have a state on this land, even though the British, using illegal Palestine Orders-in-Council, interpreted the Mandate to mean just this and nearly established an Arab state in the entirety of the Mandate, de-legitimizing the idea of a Jewish one.

    OUTSIDERS, like the perfidious British, who refused to live up to their word, caused the deaths of far more millions in the Nazi death camps than need have died. OUTSIDERS, like the perfidious Americans, have shoved the suicidal Oslo agreement down the throats of weak-headed fools who worship money and not G-d.

    OUTSIDERS are not needed here. OUTSIDERS have only brought death and tragedy here. We extend Israeli rule of law to Gaza, Judea and Samaria (you need not annex what belongs to you), we end the Military and Civil Administrations here, we end the “Palestinian Authority”, we give the Arabs autonomy over their cities, towns, villages and townships, and execute the terrorists. The Arabs are free to stay and live in peace – or to leave.

    Finally, a first strike destroying Tehran is needed because the Iranians have decided that we must die. This is an existential threat. They have declared war against us, and therefore, we have no obligation to let them or any of their proxies see another sunrise. So, Tehran must die, and the proxies of the Iranian empire all must die. FULL STOP.

    I really don’t care how you characterize what I say. It is simply the language of survival, with the hand-wringing begging of contemptible kikes erased from the lines. If that bothers you, go re-read comment #20 upthread.

  • The best response to anything Mark has to say is to register a hearty “fuck that” and move on.


  • Baronius,

    Thank you for the spirited defense in my absence (my wife, who has been feeling poorly, responded well to some of our neighbor’s natural medicines and wanted to get on the computer to play some games – I fell asleep while she was enjoying herself). Telling you it was unnecessary is unkind – you undertook it, and therefore my thank-yous are deserved.

    Comparing Jews who dare to stand up manfully for their rights in a world that would rather see them dead as see them at all to someone like Adolf Hitler has been the favorite propaganda trick of the Arab savages who lust to finish off Hitler’s extermination of my people, and whose jaws drip at the idea of Jews dying at their hands. Two kids once played hooky from school one day in northern Judea near Teko’a around 2000 or 2001 when I still lived in the States. They were spelunking. An Arab mob caught them and tore them bone from bone – for no damned reason at all except that they were Jews. That says more about the Arabs than all the propaganda movies in the world. Calling them savages is more than justified. That some here are stupid enough to fall for the propaganda tricks of Arab savages says more about their intelligence (or lack thereof) and their class (or lack thereof) than anything else.

    Nothing more need be said of the matter. Thanks again, Baronius.

  • Ruvy, where do you think repeating exactly the same idea is going to get you? It’s not as though there is much any likelihood of it happening in the foreseeable political future, even if we ignore the fact that Israel doesn’t actually have the firepower or manpower to defeat all its potential enemies.

    You aren’t using the language of survival, you are using the language of hate and revenge, and there are zero examples in history of that being a survival oriented strategy. You then try and hide the negative impulses that clearly drive you by trotting out some convenient, if trite, drivel derived from your fixed knowledge belief system.

    You’ve done a great job of playing the role of the belligerent loudmouth; but that’s all it is, just another sad example of a mouse that thinks it’s a lion. As always, the empty vessel makes the most sound…

  • Jordan Richardson

    I fell asleep while she was enjoying herself

    Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan, have I ever been there before!

    I mean…


  • Thanks Chris,

    I love you too. Actually, you did inspire me to write an article (one of three in the cooker) with your remarks.

    Hopefully, the titles will get me (and this site) the readership I’m looking for. I don’t like Jonathan Huie, but I’m willing to learn from him.

  • There you go, Ruvy. Your own column in response to Huie’s – a tit-for-that. That ought to be interesting.
    I’ll get to the unfinished business once I re-think it.

  • zingzing

    baronius: “It’s as indecent as crank-calling rape victims.”

    hadn’t thought of that.

    it will have to wait til i’m done baiting ruvy. (not that he’s responding.)

    seriously, i don’t give a shit if ruvy is a jew or not. jewish people are alright in my book. it’s ruvy’s israeli nationalism as murderous rampage that bugs me. when anyone says “wipe [xxx] off the map,” it’s an awful thing, be it ruvy, a jewish/muslim person or hitler.

    still, right now, it’s ruvy. and there’s a little hitler in him for that.

    and that little hitler is saying “please help me get out” and i say, “no, you’ll sit right there and think about what you’ve done to be reincarnated as an angry jewish person. not what you were expecting, eh, adolf?”

    and then i’ll fall asleep while she’s enjoying herself.

  • Ruvy (your #99),

    I answered (partly) in my #72), which I reprint in part:

    “Not to tell anyone how to govern. Each entity have their own autonomy – just to enforce peace in the region by a neutral body. There’s at least one advantage from such an arrangement: Israel won’t be blamed for retaliatory actions. Something to consider, I’d say.”

    And now, I’d like to emphasize three points. One is that “no one tells you how to govern”; it’s strictly a peace-keeping force lodged in a neutral, demilitarized zone, a no-man’s-land – according to the lay of the land (again, let all work out the details).

    Two: the carving out of the Palestinian state must be a join effort; the present Arab state must be made to contribute (including Jordan), so the brunt won’t be just on the Israelis.

    And third. I know the history of British involvement doesn’t offer much promise. My contention, however, is that the world has changed. We didn’t realize then how explosive the Middle East is and could be. At present, the situation is intolerable and it presents an ever present and clear danger to world’s peace. So in light of that, I suggest that a credible neutral body in the region, which muscle besides to enforce that status of no hostility, is within the realm of possibility and should definitely be tried. Why will it work this time? Because the stakes are higher and everybody knows it. Ergo: we can’t afford to fuck up.

    As I said, I see no other viable solution, unless the possibility of worldwide conflagration is an eventuality you’re willing to live with.

    Well, I for one am not.


  • I lost the comment I was going to put up about the fact that every single day Arabs in the Land of Israel do what they can to kill us Jews. One example covered in Arutz Sheva (I’m not bothering to link to that – you can look it up); Arabs rioted and threw stones at shoppers in the Givati Mall in Jerusalem; last night they desecrated Joseph’s Tomb (also covered at Arutz Sheva – look it up), while Arabs rioted in the Kfar Qassen district when police attempted to destroy illegally built Arab housing. To put it simply, the police were enforcing the law. So let it not be heard here that the law should not be enforced where Arabs are concerned!

    There is a reason this “belligerent loudmouth” insists that all Arab terrorists must be executed (and the day will come when that DOES occur). The reason is simple. The Arab terrorists incite to murder – and the Arab population follows their lead. Kill the terrorists and any who follow in their footsteps – and the Arabs will figure out that either they wish to live in peace here or leave. Arabs are not stupid.

    Don’t tell me that this is inhumane either. The Spanish killed Basque terrorists. They didn’t waste time and still do not waste time giving terrorists the time of day. They give them what they deserve. Six feet of earth. The Russians kill off Moslem terrorists in the thousands and none of you opens his mouth! Why should the Russian barbarians get a free pass while you here blather your Christian (or pagan) bullshit about peace?

    Fuck that!

    After what you didn’t do in WWII, and what the British did in its immediate aftermath, none of you has any moral standing to open your mouths!

  • The world hasn’t changed Roger – you non-Jews haven’t changed. You still want us dead and nod quietly all over Europe with assent every damned time some Moroccan or Arab does the dirty work of beating up or killing a Jew for you.

    We cannot afford to trust you at all. There is NO room for meddling outsiders like the EU or the Americans. We have seen the shit your meddlers pull in our country, and frankly, these meddling SOB’s are all lucky that none of them has ever encountered me. They’d return home in a body bag. I have NO tolerance for hypocritical meddling outsiders from Europe.

  • Baronius

    Ruvy – I wasn’t really defending you. You are a little bit nutsy, and I have no problem labelling you that way. But you won’t catch me calling you a little bit Nazi.

    You know, I rail against racism on this site. Treating anyone differently because of their race is immoral. But I’m willing to make one exception: every Jew in the world is exempt from being called a Nazi.

  • Ruvy,

    Well, I for one don’t want to sees Jews dead; I’m certain neither is Chris, nor zing, nor Glenn, nor anybody else on this site (there are always exceptions, of course) who hold a different position and in the course of the debate, have disagreed with you. But your categorization is so sweeping that (in your mind) it precludes even the possibility that any “outsider” would hold anything but grudge (secret or open) against the Jews in general or Israel in particular. And as long as you think that, there is nowhere to go.

    In short, your position allows for no kind of input – good, bad or irrelevant. So I don’t know what else to say.


  • You are a little bit nutsy, and I have no problem labelling you that way. But you won’t catch me calling you a little bit Nazi.

    Baronius, you can call me anything you want, so long as you do not call me late to dinner. You can disagree all you want. What makes you different from some of the lesser lights on this comment thread is this, you won’t catch me calling you a little bit Nazi.

    Do note, by the way, I have been very careful about labeling anybody here, whether they agree with me or not. That is not accidental. The only label I have used at all on this comment thread is on Chris Rose – stating that he is an atheist. While it drives him crazy and while he resents it, the fact is that no reasonable person reading his ideas would disagree with me.

  • Well, calling someone an atheist is not necessarily labeling. I guess it depends how you use it and on the intent.

    If someone is a Hasidic Jew or a Catholic, do you necessarily label them when you refer to them as such in the course of the conversation?

  • Roger, I should clarify what I said, as it is too sweeping. Truth is I don’t think that many of you have a much of a moral leg to stand on. Some of you do, but not all of you. But to say that those of you on the list nod quietly in assent when Arabs or Moroccans beat up Jews is unfair. First, it goes against the comments policy, and secondly, it probably is not true.

    So, for this I apologize. But, I do not forget, and I do not not forgive. I cannot afford these luxuries in a world where many many people would rejoice if I were dead – not because of my views you read here, but because of the fact that I’m a Jew.

  • Well, Ruvy – those people should be excluded from all considerations.

    I’d like to think, however, that a great majority of people no longer hold such views (but they’re not vocal enough perhaps and are drowned out by the anti-semitism propaganda, which is why, perhaps, you don’t hear them or assume they don’t exist).

    And I’m saying that, knowing all too well that the history doesn’t exactly inspire you with any sense of confidence that the world may have changed (albeit not by very much).


  • Ruvy, it is becoming increasingly apparent that part of the decisions you made to (re)become Jewish and then emigrate to Israel is to do with the obvious ego reinforcement you get.

    It’s not your call to try and cast us as immoral or not entitled to a say in the events of the day as regards Israel or anything else for that matter. We’re all humans living on this one planet and what happens in places like the Middle East affects us all.

    You love to think that calling me an atheist drives me crazy, but that’s just little old you, or at least your ego, needing a sense of making a point, a little victory.

    I like precision, something you could do with a refresher course in, and to my way of thinking it isn’t accurate to label me an atheist. I’ve told you why before but, for the sake of those who may have missed it, it is this simple: I don’t care if there is a deity or not, happy either way, but as there is no plausible evidence for the existence of said deity, the Judaism-Christian-Islamic belief system appears to be founded on false principles.

    Atheism is, by definition, a word coined in the context of the belief that this deity was real. Just as there is no word for people who don’t believe in astrology, numerology or any other failed creation theory, I don’t need a word to describe my non-credulity. If this putative god turns up, I’ll be down the front in the holy mosh pit, but I wouldn’t bet my life on that happening.

    Back to the politic side of your “argument”, the fact is that there is no prospect of your suggested solution happening in the foreseeable future, although your magical thinking possibly leads you to think you can see a bit further than most. My opinion is that it would work against Israel’s survival if it did, which is why I oppose it.

    You made a remark above, surely sarcastic, that you love me too. I no longer actually know how I feel about you, but that is mostly because you spend so much time banging on about the same old thing – have done for years now – that it has pretty much become all you are. Ruvy on Blogcritics is that odd desert street preacher on a moebius strip and we never really get to see the rest of you.

  • Chris, I normally do not choose to engage your comments. I find them mostly uninformed and a waste of time. But this is worth commenting on, simply to take you down from your arrogant peg.

    …. it is becoming increasingly apparent that part of the decisions you made to (re)become Jewish and then emigrate to Israel is to do with the obvious ego reinforcement you get.

    My decision to relearn and practice Judaism had nothing to do with “ego reinforcement” – it had everything to do with wanting Jewish grandchildren, a feeling of duty I had (and still have) to my late parents, z”l. When it became apparent that American culture would steal my sons and suck them up into its pagan maw, making them nominal Jews at best, I realized I had to move here to Israel to live. I realized that I no longer desired to be the salt in someone else’s soup, dissolved away and assimilated into a culture I felt less and less affinity with.

    Having arrived here, we did not become religious because any of us needed ego reinforcement. My children preferred a lifestyle where we would actually observe the laws of our faith. And in Israel, there is no real middle ground between religious and secular that Israelis recognize (though in reality there is). In the eyes of Israelis, you are religious or you are not. So, we chose religious. That is a gamble one takes when doing. There are no guarantees in life. But I could stick some lead in the dice I threw, and that is essentially what I did.

    Most of my political opinions are not derived from any of this, but rather a painful recognition that the country I had visited in 1973 no longer existed, and a new, very painful reality had taken its place.

    IMO, Ruvy on Blogcritics is that odd mountain preacher who seems to be on a möbius strip because I never really want to see the rest of him.

    There! Fixed it for you, Chris. Yer welcome!

  • Ruvy, you say you find my comments uninformed and a waste of time, that I am arrogant, but this is just you flipping reality again.

    There is evidence for all the small number of things I believe and I’m humble and pragmatic enough to trust that evidence over and above my own personal hopes and views.

    There is no evidence to support any of your beliefs, yet you cling to them with all the shrill fervour and presumptious “better than you” attitude typical of people who fall for this trick.

    You could easily influence, even change my world view by coming up with a persuasive or even vaguely coherent position, but you don’t have one.

    I could come up with the most perfect evidence ever in the history of time that your god doesn’t exist and your beliefs therefore bogus, but you would simply refuse to believe it. If that isn’t some kind of personal corruption, I don’t know what is.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Ruvy –

    Violence begets violence – always has, always will. A preemptive nuclear strike by Israel would cost her every friend on the planet and would only end in the death of your homeland.

    Your remarks about Teheran evince significant naivete. Ahmenijad’s bombast and inflammatory rhetoric are only that. They would not dare to truly strike Israel – that’s why they only send low-level terrorists with relatively low-power weapons. If they really, truly wanted to put Israel to an end, it’d be REAL easy, and they ALREADY have the means. All they have to do is to send over a few ‘dirty bombs’ and cover Jerusalem, Haifa, Tel Aviv and wherever else with radioactive dust, and your country comes to an abrupt end…and they could do so in such a way that the blame could not be laid at their feet.

    BUT THEY WILL NOT DO SO. Why? Two reasons – one, Israel serves as a foil against the Sunni powerhouses to the west, and two, because it is NOT about Israel and the Judaism/Islam conflict! It IS all about PAKISTAN. As long as Pakistan remains Sunni, Iran will work towards getting nukes! This is particularly important since today’s news showed that the Taliban are now only 65 miles from Islamabad. Do you REALLY think Iran wants a war with nuclear-armed Israel when the ultra-Sunni Taliban might soon have nuclear arms?

    The Taliban despise all less-fundamentalist Sunnis…but they HATE the Shi’a…and if they can gain control of Pakistan’s nukes before Iran develops nukes, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that the Taliban would have at least the tacit support of all the other Muslim countries…which are ALL majority-Sunni (except for Iraq, which really doesn’t count for much in this equation).

    BUT WHAT IF ISRAEL DECIDED TO NUKE TEHERAN? It’s the old story all over again – two brothers hate each other and always fight…but the moment someone else attacks one of the brothers, both brothers will unite and fight the outsider, their feud forgotten until the outsider is defeated…and your nuclear strike would unite the Sunni and Shi’a as nothing else ever could.

    And could the united Islamic would defeat Israel militarily? Not initially…but Israel would have forfeited any and all protection of America and Europe, and it would only be a matter of time…and not much time at that.

    Your inflammatory statements are not at all helpful to your country, Ruvy. All that you are doing – like the Bush administration’s torture policy – is justifying the rhetoric of the Islamic world’s extremist faction (which is a SMALL minority) and giving them ever greater ability to recruit from the faithful….

  • Glenn,

    A preemptive nuclear strike by Israel would cost her every friend on the planet and would only end in the death of your homeland.

    What friends, Glenn? Micronesia? Western Samoa? The Europeans who walked out on Ahmadinejad in Genève were not doing so because they are “friends of Israel”; they walked out because Ahmadinejad was crapping all over their rug with his remarks and they were embarrassed. That walk-out was to let Ahmadinejad know that he was in Europe and not South Africa, where mobs danced at “hate Israel” rallies.

    The Iranian drive to get nuclear weapons has nothing to do with either Pakistan or Israel; it has to do with the feeling of the Persians that they are entitled to nukes because they are a great power. Any Persian regime would want nukes because any Persian regime would want to establish an empire.. That is not my problem – that is not the problem that Israel faces.

    The problem is that this particular regime is bent on destroying Israel. That rocket attack in 2006 was a practice session for the Iranians – the folks who fund, train and control HizbAllah. When you consider how immensely successful that rocket attack was – and I emphasize mere rockets, not missiles – when you consider that all of Israel is now under rocket or missile threat from Iranian proxies, like HizbAllah or Hamas – you are dealing with an existential threat.

    I realize that looking at things from the Phillipines, Pakistan and its nuclear cigars looms larger on the horizon. But for us, the threats come not from Pakistan, whose nukes are really aimed at India, but from North Korea; dripping wet with hunger for Arab money in return for their nuclear technology – and from Iran, which supplies our enemies daily, as well as poses a nuclear threat to us in the near future.

    The point to destroying Tehran (and such other targets as are necessary) is to take out the command and control system that keeps Iran together and which allows it to try to establish a Persian Empire, westwards which is the other side of their agenda.

    Iran, so long as it openly threatens our existence and actively pursues our extinction, is an existential threat to Israel – and must, to the degree that we are able to do so, be destroyed.

  • Chris, to my knowledge, this thread is not an argument over the existence of the Divinity. And I’m trying to convince you of nothing with respect to that. So, stop playing the atheist missionary here. You may have a position, but you have neither a Bible nor a cross – it’s tiresome and annoying….

  • Jordan Richardson

    And if anyone would know tiresome and annoying…

  • Ruvy, yet again you are mistaken in your “knowledge”. Are you trying to set a record?

    Firstly, this thread is about whatever the participants want it to be. This isn’t a forum where specific conversational threads are established. You know that of course, you’re just trying to control the conversation again. And failing, again. That must get really frustrating for you.

    You love playing the victim so much (stereotyping much?), I guess you must find some kind of bitter comfort in it, regardless of actual reality. Did that willingness to hold on to pointless, dead end feelings also lead you back to your faith?

    Yeah, Israel has no friends apart from a couple of Pacific islands, that really is a convincing argument. You are just reducing yourself to the status of a scratched CD, endlessly repeating the same one note. That can be fun, even interesting, for a while, but even the most tolerant of ears will eventually need to hear something new. Now if only I could just reach over there and give your brain a nudge.

    Re your repetition of your slanderous militant atheist “point”, I’ll just refer you back to my words in paragraphs 3,4, and 5 of comment #116 above. It’s just not true, and your constant use of it only makes you look a bit slow on the uptake. Is your comprehension skill, like your thinking, now so completely degraded that you can’t even process anything people say to you anymore? Pay attention man, you’re embarrassing yourself.

    Tiresome and annoying? Go to your bathroom and look in the mirror…

  • As I said earlier, you sound like a missionary for militant atheism. Read what you write sometimes. But that is not my problem. And as I said earlier, you may have a position – but you lack a Bible and a cross. It’s tiresome. It is not my job to convince you of any particular religious belief. If you honestly hunger after knowledge of the Torah or the Tana”kh, log in to a copy (a Jewish copy) and read. If you do not wish to do so, you need not. It is not my business. I bid you a good day.

  • Ruvy, if you really do think that I sound like a militant atheist, it just proves my point that you can’t tell what’s what. That is your problem in a nutshell; your entire thinking processes are corrupted by your beliefs. That is tiresome.

    If you are going to come on a public site and repeatedly make what many consider irrational, impractical, naive or just plain old stupid remarks that you can’t justify or even defend except by flying into bitter rants about events in the past (have you forgiven the Romans yet?) that nobody can ever change, you can’t blame people for questioning those views. If you don’t want a debate, your option is clear – shut up!

    I’m not very interested in your ancient books; they are fascinating historical documents but not really that relevant anymore, particularly given the lack of supporting evidence.

    Similarly, I’m not particularly looking for a religious belief and don’t see how you could think I was, but then following what other people have to say isn’t your strong suit.

  • bitter rants about events in the past (have you forgiven the Romans yet?) that nobody can ever change….


    This is actually worth attempting an answer to, but it is far more relevant to the article I posted yesterday. Therefore, you will find the answer there.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Ruvy –

    It’s clear that you know history, that you appreciate history, but you do not understand history.

    Iran doesn’t want to nuke Israel for the same reason that the Soviet Union didn’t want to start a war with America…because they themselves would be hurt very badly or destroyed in such a war, and they would be open to invasion by their neighbors. In the modern instance, Iran would be open to invasion by Pakistan (which would be supported by the rest of the Sunni world), just as the Soviet Union would have been invaded by China, which country the Soviet Union feared with good reason.

    “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”…even if that ‘friend’ is an enemy, too.

    But something tells me that you really don’t care what I tell you. You’ve made up your mind and you want war – nuclear war at that. I pity you, really.

    And btw – I’m not in the PI – it was only a two-week vacation there, but I will retire there someday, hopefully sooner than later.

  • Ruvy lives in a static world, Glenn. Nothing had changed for him since the enslavement in Egypt. Like the talk of the Persian Empire. I’m certain that there may be some who might still entertain the thought, but to characterize the entire nation as being driven by this one singular thought – an idea that’s at least two thousand years old – is sheer insanity.

    Do the modern-day Italians still wish to regain the past glory that Rome once was?

  • Ruvy,

    Let me say this one thing:

    I would say that your theology has become counter-productive and it should be discarded. It may have served once upon a time, when the Jews were oppressed and needed to establish their sense of personal and national identity. Which isn’t to say they’re not oppressed now.

    The (more or less subtle) point is – the theology only reinforces this world view and perpetuates the idea of victimhood. It had become an everlasting saga.

  • Glenn,

    If you take a look at events in South Asia, you’ll see that Pakistan is falling apart and has been for decades. I read at Desicritics, a daughter site to BC, and do see that. If Pakistan were a functional nation, what you assert above would be a very valid point. But unfortunately, Pakistan is barely a functional nation these days. That is why nobody talks about the “Moslem Bomb” anymore.

    As for me, I do not want war, I want peace. But experience has taught me that wanting peace is not enough. Our neighbors have to be beaten to the point where they come begging for peace before there will be any. Until the Arabs come on their hands and knees begging us for peace, there will only be war here. FULL STOP.

  • Roger,

    When you lived in Israel, there was a native culture that was separate and independent of the rest of the world. It was artificial to a degree, too artificial, but it served to discard the idea of victimhood that has plagued out people, and for that alone, it was valuable.

    This was Sabra culture.

    In the late 1970’s the Israelis shit-canned their open culture and adopted a pathetic imitiation of America’s. With that pathetic imitation came the sense of victimhood and whining and wheedling that “Yids and kikes” were known for before WWII in Europe, and which infests what remains of American Jewish culture.

    I don’t believe in any of that shit. I believe in the ideas (modified to meet the times) of Rav Meir Kahane, z”l, hy”d. One of the basic principles he preached was barzél yisraél. You should remember what barzél means if you went to school here. barzél yisraél means you kick the shit out the enemy until he cannot rise – or until he is dead. No victimhood, no whining, no wheedling. No justifying, no excuse making, no complaining about Jew-hatred. Just beating the shit out of the son of a bitch until he realizes he doesn’t even want to be anywhere near you – or until he is dead.

    That is my “theology”, Roger.

  • In the late 1970’s the Israelis shit-canned their open culture should have read, “In the late 1970’s the Israelis shit-canned their own culture” etc….

  • Well, Ruvy. It was refreshing when I was there. Everybody I knew there from my generation was untainted by the past. There was a spirit of confidence in the air, unlike in any other society I’ve encountered. You felt it in your bones. An expression “brave new world” comes to mind.
    I’m sorry to hear it’s no longer the same. It’s difficult to understand why.

  • Clavos

    Re #130:

    Here’s a good opinion piece on Pakistan.

  • Clavos,

    Read Mark Steyn’s piece. He sounds almost as optimistic as I do! But his piece seemed more about whining over Obama and how the good times are over for America than about Pakistan – even if it does make clear to the discerning reader that Pakistan is in trouble.

    Missed by Steyn (no surprise here) is the division between the Deobandi Moslems and the Sunni. Also missed by Steyn is the fact that regions in Pakistan (Sind, Balochistan, the Northwest Frontier Province) are all in rebellion against the central regime to one degree or another. So, to allege that Iran is worried about Pakistan and is developing a nuclear club to beat it up is silly. The Iranians may well be worried about the chaos on its eastern borders – but smoking nuclear cigars won’t help there….