Huckabee Calls for Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinian Territories
Mike Huckabee is a fairly charming guy, but the fact that these kind of sentiments can be uttered by a member of the American political mainstream tells you a lot about why Arabs mistrust America’s approach to the Israeli-Arab conflict. He’s moved on from his general support for settlements to a call to, I guess, deport the entire population of Palestine to someplace else:
Speaking to a small group of foreign reporters in Jerusalem, Huckabee, seen as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012, said the international community should consider establishing a Palestinian state some place else.
“The question is should the Palestinians have a place to call their own? Yes, I have no problem with that. Should it be in the middle of the Jewish homeland? That’s what I think has to be honestly assessed as virtually unrealistic.”
In some ways, however, Huckabee is to be congratulated on his frankness. The implication of the policies of the Netanyahu administration, and of U.S.-based Jewish organizations that are pressing Barack Obama to back off America’s opposition to settlements, points exactly in the direction Huckabee is now espousing. Bibi and AIPAC aren’t about to start embracing a binational state, so they’re either talking about creating an apartheid system or else trying to make life sufficiently intolerable for the Palestinians that they all leave. American critics of criticizing Israeli policy don’t like to articulate such ideas because they’re appalling, but this is the road we’re heading down.
113 Responses to “Huckabee Calls for Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinian Territories”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 18th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I guess we could establish a Palestinian homeland in Alaska, as sort of a Michael Chabon Bizarro World.
Or maybe, you know, we could let them establish a self-governing state in their land like every other nation on earth, without foreign military checkpoints and a patchwork of ethnically-cleansed colonial settlements controlling the roads and the water supply. I know that’s a seditious, anti-American, anti-semitic socialist idea that’s far outside the mainstream of our political thought, but there you go.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
This man is such a fool. I still cannot believe that smart Jews have fallen for the Christian Right’s supposed defense of Israel (a defense in the aim of eventually having Israel all to themselves, sans Jews, so that Jesus can return to the earth for them — that’s the plan, after all, according to Tim LaHaye & co.).
Is Huckabee one of those C Street guys that love a dictator?
August 18th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
We totally have to set them up in Sitka, Alaska.
Now I have to wonder if he’s including the Arab citizens of Israel when he talks about getting his cleansing on.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Also, Mike Huckabee is fat (again).
August 18th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
You suck LaFollette.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Is that a recent picture? If so, it looks like he’s gained back a lot of weight recently.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
This is why a One State Solution is the only solution. There is going to be no way to draw a map that satisfies all parties. The Israelis and Palestinians will continue to fight over property rights. Without a unified Government to resolve such disputes you’re not going to be able to succeed.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Ray,
That kind of system has worked wonderfully in Iraq and Lebanon, hasn’t it?
August 18th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Water is wet.
The state of Israel has no intention of yielding the west bank.
The sky is sometimes blue.
AIPAC, likudniks and zionists in general are perpetual liars.
2+2=4
Rightwing American Jews make this situation possible.
The sun sets in the west.
American media is complicit in this abomination.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Hey, what about Arkansas? I hear there’s nothing but a handful of backwards whacko hillbillies living there. Plenty of room for a couple of million immigrants.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
And Ahmadinejad thinks the Jewish State should be in Europe.
Religious fanatics are all the same–Moslem, Christian, Jewish doesn’t matter. All freaking nuts.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Huckabee Calls for Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinian Territories
Matt: Huckabee did no such thing — at least in the excerpts you provide. For all we know Huckabee wants Palestinians to go to this new homeland voluntarily, perhaps incentived with money, or development aid, or what have you.
I don’t agree with his position, mind you, but accusing somebody of espousing a massive violation of human rights one step removed from genocide (such actions almost always entail a large death toll) is pretty srtong language.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Sorry, Dave. Honestly, I’m surprised no one got there even quicker than I did.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
I don’t like defending an utter douchebag like Huckabee, but only a minimally charitable would interpret him as meaning that a Palestianian state swiss-cheesed throughout the West Bank and Jerusalem will not work. This is both callous and wrong, and amounts, as you write, to an apartheid-like arrangement–but it’s not a call for mass deportation.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
bobbo Says:Also, Mike Huckabee is fat (again).
Didn’t The Huckster rise to fame partly on his weight loss biobook? Wasn’t his slimness ordained by God and following the “pray the pounds away” plan?
I guess working for FauxNews makes either your head or butt get big – sometimes both!
August 18th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Huckabee is not a fool. Huckabee is a Zionist swine.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Whoa, he gained weight again?
August 18th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
For all we know Huckabee wants Palestinians to go to this new homeland voluntarily, perhaps incentived with money, or development aid, or what have you.
We don’t know that Hucakbee would or would not advocate this, but how does this hypothetical idea not amount to ethnic cleansing?
August 18th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Where was this turd in 1948?
August 18th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Obama team will probably start signalling that he is OK with settlements (or that maybe not, at the end yes) just like he chickened out with:
a) Torture
b) Guantanamo
c) Prosecution of Torturers
d) DADT
e) Heath care
f) Warrant less surveillance
I don’t usually get disappointed by politicians, I don’t expect much from them. But this is really getting pathetic. Obama and the democrats in general really don’t have any backbone.
All it took to kill health care reform was Palin talking about “death panels”, the closure of Guantanamo was put on hold because somebody in Kansas said that they don’t want terrorist “running around” in their state.
I used to think that parliamentarian type of government, would be useful in the US to get things done. But I am changing my mind, Americans like the rest of the peoples of the world have the government that they deserve. GOPers dealing on fear, warmongering and bigotry. And democrats afraid to called them out because it might offend the voters. I am not wasting my time voting anymore.
I guess deep inside, I am really disappointed of the American People.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Huckabee is a not terribly bright guy who only looks good in comparison with his competition in the Republican Party (e.g. Palin). But, while I don’t agree with his statement, Yglesias’s headline is an exercise in tendentious misrepresentation, as usual in his posts on this subject. And of course for him any excuse, no matter how unrelated, is a good reason to drag the Netanyahu government and AIPAC into the picture and to ascribe to them policies which they haven’t actually espoused.
If peace is actually ever achieved in the Middle East — something that I’m not terribly optimistic about any more — useful idiots like Yglesias will imagine it was because of their bravery in telling truthiness to power.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
If peace is actually ever achieved in the Middle East — something that I’m not terribly optimistic about any more — useful idiots like Yglesias will imagine it was because of their bravery in telling truthiness to power.
Well, Larry, if there ever was peace in the Middle East it would be a huge bummer because people like Matt would take credit for it.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
The question is should the Jews have a place to call their own? Yes, I have no problem with that. Should it be in the middle of the Palestinian homeland? That’s what I think has to be honestly assessed as virtually unrealistic.
OK, Larry? No calls for cleansing there, right?
August 18th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Didn’t The Huckster rise to fame partly on his weight loss biobook? Wasn’t his slimness ordained by God and following the “pray the pounds away” plan?
I guess working for FauxNews makes either your head or butt get big – sometimes both!
This is what I remember. The power of prayer made him skinny. Obama should propose faith-based co-ops to help with America’s obesity problem.
Either God stopped listening to Huckabee or he stopped praying because he’s a fatty again.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
This bit from Huckabee was interesting:
A 1300 year old mosque is “an affront”.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Yglesias’ headline provocative? Yes.
Off the mark? Not so much.
An endorsement of Israel’s right to establish settlements whereever it wants, without limitation, in a place occupied by other people is, in itself, an endorsement of the right to engage in ethnic cleansing.
Now, confronted with this, Huckabee might qualify his position, or he might not. In the meantime I applaud the headline.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I think it is pretty clear that the Netanyahu government and right-wing Israelis such as Sharon do not have any desire for either an apartheid state, or ethnic cleansing. They want the map redrawn so that large west bank settlements such as Modi’in Illit Ma’ale Adumim are annexed into Israel, and possibly as a return (more of a Lieberman idea) large arab areas of Israel redrawn into Palestine. The remaining areas of the west bank and all of Gaza would be part of a demilitarized Palestinian state. Whether or not this is morally of politically acceptable is debatable, but calling it ethnic cleansing or apartheid is simply wrong and slander.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Oh fergawdsake, Birnbaum. Huckabee tours the West Bank, calls it the Jewish homeland, and then says the Palestinian state should be somewhere else. What, you think he wants Israel to absorb the Palestinians and give them rights while some uninhabited piece of desert in southern Libya or some place is turned into the new nation of Palestine? If the Palestinians get to stay where they are, then what’s the point of setting up a Palestinian state somewhere else with no Palestinians in it? Huck wants the Palestinians gone.
Same as Dick Armey (”I happen to believe the Palestinians should leave”) and all the rest of the hard core Christian Zionist Republicans who CONTINUALLY call for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Same as all of the hard-line right wing Jewish Zionists who CONTINUALLY say “Jordan is Palestine” or “Palestinians all came from Egypt and have no roots here” or other statements that are crystal-clear in their intent to kick the Palestinians out. And Netanyahu has lots of people like this in his government. Getting him to mouth the words “I support a two-state solution” was like pulling teeth, never mind getting him to actually act on those words.
If you want to take Palestinian land, and you don’t want Palestinians around any more, then the ONLY path left is to kick Palestinians out. Matt isn’t misrepresenting anything.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Hopes for Obama are dwindling:
1. The bankers left unregulated.
2. An ineffectual clean air agenda.
3. Health care reform without a public option.
4. Abandonment of pressure on Israel on settlement construction.
Sigh.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
SteveL:
Which is why China is also committing ethnic cleansing in Tibet, and the Soviets were also committing ethnic cleansing by encouraging Russians to move to non-Russian areas of the USSR right? Ethnic cleansing is the act of forcibly driving the population of an area out, not bringing in, your own population (and Israel is far less encouraging toward settlers than China or the Soviets were toward Han/Russian settlers in minority areas). The arab population of gaza/the West Bank/East Jerusalem has grown enourmously since 1967, its pretty hard to argue they’ve been ethnically cleansed.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
If he is pushing this, then it just makes him realistic. There’s simply no way two countries can exist there – as abb1 and SLC’s jousting on this site has amply and exhaustively illustrated – but until Matt and the rest of the majority of the American Jewish community, i.e. liberal zionists, recognize this, we’re never getting anywhere. Somebody’s got to move, and as Martin van Creveld points out, it’s the Israelis who have the capability to blow up every capital city in Europe and the Middle East. At this point, the best we could hope for is convincing the Israelis to pay for the Palestinians’ emigration and resettlement.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Ron Mexico,
I think you aren’t reading Yglesias’s post – he’s saying that Huckabee is advocating ethnic cleansing by saying the Palestinians should leave. That’s different from saying that Israel is committing ethnic cleansing.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I have no problem with fat white Americans having a place to call their own. I just don’t think it should be in the middle of the Quapaw homeland.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
#23 beat me to it: if you said exactly that in 1947, it would have been basically impossible to argue with (and even more so with foresight of what a tremendous mess the Jewish state would turn out to be).
Now, of course, we can’t unscramble the egg, so proposals based on physically separating the two ethnocultural groups are pretty much out of the question. If you’re not going to kill either group, and you’re not going to displace them from their mutual homeland, and you’re not going to force either group into apartheid-like subjugation or other forms of second-class citizenship, then… what is left except equal rights and equal protection of the laws in a state that accepts both groups as full citizens? (And, therefore, can’t be governed by either Jewish or Muslim religious law.)
August 18th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
SS:
No I read his post. And I agree with the part that says Huckabee’s comments could be interpreted that way (and clearly forcing Palestinians to leave their homes in Jericho or Ramallah is morally abhorrent idea). But what I disagree with is his idea that the mainstream Israeli right (AIPAC, Netanyahu) feel this way but are afraid to say it.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Ron,
I think this is where you’re wrong – the land grabs that government of Israel indulges in, the various checkpoints, the incredibly mazy wall – they’re all part of the steps that the government of Israel uses to make Palestinian life as miserable as possible.
And do you really believe that Netanyahu and AIPAC would be against forced relocation if they could get away with it? If I were inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt (and I’m not), I’d say they were indifferent to any relocation that happened.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Ron Mexico says, “it’s pretty hard to argue [Palestinians have] been ethnically cleansed.” Which is true insofar as the process is as of yet incomplete.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
peep, I have to confess that you have captured a certain sourness and annoyance in my remark. Yglesias’s self-satisfied pseudo-liberalism on this issue, abasing himself for a little anti-imperialist street cred, is a bit hard to take. Obviously if peace were, G-d willing, achieved, I wouldn’t be worrying about what people like him thought about themselves.
joe, your switch gave me pause as well. I think there are some differences. For one, I think there’s a reasonable likelihood that the ethnic cleansing that would occur if Israel were actually to be eliminated would remind everyone of what this term can actually encompass. For another, if there were 20 other Jewish countries surrounding Israel I suspect the tenor would feel a bit different as well, even to you. All those caveats aside, though, point taken.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I liked Ron Mexico better when he was involved in dog fighting…
Which brings the point… cheer dogs to kill each other dogs… criminal!! Cheer human to kill other humas… Patriot!!!
August 18th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Fat bitter racist looking for money to fund 2012 GOP pres run.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Well if you’re revoking Arab-Israeli’s citizenship and redrawing map lines so they no longer live in Israel, I’d have to call that ethnic cleansing.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
“A 1300 year old mosque is “an affront”.”
This mosque (like many other mosques such as a certain one in Constantinople) is built on top of other religions holy sites. Now obviously Israel shouldn’t destroy the mosque or do anything other than try and respect the customs of its worshipers, but to pretend that because of its age, it is not seen by those who had a religious spot built there prior, as an affront is wrong. Look at how hindus felt about Ram Janmabhoomi.
Its odd to see so many posters on this site declare their support for the “one-state solution” which to me is a brain-dead idea if their ever was one. If yugoslavia is any guide traditionally hostile populations don’t enjoy being part of the same state, or look at Israel’s northern neighbor. The solution for the conflict is well-known, and essentially agreed upon, two states for two people, both given full state rights (no demilitarization, but some form of outside security guarantee given to both sides), Israel gets to keep large border settlements but gives an equal amount of territory bordering gaza in exchange (which helps alleviate overcrowding there) the palestinians forgoe the right of return, but get to keep East Jerusalem other than the jewish quarter of the old city, and the western wall. The problem has been with extremists on both sides,
August 18th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Matt, as others have noted, your headline is absolutely ridiculous. If you want anyone to give any credence to what you write, stop with the ridiculousness. I read your headline, and I was like “really, Huckabee said that?” And then I read what Huckabee said.
Ethnic cleansing, for one, would require advocating for killing some people, no?
Honestly, whatever side you’re on, you just discredit your own opinions when you write a headline like that (and make Huckabee look 10,000 times better because when you read what Huckabee said, a person says “well, that’s certainly a lot more reasonable than the genocide Matt accussed him of!”)
August 18th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I have ancestors from Switzerland, the Alsace, Scotland, England, Ireland, and Germany. I may even has some Ashkenazim ancestors.
Where should I have a homeland?
August 18th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
to pretend that because of its age, it is not seen by those who had a religious spot built there prior, as an affront is wrong.
Cuts both ways: the destruction of Muslim and Christian sites under the pretext of digging down to bits of Jewish history — where the evidence is often paper-thing — is an ongoing fuck-you.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Ethnic cleansing, for one, would require advocating for killing some people, no?
No, ethnic cleansing means (Britannica):
That’s the goal, the means can go from Hitler to Huckabee.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Please don’t tar all Christians with the same brush because of nutjobs like him, even though there are a depressingly large number who think like him. Sigh.
He says we should admire Israel for not destroying the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa? Perhaps Huck wants Israel and America to invade Italy because Rome destroyed the Second Temple?
I suggest that the Huckster go to a local Church while he’s there and preach his message to the Arabs there.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
re: 43
well, that’s certainly a lot more reasonable than the genocide Matt accussed him of!
Exactly where does Matt do this?
August 18th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Perhaps Huck wants Israel and America to invade Italy because Rome destroyed the Second Temple?
You just pointed to a fundamental contradiction within the GOP today. Guys like Dobson and Hagee still don’t like Catholics. If you watch the 700 Club or Sunday morning tv, you’ll see that Robertson and his ilk have a very uneasy relationship with the Catholics – and probably would be incredibly confused by the Orthodox and Armenian congregations that make up the majority of Middle Eastern Christians.
Frankly, I think people like them would love to attack Rome and finally destroy the “Whore of Babylon,” who you might recall is the Pope, and still officially the number one enemy of Protestantism, since he’s much worse than a heathen, he’s the chief heretic.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
The OED defines “ethnic cleansing” as “[t]he purging, by mass expulsion or killing, of one ethnic or religious group by another, esp. from an area of former cohabitation.” Since mass expulsion suffices for “ethnic cleansing,” Matt’s headline appears sound.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I’m surprised to see everyone defining ethnic cleansing down. So if a madman only plans to kill 99.9% of an ethnic group, I guess it’s not fair to call that genocide either.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups. Ethnic cleansing sometimes involves the removal of all physical vestiges of the targeted group through the destruction of monuments, cemeteries, and houses of worship.
Also to further clarify for Matt’s younger readers, if ethnic cleansing is done by America’s allies, it’s a bad thing to be frowned upon. If it’s done by America’s enemies like Saddam and the Kurds, or rivals like China or Russia, it’s A-Fucking-Okay.
But in any event we shouldn’t be spending tax money on foreigners.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Now that Sarah’s gone, decks clear for my main man
August 18th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Shorter trolls: Matthew’s headline is libelous! [Reading dictionary shoved in face] Uh…dictionaries are antisemitic and blame American first grumble grumble OH, look at the time must be going!
August 18th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
and probably would be incredibly confused by the Orthodox and Armenian congregations that make up the majority of Middle Eastern Christians.
“Syriac Orthodox? Their services are in some kind of Muslim, not the King James English that Jesus himself spoke.”
August 18th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
“Also to further clarify for Matt’s younger readers, if ethnic cleansing is done by America’s allies, it’s a bad thing to be frowned upon. If it’s done by America’s enemies like Saddam and the Kurds, or rivals like China or Russia, it’s A-Fucking-Okay.”
Further information for younger readers: be sure to use proper form when swinging wildly at straw men. You won’t be young forever, and you can really hurt yourself if you’re not careful.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
@31, “liberal zionists” is just as much an oxymoron as “liberal nazists”. Zionism is an ethnocentric racist ideology, and it can’t be liberal under any circumstances.
When you classify people by who their ancestors were, and especially when you base your politics on it – you’re racist scum, and that is what every Zionist in the world is.
Yes, it’s that simple, my friend.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Ideally you would have established the JEWISH homeland somewhere else. Another problem is that what kind of state can you have when it’s cut in two? That’s like the shit that is going down in Armenia and Azerbaijan.
How about we move the JEWISH PEOPLE Huck? After all they were here LAST.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Re abb1
My solution is to relocate all the Fakestinians in Switzerland.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Further information for younger readers: be sure to use proper form when swinging wildly at straw men. You won’t be young forever, and you can really hurt yourself if you’re not careful.
It’s not a straw man. I remember very distinctly how the Serbs cleansed Bosnian Muslims, with Russia providing cover at the UN, and many would rhetorically back the Serbs against, b/c the wrong people were criticizing them.
Same thing with Saddam. Iraq was a “war of choice.” Saddam “wasn’t that bad.” Etc. Etc. Ad Nausium. It’s not straw man but people are uncomfortable about it so they claiim it’s a straw man in typical bullshit fashion.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
“If yugoslavia is any guide traditionally hostile populations don’t enjoy being part of the same state”
?? Yugoslavia did great as a single state; people got along fine. It was when they separated into separate nations based on ethnic divisions that the problems started.
Now, you can argue that this only works if you have a strongman like Tito or Saddam to keep things together, which would hardly be ideal for Israel/Palestine. But I don’t see where Yugoslavia proves that a multi-ethnic state is likely to fail.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Funny thing, Poptarts, when Saddam was engaging in atrocities he was America’s ally. It was only once he stopped engaging in atrocities, and stopped being America’s ally, that there was any kind of push to remove him from power.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Just move them (Palestinians) out already. There is plenty of Arab land to give them. Then we can all be done with this nonsense.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
“Matt, as others have noted, your headline is absolutely ridiculous. If you want anyone to give any credence to what you write, stop with the ridiculousness. I read your headline, and I was like “really, Huckabee said that?” And then I read what Huckabee said.
Ethnic cleansing, for one, would require advocating for killing some people, no? ”
No it really isn’t. Ethnic cleansing is any attempt to create ethnic homogeneity in an area by force. That can include killing people but its definition does not rely on it. It also includes the expulsion of an ethnic group from an area.
So here’s a basic test of whether someone is advocating ethnic cleansing: does that person believe in ethnic homogeneity? Is that person willing to advocate a policy that would create ethnic homogeneity in a certain area through some method of removing an ethnic group?
The answer to those questions in the case of Mike Huckabee appears to be yes. He says that the Palestinians should have their own homeland, but that it should not be within the confines of the Jewish homeland. So yes, he does believe in ethnic homogeneity. He clearly has defines the “Jewish Homeland” as an area which includes the occupied territories in which Palestinians live and has stated that the “Jewish Homeland” ought to be occupied by exclusively Jews. Given that, there is no possible logical conclusion other than to state that he is advocating some method of removing one ethnic group, the Palestinians, to create an ethnically homogenous land.
No one is accusing Huckabee of advocating genocide, which is the attempted destruction of a population. If you don’t know the difference between “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide,” that’s a product of your own ignorance, not Matt being hyperbolic.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Pseudonymous in NC,
Actually, the liturgical language of the Syriac (Jacobite) Church is Syriac, which is a direct descendent of the Aramaic which was spoken by Christ and His Apostles.
I am as much a partisan of the King James Version as the next man, but I am under no illusion that it is a particularly accurate or faithfully trasnlated version. The superiority of the KJV rests solely on its poetic and literary excellence, and on the fact that it was written by men who had a much better command of the ENglish language then is common among folks like Mr. Yglesias. I read the RSV for understanding and the KJV (or sometimes the contempaoraneous DOuay translation, or even the Vulgate) for beauty.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
SLC,
WHile I appreciate your presence on this blog and have in fact borrowed many of your stylistic devices, as I think you are an excellent stylist, I must deplore your attitude towards the so-called “Fakestinians”. The Palestinans have as much a claim to the land of historic Palestine as do the Jews, and therefore a two state solution, in which both parties make significant sacrifices, is morally necessary.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Me, I’d like the Jewish homeland to be over here in the US. Say, Florida. Or New York. Or Sitka! C’mon a my house. There’s nothing but bad faith and torment in having it in Israel. It isn’t “Biblical” of course, but, hey, it’s been 2000 years.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Poptarts: But in any event we shouldn’t be spending tax money on foreigners.
You’re joking, right? Was the Marshall Plan also a mistake? Efforts to build infrastructure in Iraq not worth our money?
And the money the U.S. spends to fight AIDS in Africa–we should just let ‘em all die, right?
August 18th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
It’s not a straw man. I remember very distinctly how the Serbs cleansed Bosnian Muslims, with Russia providing cover at the UN, and many would rhetorically back the Serbs against, b/c the wrong people were criticizing them.
Same thing with Saddam. Iraq was a “war of choice.” Saddam “wasn’t that bad.” Etc. Etc. Ad Nausium. It’s not straw man but people are uncomfortable about it so they claiim it’s a straw man in typical bullshit fashion.
Its a ridiculous comparison because no one on the left was ever arguing that Saddam was not a horrible monster, just that we shouldn’t invade. The comparison will be a strawman until you hear major portions of the left advocating in favor of invading Israel.
I do not believe the US should invade Israel, I just think that we should stop supporting their actions that deny rights to the Palestinians. If we were giving Saddam billions of dollars while he was conducting campaigns of ethnic cleansing, I would’ve said that we shouldn’t do that either…oh wait, we did do that, and guess what? It was wrong then.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Funny thing, Poptarts, when Saddam was engaging in atrocities he was America’s ally. It was only once he stopped engaging in atrocities, and stopped being America’s ally, that there was any kind of push to remove him from power.
Still doesn’t change the fact he engaged in atrocities like ethnic cleansing and poison gas attacks. Doesn’t matter who he was aligned with or fighting against. That’s a red herring.
Stalin was allied with the US against the Nazis, so Americans can’t criticize Stalin or his crimes? Fuck that.
Jason:
You’re joking, right? Was the Marshall Plan also a mistake? Efforts to build infrastructure in Iraq not worth our money?
Yes I was joking at the expense of Democrats like John Kerry who said we need the money we were spending Iraq to build firefighter stations here in ‘Merica.
August 18th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Stalin was allied with the US against the Nazis, so Americans can’t criticize Stalin or his crimes? Fuck that.
So you’re saying we should have invaded and occupied the Soviet Union?
Also, you keep citing these nameless lefties who supposedly thought that Saddam “wasn’t that bad” without naming any names. Put up or shut up.
August 18th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
?? Yugoslavia did great as a single state; people got along fine. It was when they separated into separate nations based on ethnic divisions that the problems started.
Now, you can argue that this only works if you have a strongman like Tito or Saddam to keep things together, which would hardly be ideal for Israel/Palestine. But I don’t see where Yugoslavia proves that a multi-ethnic state is likely to fail.
Even in Spain you have the Basques, the Kurds in Turkey, and of course there is the example of Northern Ireland. French Canadians. Rwanda didn’t turn out well. It depends.
Saddam was an ethnic cleanser par excellence, but since American conservatives said bad things about him and beat the war drum, in certain people’s eyes, he “wasn’t that bad.”
August 18th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Also, you keep citing these nameless lefties who supposedly thought that Saddam “wasn’t that bad” without naming any names. Put up or shut up.
People who say this kind of thing are fucking morons and shouldn’t be let near a keyboard.
August 18th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
So, no, you can’t actually cite anyone who said the Saddam wasn’t that bad, so you swear instead.
August 18th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
To Poptarts, you either go to war against people in other countries, or ignore them. Because you care about them, it has to be the former.
Someday, some lucky lady is going to date this boy. *shudder*
August 18th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
(Hector@66)
The Palestinans have as much a claim to the land of historic Palestine as do the Jews, and therefore a two state solution, in which both parties make significant sacrifices, is morally necessary.
I’m not sure how you make the claims exactly equal; the Jewish people have the oldest claim (from Bible-era history, both on their own behalf and by virtue of being the genetic successors of the prior residents they displaced, the Canaanites) and the state of Israel has the newest from having received the title from the Brits. I can’t imagine a theory of property rights that could consider a middle claim equal or superior to both the newest and oldest, let alone the combination of the two.
But beyond that, I’m not sure that any particular historical land claim can generate moral necessity, especially when balanced against the interest of peace. The Greeks, for example, have an unassailable claim to historic Byzantium. Would it really be morally necessary, or even morally acceptable, to repatriate them and force the Turks to turn their capital into a co-dominium?
August 18th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Matt’s headline is wrong. Nowhere does Huckabee call for ethnic cleansing. He calls for Jewish hegemony over Israel and the West Bank. That concept is also known as majority rule. If Israel were to absorb the West Bank, Jews would still be a majority in the new country and thus would have soveriegnty, according the widely accepted rules of democracy. No Palestinian would have to leave to go anywhere else. And Huckabee doesn’t call for anybody to be moved, voluntarily or involuntarily. To say that Huckabee is promoting ethnic cleansing is disingenous and deceitful, based on the actual quotes. Thanks for your role in degrading the level of political dialogue in this country, Matt.
August 18th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
While Mike Huckabee is an complete idiot.
Matt Yglesias is no less of one.
August 18th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Saddam was an ethnic cleanser par excellence, but since American conservatives said bad things about him and beat the war drum, in certain people’s eyes, he “wasn’t that bad.”
Wow. You’re trying way too hard here.
Lemme break it down for you as simply as possible…”we shouldn’t invade that country” does not equal “not a bad guy.”
If you name a single prominent person on the left who’s advocating that we invade Israel because of their treatment of the Palestinians, then maybe you’ll be on to something. Otherwise, give it a rest.
You know damn well that the point being made by people on the left is, to varying degrees, that the US shouldn’t offer support to Israel. If anyone on the left was saying that the US should offer financial and political support to Saddam Hussein when he was attacking various ethnic groups in Iraq, then you would have a point. But that never happened. In fact, I’m pretty sure that during the 80s when the US was in fact supporting Saddam’s attacks against his people that the only ones saying calling it into question were folks on the left. Just because they didn’t, ya know, think that the appropriate response was to invade the country doesn’t mean there’s any ideological inconsistency.
August 18th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Matt40:
Lemme break it down for you as simply as possible…”we shouldn’t invade that country” does not equal “not a bad guy.”
Wow you’re a cocky know-it-all prick. If he was a bad guy, maybe it wasn’t the worst disaster in human history. Maybe?
It wasn’t like the US subverted a democracy and installed a dictator. Over lies!
My original post was simply instructing the younger, uniformed readers of Matt’s blog about how to view ethnic cleansing: if enemies like Saddam do it, it’s not a big deal because a) who cares about the Kurds b) war is bad. If Israel does it, it’s bad. Because Republicans like Huckabee like Israel and necons are all-powerful superhumans and pure evil. I’m just trying to explain to the youth who might be understandably looking for single standards, that there aren’t any.
August 18th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Matt’s headline is wrong. Nowhere does Huckabee call for ethnic cleansing. He calls for Jewish hegemony over Israel and the West Bank. That concept is also known as majority rule. If Israel were to absorb the West Bank, Jews would still be a majority in the new country and thus would have soveriegnty, according the widely accepted rules of democracy. No Palestinian would have to leave to go anywhere else. And Huckabee doesn’t call for anybody to be moved, voluntarily or involuntarily. To say that Huckabee is promoting ethnic cleansing is disingenous and deceitful, based on the actual quotes. Thanks for your role in degrading the level of political dialogue in this country, Matt.
What the hell are you talking about? How does that interpretation possibly come out of this quote:
“The question is should the Palestinians have a place to call their own? Yes, I have no problem with that. Should it be in the middle of the Jewish homeland? That’s what I think has to be honestly assessed as virtually unrealistic.”
When he referrs to that land as the “Jewish Homeland,” he’s suggesting that rights in those lands belong to the jews. If that land rightfully belongs to the Jews, then there’s only two possible solutions: 1. either everyone has to be Jewish, implying ethnic cleansing would be necessary or 2. everyone is allowed to stay, but only Jews have rights, which is apartheid.
Saying that Jews would have sovereignty really misunderstands what democracy means. If a multi-ethnic country is a real democracy then no ethnicity has “sovereignty.” Perhaps they would have the dominant political voice – although even that wouldn’t be the case for long if population growth trends hold up – but sovereignty implies a higher authority, which can only derive from the denial of rights. If rights are denied to a minority group, then you’ve got apartheid, not a democracy.
You’re basically saying that Huckabee was advocating a bi-national solution. I’m not even gonna say that you are degrading the level of political dialogue in this country. You just don’t understand what the hell you’re talking about. If Huckabee said that, then he would have by far the most radical left position on Israel of any mainstream politician.
August 18th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Jeff R.,
It would certainly be nice to see Constantinople back in Christian hands once again, and to see the land of ‘Turkey’ divided between Greece and Armenia. However, I’m satisfied to leave that task up to Christ when He returns. No mere man can do it, and no man should. Avenging the horrible crimes committed by Turks against Greeks and Armenians is not, as you point out, worth the massive bloodshed it would entail. So again, I’ll leave that for Christ to accomplisjh.
August 18th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Would it really be morally necessary, or even morally acceptable, to repatriate them and force the Turks to turn their capital into a co-dominium?
You don’t know much about Ataturk and the Greeks, do you, mate?
To tell the short story, until very recently Greeks were a slight majority in Konstantinopolis and a major presence in Western Asia Minor.
And so they tried, from 1919-22, to do what you mentioned. You see, the only reason they *don’t* own Istanbul is that, funny story, there was this little named Kemal and it didn’t work out.
International politics tends to recognize claims that countries can back up with overwhelming force. The Greeks were utterly defeated. The Palestinians, at this point, not so much.
August 18th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
*should read “little fellow”
August 18th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Oh, and a major aspect of the Greek defeat was that the Greek population of Turkey was forced out. Hence the parallel between Asia Minor+Thrace and the Levant doesn’t really work.
August 18th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Wow you’re a cocky know-it-all prick. If he was a bad guy, maybe it wasn’t the worst disaster in human history. Maybe?
Worst disaster of all time? Maybe not. It was just a disaster that resulted in over a million deaths and over three million displaced peoples. There have probably been worse disasters, sure, but that doesn’t excuse this particular one.
And if the case you make for Iraq was that it wasn’t the worst disaster in human history, then do you think we should invade Israel. You don’t seem to be disputing the issue of whether or not Israel is involved in ethnic cleansing, just saying that Lefties are being inconsistent. So then you should be consistent and advocate the invasion of Israel.
It wasn’t like the US subverted a democracy and installed a dictator. Over lies!
You’re right. Thats just what they’ve done in places like Chile, Congo, and Iran.
My original post was simply instructing the younger, uniformed readers of Matt’s blog about how to view ethnic cleansing: if enemies like Saddam do it, it’s not a big deal because a) who cares about the Kurds b) war is bad. If Israel does it, it’s bad. Because Republicans like Huckabee like Israel and necons are all-powerful superhumans and pure evil. I’m just trying to explain to the youth who might be understandably looking for single standards, that there aren’t any.
Just informing people? Ok. You can’t come in here, keep hammering away at straw men arguments, refuse to answer direct questions about your claims like, “naming lefties who think Saddam wasn’t a bad guy,” play coy about just trying to inform the youth, and then accuse someone else of being a cocky know-it-all prick.
There is a single standard here, its this: ethnic cleansing is bad, the US government should never support it. They were wrong to support it when Saddam was doing it and they are wrong to support Israel in doing it. If someone on the left actually supported Saddam’s ethnic cleansing then shame on them. If someone on the right supports Israel doing that then shame on them as well.
August 18th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Hector,
Your reply at 65 is correct, though I think you missed the fairly heavy irony. My aim was to acknowledge Greg at 49 on how the dominant strain of American Protestantism, to which Huckabee subscribes, has very little awareness or commonality with the Christian denominations native and still present in the Levant.
August 18th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
If someone on the left actually supported Saddam’s ethnic cleansing then shame on them. If someone on the right supports Israel doing that then shame on them as well.
Considering Saddam obliterated the Iraqi Commies and Trade Unionists, I’d be a little surprised to hear that lefties *supported* the ethnic cleansing.
What many did do – sort of like how the legitimate problems with the bailouts resulted in tea parties that brought out 39 flavors of crazy – is conflate opposing the war with sixty different left wing causes.
I recall someone on this blog saying that the protests were never No War in Iraq protests.
They were the No War in Iraq End Racism Death to Israel Full Marriage Rights for Homosexuals Stop Animal Slaughtering and Go Vegan End Patriarchy Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Support the Sparticists Yankees Suck protests.
Kind of like how Democrat senators allow themselves to be peeled off the majority for parochial minutiae during debates on massive single issues like health care reform, these left wing groups decided to conflate opposition the war, something with which many many people at Establishment places like the CFR or old Cold Warriors like Scowcroft agreed, with radical causes.
Moreover, they let themselves hate the pro-war crowd so thoroughly that they began to sympathize – or even appear to sympathize – with one of the last great, appalling monsters of the 20th Century.
Plus, they insultingly misunderstood how angry Americans still were over the attacks, and so how willing they would be to commit to a massive war against someone who didn’t like us, looked and sounded like the guys who attacked us, and would be easy to beat.
August 18th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Moreover, they let themselves hate the pro-war crowd so thoroughly that they began to sympathize – or even appear to sympathize – with one of the last great, appalling monsters of the 20th Century.
I call BS here. You’re right that many on the left did use the war as a way to voice opinions about other lefty causes, but I’m not really sure whats so wrong about that. It may be flaky and ineffectual, but there’s nothing morally wrong with that. But I was involved with a lot of those protests and didn’t meet a single person there who was remotely sympathetic towards Saddam.
That was the opposition’s misinterpretation. In my experience, people went to great lengths to stress that Saddam was a brutal monster, but that war was not going to solve the problems of the Iraqi people. You can only go so far in holding people accountable for what another side misinterprets. I don’t hold Obama accountable for the fact that nutjobs are claiming he’s trying to create death panels.
Plus, they insultingly misunderstood how angry Americans still were over the attacks, and so how willing they would be to commit to a massive war against someone who didn’t like us, looked and sounded like the guys who attacked us, and would be easy to beat.
What does that even mean? Should the left have just sat back and said, “oh well, guess this one’s a lost cause”? I think people understood quite well that the country was still seething and ready to find an enemy, any enemy. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a worthy cause.
August 18th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
The panderer here is much less disgraceful than the people who work so hard to create an environment for him to pander in. This is Zionism.
August 18th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
From Hector,
Wow. This is one of the most batshit crazy, insulting things I have ever read on this website. The blatant Christian Supremacist tone of your posts is, quite frankly, terrifying. I don’t even know where to begin.
August 18th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
And so they tried, from 1919-22, to do what you mentioned. You see, the only reason they *don’t* own Istanbul is that, funny story, there was this little named Kemal and it didn’t work out.
International politics tends to recognize claims that countries can back up with overwhelming force. The Greeks were utterly defeated. The Palestinians, at this point, not so much.
August 18th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
And so they tried, from 1919-22, to do what you mentioned. You see, the only reason they *don’t* own Istanbul is that, funny story, there was this little named Kemal and it didn’t work out.
International politics tends to recognize claims that countries can back up with overwhelming force. The Greeks were utterly defeated. The Palestinians, at this point, not so much.
Excuse me for the partial post.
I think that we it’s fairly clear that Israel has the capacity for sufficient force to have ‘utterly defeated’ and expelled the Palestinians, and is/was only lacking in the will/inclination/depravity/willingness to flout international norms (take your pick).
One smells the odor of perverse incentives in the implied moralities of the situations here. On the other hand, as monstrous as Kemal’s acts may have been, they have the virtue of having worked. Istambul is not the site of frequent suicide bombings or rocket attacks, after all.
How many years, or decades, or centuries into the future does one need to expect the status quo of the Israel-Palestine conflict to last before forced population transfer starts looking like the better choice, anyhow?
(See also Alsace-Lorraine after the war…)
August 18th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
That was the opposition’s misinterpretation. In my experience, people went to great lengths to stress that Saddam was a brutal monster, but that war was not going to solve the problems of the Iraqi people. You can only go so far in holding people accountable for what another side misinterprets. I don’t hold Obama accountable for the fact that nutjobs are claiming he’s trying to create death panels.
No, I hold Obama accountable for not discrediting and destroying the nutjobs.
Look, the point I was trying to make was that the majority of the country believed what you call the misinterpretation of the opposition, specifically because the opposition was able to convince people of this!
I really, really, really don’t want the Democrats to repeat that mistake.
August 18th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
On the other hand, as monstrous as Kemal’s acts may have been, they have the virtue of having worked. Istambul is not the site of frequent suicide bombings or rocket attacks, after all.
It wasn’t so much that Ataturk was monstrous as he was a participant in a ruthless transaction. It was a *mutual* population transfer. The Greeks were driven out Turkish Thrace and Asia Minor, and the Turks were expelled from Macedonia and the islands.
That’s what happened after the War in Belarus, Western Ukraine, Silesia – basically everywhere in Central and Eastern Europe. The process *did not* happen in Yugoslavia because Tito himself was absolutely willing to destroy anyone who tried to break up his country. Unfortunately he probably exacerbated the eventual conflict by mixing populations even further. And of course, Czechia and Slovakia broke up peacefully – but they still broke up.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Look, the point I was trying to make was that the majority of the country believed what you call the misinterpretation of the opposition, specifically because the opposition was able to convince people of this!
How did the opposition convince people of this. Are you saying that the anti-war protesters actively worked to convince people that they like Saddam? Or are you saying that they didn’t do enough to discredit the nutjobs who were saying that they liked Saddam?
If its the former, then I think I’m gonna have to bow out of this conversation because I don’t think we’re that likely to reach any common ground. If its the latter, I still have to disagree with you because I think you’re granting way too much agency to the anti-war protesters. The build up to the Iraqi invasion was one of the most right wing moments in our country’s history. It was the zenith of Fox News’ cultural influence and there were even fewer ways to counter it than there are now. Much of the anti-war movement went to extreme measure to distance itself from the 60s image of crazy hippy lefties, claimed to have Republicans and conservatives involved, etc., but they were still painted with that brush. To me, all that says is that the right is gonna label you however they want. Its the same with health care. The Dems have pushed for the most centrist bill anyone could’ve imagined, yet we’re still seeing nutjobs calling it Socialism, Fascism and granny-killing.
Obama might be able to do something about discrediting the nutjobs cause he’s the president. I don’t think the anti-war movement circa 2002 had a whole lot of agency to discredit the people who were smearing them as being on Saddam’s side despite the fact that it had ZERO basis in fact. So I don’t think thats their fault. Ultimately in made them sadly ineffectual, but I’d rather at least try to stop a war that I consider unjust and fail then to sit idly by and watch it unfold in a disastrous manner having not even attempted to do something about it.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
The build up to the Iraqi invasion was one of the most right wing moments in our country’s history.
That was what I meant by saying they misunderstood how angry and fearful people were in 2002.
Anger is a pretty nifty thing for reactionaries to use.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Hector: It would certainly be nice to see Constantinople back in Christian hands once again, and to see the land of ‘Turkey’ divided between Greece and Armenia. However, I’m satisfied to leave that task up to Christ when He returns. No mere man can do it, and no man should. Avenging the horrible crimes committed by Turks against Greeks and Armenians is not, as you point out, worth the massive bloodshed it would entail. So again, I’ll leave that for Christ to accomplish.
Self-parody much, Hector? I’m no theologian, but my understanding of Catholic eschatology is that the return of Christ will be sudden, like “a flash of lightning” (Matthew 24:27), and that he won’t spend any time ministering, let alone refashioning political geography. The Anglicans have, as is typical, a more vague view on what the Second Coming will be like, but it’s certainly a lot closer to the Catholics’ than to the Jenkins & LaHaye view of epic, cinematic terrestrial battles.
August 19th, 2009 at 12:08 am
While plenty funny on its face, it is rendered moreso by the fact that Syriac is probably the closest extant language to what was spoken in Judea at the time.
August 19th, 2009 at 12:10 am
D’oh! Hector beat me to it. I find I have a disturbing overlap of esoteric knowledge with Hector.
August 19th, 2009 at 12:36 am
Hector: It would certainly be nice to see Constantinople back in Christian hands once again, and to see the land of ‘Turkey’ divided between Greece and Armenia. However, I’m satisfied to leave that task up to Christ when He returns.
I guess this makes sense; as all the Muslims will be cast into Hell, their former real estate made available. I never thought about it this way before, but this particular version of eschatology has a definite ‘Generalplan Ost’ vibe to it.
August 19th, 2009 at 12:56 am
Jeff R.,
Well maybe and maybe not. St. John is very, very clear that the end of the world will follow war and bloodshed, and that the armies of good will be locked in a titanic struggle with the forces of evil. Whether some of those armies are influenced by Christ, I don’t know, though the White Rider image seems to suggest it. Primarily though they will be human armies, fighting human wars that are nevertheless either divinely or diabolically guided, and ruling over the world with a ‘rod of iron’. One thing I do know: the end of the world will not be some kind of hippy dippy Kum-Ba-Yah. It will be a scene of great strife, in which the forces of evil are forced to a reckoning: “Reward [Babylon] as she rewarded you, and repay her a double draft in the cup that she mixed”.
Aqua Regia,
Um, I already said that I don’t support an actual Greek reconquest of Anatolia. Returning the Faith to Constantinople is not worth the price of a war. I do think however that the Islamic conquest of these lands was utterly unjust and I resent it deeply. That said, I don’t want to reconquer them. Let the Turks have their secular state, and let the remnants of the old Christian Near East survive in Greece, Armenia, Georgia and Cyprus. These nations should ensure that Christianity is the official state religion forever as it is today, and that Jeffersonian ideas about all religions being equal are left for the Americans or the Turks. These countries can and should enjoy Christian ’supremacy’, as the Byzantine Empire did. Let that be our compensation for the conquest of COnstantinople.
August 19th, 2009 at 1:11 am
Yeah i think that proves my point, thanks.
August 19th, 2009 at 1:14 am
Senix,
Don’t be silly: when have I said that most Muslims will go to hell? Does the Catholic church say that? The Anglicans? The Orthodox?
Those who deny Christ out of ignorance, as opposed to malice, will have His infinite mercy shown to them.
As for Turkey, let me qualify that I don’t especially think Christ will, or will not, get involved in that dispute. It was an exaggerated way of saying that while I resent the Turkish conquest of those lands, and while I dislike the fact that the Christian Byzantine Empire was conquered by the Turks, I don’t think anyone can or should do much about it at this late stage, besides try to reinforce the Christian identity of those remnants that remain.
August 19th, 2009 at 1:20 am
Aqua Regia,
Well, yes. I think Muslim countries should have Islam as he state religion, Catholic countries should have Catholicism, etc. In some countries, like the United States or India, national tradition and religious diversity mean that they should be secular countries. But certainly, if you asked me about my ideal society somewhere in the Andes Mountains, it would not be a secular state, and while other religious adherents would be allowed to practice their faiths, some varient of apostolic Christianity would enjoy state recognition and superior status. The same goes for countries like Greece, Armenia, etc. You appear to be in thrall to the hipster idea that all religions are equally valid, and that all states should be secular states. Excuse me for not being dumb enough to buy that.
August 19th, 2009 at 1:36 am
If this happens, do I get a Gundam to use?
August 19th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Those who deny Christ out of ignorance, as opposed to malice, will have His infinite mercy shown to them.
Dante disagreed. (I know the church has changed its mind on a lot of things over the years, but I wasn’t aware this was one of them.)
More generally, I’m glad I had yesterday off work, didn’t read any blogs during the day, and therefore missed this comment thread. You all suck.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Cyrus,
Please see….well, Vatican II talks about this, as does the current catechism. Even Pius IX, quite the conservative, talked about invincible ignorance.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:46 am
some varient of apostolic Christianity would enjoy state recognition and superior status
This is appalling.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:52 am
That was the opposition’s misinterpretation. In my experience, people went to great lengths to stress that Saddam was a brutal monster, but that war was not going to solve the problems of the Iraqi people.
The problem with the antiwar movement was that there was a whole spectrum of opinion. The thing they had going for them was Bush and the Republicans. My experience was that depending on the antiwar activist they weren’t particular concerned with painting Saddam as a monster as the pro-war Republicans were. So when you say they went “to great lengths” I don’t believe you.
Just from yesterday, we have the smart ass Jane Smiley say: “There are people out there who believe he’s the Anti-Christ and if there’s one thing Saddam Hussein learned, it’s that you can’t prove a negative. ”
Giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt. Not That Bad. And then we have people like you who are Shocked! Schocked! that they’re accused of not giving an accurate depiction of Saddam.
Also leaving the Iraqi people under Saddam with sanctiosn in effect wouldn’t help them either. Iraq was a mess after the brief actual war, b/c of a decade of sanctions + Saddam. And you talk of the Iraqi dead as if American soldiers lined them up against the wall and executed all of them.
With Vietnam you had an anti-colonial struggle, with the Vietnamese fighting off the French, the Japanese and then the Americans. With Iraq you had a psychotic dictator who lorded over the majority Shia and Kurds and commited ethnic cleansing of the brutal chemical weapon variety against the Kurds, etc. And yet you have Jane Smiley sympathizing with him.
August 19th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Matt 40:
You say: “You’re basically saying that Huckabee was advocating a bi-national solution.”
I actually don’t think that Huckabee quite knows what he’s advocating. But I think you’re incorrect in framing that such a thought is to the far left of the Israeli political establishment.
The concept of Israel annexing the West Bank and giving full democratic rights to all inhabitants–Jewish and Arab–actually belongs pretty solidly in the revisionist camp of Zionism as voiced by Jabotinsky (he, of course, wanted the East Bank too). Such a state wouldn’t have to be a bi-national state. It could be a Jewish state with a significant Moslem minority with full rights (including the right to vote, the right to protest, full property rights and the right to not sing the national anthem if they don’t feel like it). Such a state could even work if there is not a Jewish majority–by creating a confessional system similar to Lebanon’s or a cantonal system like Switzerland’s. While those aren’t democracies in the same way that America is, they are kind of close.
So why not do this today? Number one because the Palestinians don’t want it. Number two because the Israelis are afraid of the other point you made about birth rates. They fear that such a state would quickly turn into an Arab-majority state due to demographic trends.
I personally am not so sure. Never underestimate the ability of Haredi’s to outrun everyone in the baby race. If you factor in the growth rates of that subsection of the Jewish population, you’ll end up with a Jewish majority for decades to come.
But that, in some ways, is the worst fear of the Zionist establishment in Israel: a future Israel dominated by the black hats and Arabs. Being Iranian fission fodder is almost preferable to them.
One final suggestion: don’t bring your Left/Right prism to view the Middle East. It doesn’t work for Mike Huckabee and it doesn’t work for you either. The Labor party ran the government in Israel during its birth and oversaw massive ethnic cleansing. The Likud party made peace with Egypt. Sharon ethnically cleansed Gaza of Jewish settlers. Zippi Livni led the Gaza war. Netanyahu has effectively frozen settlement construction. Avigdor Lieberman promotes giving massive amounts of territory back to the Palestinians. None of those events fit into a “left-right” view of the world.
August 19th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Bob G, this quote really struck me: “One final suggestion: don’t bring your Left/Right prism to view the Middle East. It doesn’t work for Mike Huckabee and it doesn’t work for you either. The Labor party ran the government in Israel during its birth and oversaw massive ethnic cleansing. The Likud party made peace with Egypt. Sharon ethnically cleansed Gaza of Jewish settlers. Zippi Livni led the Gaza war. Netanyahu has effectively frozen settlement construction. Avigdor Lieberman promotes giving massive amounts of territory back to the Palestinians. None of those events fit into a “left-right” view of the world.”
I am totally pro-Palestinian, but your observation is absolutely true. Likud is better for the Palestinians. Labour/Livni kill–and will kill–many more Palestinians. Labour initiated the settlement project. Livni’s performance during the Gaza Massacre in January really makes me fear her becoming PM.
August 20th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Re: Jasper @ #12:
I believe the final assumption of ethnic cleansing made by the fascist is based on this comment made by the fascist Huckabee, which has been reported by several sources:
“The question is should the Palestinians have a place to call their own? Yes, I have no problem with that. Should it be in the middle of the Jewish homeland? That’s what I think has to be honestly assessed as virtually unrealistic.”
Sounds like Huckabee is advocating ethnic cleansing.