You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Israel-Palestine-Jordan
Brad Stroud Talks About Rantburg Some More
2006-01-18

I just can't resist looking in on old Brad now and again. For a socialist moonbat he's actually not too bad of a guy, especially when compared to the rest of his peer group on the left side of the blogosphere.

Crusader (a Rantburger - see Rantburg Responds - Have I Been Pummeled?) wanted me to buy into the idea that it was acceptable to use the term “hellhole” because it really meant something positive: “The underlying principle that most on the right use to determine what is and what isn’t a “hellhole” is whether basic human rights (free speech, the right to vote, freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion) are afforded to its occupants (regardless of gender and race) and whether the government of the occupants was formed by free and fair democratic elections.” My view, however, is that one doesn’t enter into a discourse where one is expected to use “hellhole” or “troll” simply because someone’s come up with a nifty affirmative redefinition for an otherwise derogatory term especially since the term is meant to apply to entire nations (hellhole) or entire viewpoints (troll as a term for Arab perspectives).

Let us take Crusader’s point about rights, however, and apply it to Ze’ev’s comments. If we accept Ze’ve’s point that a Jewish State and its survival may indeed be incompatible with our western liberal ideas about how states ought to be - does that mean Israel is presently at risk of becoming a ‘hellhole”? What if being a “hellhole” is the means by which a Jewish State (a state of Jews run by Jews) can survive? Then how are the opponents of “hellholes” (and they mean Arab States if that is not yet clear) to feel about Israel? Or are we to accept the implications of Ze’ve’s point for Israel (but certainly then too for other States) that we might not wish to brandish all nations negatively just because they do not fit into our preconceived ideas of ideal nationhood? In short must the political nature of Israel’s Statehood match western preconceptions if the upshot of such is that it will cause a Jewish State to cease to exist? What if the only way for a Jewish State to exist entails a kind of racialist bias in terms of government decision making?
Posted by:Secret Master

#10  Let's deal with the other side of the coin, shall we?

Yasser Arafat was Leonod Brezhnev's personal bitch. There would not be a "Palestinian" Authority save for the Soviet Union and their admirers in the EU. Were it not for the USSR, Arafat would be a joto giving head for a hand full of dates.

As the Israel's right to exist: Isreal exists and their have armed forces capable of defending their land from the legacy of Arafat.

They hold free elections something the "Palestinians" have never done and they have a free wheeling capitalist economy, something "Palestinains" will never understand under their current regime.

The Israeli nation has EARNED the right to exist and that is fully and completely compatible with western ideas.

Now, if you will excuse me, I need to go read the Bible and pray for Israel
Posted by: badanov   2006-01-18 23:30  

#9  don't invite Brad to grace RB again - Willtotruth was outed as a bigotted liar and troll
Posted by: Frank G   2006-01-18 23:26  

#8  Oh. My. God.

I never have visited that site before, and after reading his post on "Interpreting Ahmadinejad's Anti-Zionist Comments", I don't think I ever could again.

Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric is certainly repugnant but the nation is in no way - at present - a danger and its history of pragmatism suggests that it will not likely become a danger provided its territorial integrity is not compromised by an misguided U.S. and or Israeli intervention aimed as “saving” us all from a dangerous “Islamofacist menace”.

I did not make that up. Iran's not a danger, everybody go back to sleep and don't worry a bit, no matter what the EU 3 say.

Brad, you owe trailing wife an apology. I read the comments she posted on that article you mentioned. She did address the topic and answered questions that were asked of her. You simply didn't like the answers she gave. "willtotruth" indeed.
Posted by: Desert Blondie   2006-01-18 22:58  

#7  By the way, I echo Mr. Stroud's invitation. Check out what I wrote on his site (see his archives in November and December of last year), and what he writes, and decide for yourselves. I wouldn't want it said, by those whose opinion I respect, that I asked you to take my statements on faith alone.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-01-18 22:34  

#6  The "500 million Jews and 5 million Arabs" comment really struck home. No debating that one Frank.
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-01-18 22:05  

#5  Miller's a treasure. He's matured and focussed as he's gotten older (and became a parent)
Posted by: Frank G   2006-01-18 22:02  

#4  
For those of you who don't like Dennis Miller, who is not Jewish, you may want to reconsider after reading his brilliant comments that follow. Please pass it on to your
friends.

For those who don't know, Dennis Miller is a comedian who has a show called Dennis Miller Live on HBO. Although he is not Jewish, he recently had the following to say about the Middle East situation:

"A brief overview of the situation is always valuable, so as a service to all Americans who still don't get it, I now offer you the story of the Middle East in just a few paragraphs, which is all you Really need.

Here we go:

The Palestinians want their own country. There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern invention. Before the Israelis won the land in the 1967 war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians."

As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the "Palestinians," weeping for their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation."

So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they are:
"Other Arabs Who Can't Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."

I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters." Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing: No, they don't. They could've had their own country any time in the last thirty years, especially two years ago at Camp David. But if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a living.

That's no fun. No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel. They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course --that's where the real fun is -- but mostly they want Israel.

Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel - or "The Zionist Entity" as their textbooks call it -- for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on God's Earth, and if you've ever been around God's Earth, you know that's really saying something.

It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about the great history and culture of the Muslim Mid east. Unless I'm missing something,
the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since Algebra, and, by the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one.

Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five Million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, everyone will be pals..

Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding.

My friend, Kevin Rooney, made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it. Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not.

Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea?Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children?

Disgusting.

No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.

Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that with vital operations in Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible, and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a roomful of super models who've just had their drugs taken away.

However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of losing moral weight. We've already lost some. After September 11th our president told us and the world he was going to root out all terrorists and the countries that supported them. Beautiful. Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint.

If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and kill everything
south of the Mediterranean and east of the Jordan.

Please feel free to pass this along to your friends. Walk in peace! Be Happy! Have a wonderful life!

Posted by: Besoeker   2006-01-18 21:59  

#3  Defending Israel - blindly - is not in the interests of Israel.

TW defends nothing blindly, just look through the history in RB, she is a defender plain and simple. Questioning Isreals right to exist is just flat stupid and deserves the attacks they get. So now some ass will want to debate the 6 million killed, oh wait, that happening and we know how rational that guy is. Isreal is there to stay, its up to the Arab states to see if they can get along or have their Arab states removed.
Posted by: 49 pan   2006-01-18 21:56  

#2  Any and all, feel free to read what Trailing Wife considers to be "arguments" as well as the responses to said arguments (see in particular her comments on the post "Making the Inconceivable Obvious - Israeli Power, Palestinian Survival.") Pay particular attention to how Trailing Wife responds when asked (more than once by more than one)to specifically address the substance of the post instead of selling her own wares. Everything Trailing Wife states about my views about Israel and the Jews embarrasses Rantburg.com for it belies someone lacking a ... will to truth. Who is the one pretending to listen Trailing Wife? I suggest it is you.

In truth, I'm making honest inquiries and offering bold opinions but unlike many, I have not drawn any final conclusions. Defending Israel - blindly - is not in the interests of Israel.
Posted by: Brad Stroud   2006-01-18 21:31  

#1  The man and his admirers are hopeless. His precondition is that Israel has no right to exist, because a Jewish state is by its very nature evil. He refuses to acknowledge that ending Jewish rule would have real and deadly consequences for those now living there, and for Jews throughout the world who would once again have no refuge from persecution. I've posted arguments there several times, but I'm afraid the only difference between him and the trolls who spew their bile here is the calm and reasonable tone he adopts. Otherwise his first principles are equally inept and immovable. There is no point arguing -- he's only pretending to listen.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-01-18 15:24  

00:00