3 Cheers for our good ally Israel! Est. 1200 BC
- Thread starter Chop
- Start date
So, basically:
- The Trump wing of the GOP supports Israel
- The Reaganites support Israel
- The conservative Republicans support Israel
- The moderate Republicans support Israel
- Most Independents support Israel
- The moderate Democrats support Israel
- The liberal Democrats support Israel.
________________________________________________
That leaves the following who are anti-Israel:
- far leftists
- neo-Nazis
*- people who are not neo-Nazis, but deep insider them, for some reason or another, they just hate Jews
- Islamists
- Many Arab immigrants
- Fringe extreme minority Jewish cults who don't believe in Israel
If you are anti-Israel--THIS IS YOU; THESE ARE YOUR PEOPLE
I suspect that most Americans who go around openly opposing Israel on almost everything come from the asterisked category above.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
A person can support the existence of Israel and the safety of their people and be against the violence the Israeli government commits against Palestinians.
You can support peace for Israeli and for Palestinian civilians at the same time.
The opposite approach is binary thinking, which is lazy, incorrect, and ignores the evil one group commits and focuses only on the evil another group commits.
You can support peace for Israeli and for Palestinian civilians at the same time.
The opposite approach is binary thinking, which is lazy, incorrect, and ignores the evil one group commits and focuses only on the evil another group commits.
Less than 2 weeks ago, Iran shot hundreds of drones and rockets at them. October 2023, Hamas attacked them. Every day, multiple countries advocate for the elimination of Israel. At US colleges, students are chanting “from the river to the sea.” Oh well, I guess that’s not “under attack.”
Last edited:
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Iran just all of sudden for no reason sent drones and missiles to Israel? Is that what happened? Or did something happen before that Iran was responding to?
Yes. No attack right now. Iran attacked a week or so ago. Now they aren't. Speech isn't an attack. That is what woke people say, "speech is violence".
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Why would I do that? Why would you even ask such a question.
He'll never come out and justify something like that because he knows how bad that would look, but he'll walk just shy of it. When the West's enemies do something terrible, he'll always say they were massively provoked by the West. He doesn't go full Ward Churchill, but he gets about 90 percent of the way there.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Yeah. Saw that.
Conservative National Review rips John Mearshemier a new one.
John Mearsheimer and Israel’s Supposed ‘Genocide’ | National Review
John Mearsheimer and Israel’s Supposed ‘Genocide’ | National Review
Some Comments (this guy Mearsheimer is a real piece of work...):
andrewclearfield
Jan 12
"One can argue that realism as a strain of international-relations thought has merit"
—Except that this argument has no merit, either. Mearsheimer is simply anti-American, and anti-Israeli. He is a conspiracy theorist and probably an antisemite to boot. Giving his opinions any weight is an affront to decency, as well as logic.
flanker
Jan 12
Mearsheimer lost the plot a long time ago.
rsscmh
Jan 11
Mearsheimer isn't an ideologue. He is an old fashioned Jew Hater. a modern day Julius Streicher. And one of the reasons I no longer donate money to the University of Chicago, my Alma Mater.
Yawbus
Feb 10
I just listened to an interview with him. He is a vile and disgusting human being as well as an obvious anti-Semite.
And he's also a big Bernie Sanders supporter.
Put this cat in a room with Kramer and let them hash out the World's problems.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
He is one of the most respected political scientists in the US currently.
All of these comments have no merit. They are simple slander against a person they disagree with. His analytical approach is realism which says that state actions are rational and that all states pursue their own interests. It also includes the thought that bigger, more powerful states exert influence outside of their borders in a sphere of influence concept. He is always going to look into the events leading up to a conflict to see if there is a rational explanation of why it is happening. The approach doesn't have a bias for or against anyone one group of people. I think these commenters are strongly biased and don't like his critical analysis.
He's not respected by National Review.
Mearsheimer is an Offensive Neo-Realist. The Defensive Neo-Realists describe the current world much more accurately than his model.
My take is this:
1) Hamas attacked in a manner that was a sick indictment as to their humanity. Nothing justifies what they did.
2) Iran helped train and arm them.
That was Israel under attack. Everything else since then was a product of my two points.
That's my opinion.
It's an interesting question.
How about this: Is there anyone on these boards who believes Israel's declaration of statehood in 1948 was not a seizure of land? Was it an act of squatters?
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
So what? I don't respect National Review. It was the tool used by neoconservatives to punish more traditional conservatives and move the Republican Party leftwards into more big government policies.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
bystander, there was an attack. No denying it. My comment was that there isn't an ongoing attack against Israel. It is very sporadic. The attack is going the other way more consistently.
Name these “more traditional conservatives” you’re taking about.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Howard Buffet was one. Look up the Old Right. They were the anti-New Dealers in the 30s.
Correct. Palestinians are learning the FAFO principle.
Last edited:
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Does that same principle apply to Israel too?
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
