1530 - Fort Awesome

quote:

George Washington's warnings and U.S. policy towards Israel - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
There sure is a lot of agreeing going on -- one might describe it as "absolute." The degree of mandated orthodoxy on the Israel question among America's political elites is so great that if one took the statements on Gaza from George Bush, Pelosi, Hoyer, Berman, Ros-Lehtinen, and randomly chosen Bill Kristol-acolytes and redacted their names, it would be impossible to know which statements came from whom. They're all identical: what Israel does is absolutely right. The U.S. must fully and unconditionally support Israel. Israel does not merit an iota of criticism for what it is doing. It bears none of the blame for this conflict. No questioning even of the wisdom of its decisions -- let alone the justifiability -- is uttered. No deviation from that script takes place.

By itself, the degree of full-fledged, absolute agreement -- down to the syllable -- among America's political leaders is striking, even when one acknowledges the constant convergence between the leadership of both parties. But it becomes even more striking in light of the bizarre fact that the consensus view -- that America must unquestioningly stand on Israel's side and support it, not just in this conflict but in all of Israel's various wars -- is a view which 7 out of 10 Americans reject. Conversely, the view which 70% of Americans embrace -- that the U.S. should be neutral and even-handed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict generally -- is one that no mainstream politician would dare express.

In a democracy, one could expect that politicians would be afraid to express a view that 70% of the citizens oppose. Yet here we have the exact opposite situation: no mainstream politician would dare express the view that 70% of Americans support; instead, the universal piety is the one that only a small minority accept. Isn't that fairly compelling evidence of the complete disconnect between our political elites and the people they purportedly represent?

There is, of course, other evidence for that proposition: the fact that overwhelming majorities of Americans have long wanted to withdraw from Iraq was completely dismissed and ignored by our bipartisan political class, which continued to fund the war indefinitely and with no conditions. But at least there, Democratic leaders paid lip service to the idea that they agreed with that position and some Democrats went beyond rhetoric and actually tried to stop or at least limit the war. But in the case of Israel, not even that symbolic nod to American public opinion occurs among the political leadership.

The other striking aspect of this lockstep American consensus is that the Gaza situation is very complex, and a wide range of opinions fall within the realm of what is reasonable. Even many who believe that Israel's attack is morally and legally justifiable as a response to Hamas rockets and who generally side with Israel -- such as J Street -- nonetheless oppose this attack on strictly pragmatic grounds: that it won't achieve anything positive, that it will exacerbate the problem, that it makes less likely a diplomatic resolution, that there is no military solution to the rocket attacks. Others condemn Hamas rocket attacks but also condemn the devastating Israeli blockade and expanding settlements. Others still who may be supportive of Israel's right to attack at least express horror over the level of Palestinian suffering and urge greater restraint.

Anyone minimally objective and well-intentioned finds Hamas rocket attacks on random Israeli civilians to be highly objectionable and wrong, but even among those who do, one finds a wide range of views regarding the Israeli offensive. But not among America's political leadership. There, one finds total, lockstep uniformity almost more unyielding than what one finds among Israeli leaders themselves -- as though Israel's wars are, by definition, America's wars; its enemies are our enemies; its disputes and conflicts and interests are, inherently, ours; and America's only duty when Israel fights is to support it uncritically.

quote:

Op woensdag 31 december 2008 12:45 schreef Sam_Spade het volgende:
het passioneel spuien van politieke ideeën en populistisch gezemel zonder feitelijke justificatie.

quote:

Op woensdag 31 december 2008 12:45 schreef EchtGaaf het volgende:

[..]

Omnidirectioneel?

quote:

Op woensdag 31 december 2008 13:14 schreef Wheelgunner het volgende:
En wat hebben jullie vanavond gepland?

quote:

Op woensdag 31 december 2008 13:05 schreef Sam_Spade het volgende:
Af en toe ben ik bang dat er niets van ons overblijft.

quote:

Op woensdag 31 december 2008 13:03 schreef waht het volgende:

[..]

Oke dan, wat vinden jullie van deze stelling;

Naar socialisme binnen een Westers land streven is hypocriet omdat een Westers land rijk is door de kapitalistische houding ten op zichte van de rest van de wereld en derhalve wereldwijd socialisme voor het Westen altijd negatief uit zal pakken.

Uitleg;
Met socialisme bedoel ik het 'eerlijk' verdelen van rijkdom door de staat. Bijv. hogere belastingen voor rijken. Met de kapitalistische houding t.o.v. de rest van de wereld bedoel ik dat het Westen een proportioneel groot deel van alle natuurlijke rijkdommen zich toe-eigent en daarmee als gevolg de rest van de wereld uitsluit van het gebruik van die rijkdommen. Naar gelijkheid streven binnen een Westers land kan dan wellicht nog met behoud van een redelijk niveau van welvaart. Naar gelijkheid streven binnen de hele wereld zal betekenen dat het Westen een zeer groot deel moet inleveren (en tegelijkertijd krijgen armere landen een stuk meer). Wat ook een rol speelt is de goedkope arbeidskrachten die te vinden zijn in landen buiten het Westen waar wij graag van profiteren. Indien deze mensen meer gaan verdienen betekent dit dat bepaalde producten voor ons een stuk duurder worden. Diezelfde arbeiders zijn dan wellicht beter af, wij verliezen koopkracht. Daarom ben ik van mening dat onze welvaart draait op de kromme verhoudingen tussen het Westen en de rest van de wereld. Het rechttrekken van deze verhoudingen komt ons, qua welvaart, niet ten goede.

quote:

Op woensdag 31 december 2008 13:14 schreef Wheelgunner het volgende:
En wat hebben jullie vanavond gepland?

quote:

Op woensdag 31 december 2008 14:29 schreef Mutant01 het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op woensdag 31 december 2008 14:32 schreef Fastmatti het volgende:

[..]

Al beter dan 1430