U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has resigned from the all-women Belizean Grove club — waiting for Friday to try to bury the announcement in the weekend news. Sotomayor did not express any personal concerns or regrets about joining an exclusive club and only stated that she did not want it to be a “distraction” from her record.
In a letter to the Senate Judiciary, Judge Sotomayor explained “I believe the Belizean Grove does not practice invidious discrimination and my membership did not violate the Judicial Code of Ethics, but I do not want questions about this to distract anyone from my qualifications and record.” It is the type of Beltway statement that leaves me cold. Before this nominee, liberals fought any nominee who belonged to an exclusive club confined to men or whites. Here, Sotomayor does not regret joining or oppose the exclusivity of the club — only regrets that it has proven controversial. If she likes discriminatory clubs, I would have much preferred her to regain a member and defend her decision. This announcement would only seem normal in Washington: abandoning the association for the express purpose of avoiding any personal repercussions.
Sotomayor was often suggested as a nominee for George W. Bush and has a fairly conservative voting record in some areas like free speech, police abuse, and student rights.
For the full story, click here
“BUT it is the masses I’m talking about. It is the ignorant masses whom these hypocritical leaders play to.”
sicilian 1,
You are simply not persuasive in your trying to single out Islam as the chief religious offender. What about the 20% of ignorant masses in this country who follow Christian Fundamentalist con men like Falwell, Robertson and Graham?
They have assisted GW Bush in promoting a vicious and illegal war, supported torture and have with their anti-choice movement/abstinence/no sex education movement helped ruin the live of tens of thousands of young people. They are just as bad. Remember too, I’m saying this as a supporter of Israel, in the knowledge that these same Christian groups support Israel and that many Islamic’s hate Israel.
Do you, after reading my writing, really think that I’m and idiot that doesn’t know his own self interest, or perhaps a left wing ideologue who follows a party line of approved leftist thinking? I think you have come to see that I’m every bit as smart and knowledgeable as you, on a lot of this stuff, maybe given my age and experience perhaps a little more insightful.
No group in this world has cornered the market on hate and no society has proven immune to bigotry and prejudice. I’ve never excused the excesses of some Islamic countries and some
Islamic extremists and I’ve publicly castigated them using my real name and opening myself up perhaps for retribution.
Really though, you are obsessed with finding a bogeyman, when in truth the bogeyman is in all of us. The ills of this planet are not about religion, politics or economics. The ills come from a humankind where many are still ruled by their inner lizard brain. These sociopaths and psychopaths use religion, politics and economics in a quenchless quest for power and the perks that go with it. You need to start looking beyond the surface of things, to see what is really going on. I abhor what is happening in Iran, Somalia, Darfur and many other venues, but I blame the manipulation of masses on leaders, rather than dogma. Defeating these evil people needs to come about by a new approach, because the old one of American might has proven to be ineffective. Whether you liked him or not, we agree that GW Bush was the most militarily militant President since FDR and look at the mess he, Dickie C and Donny R made with those policies.
Rather than answer your question, how about answering mine this time: Isn’t the definition of insanity to keep doing the same things over and over again, when experience proves they don’t work.?
SOTOMAYOR IGNORANT OF THE LAW
Sotomayor flunks on getting the most basic principle of appellate law wrong – the Standard of Review.
In Huminski v. Haverkoch, 11/5/04, 03-7036 2d. Cir., Sotomayor reveals an ignorance of the law by failing to apply the correct standard of review to an important civil rights case. She found appellate review was for reversible error when the correct standard of review for such a case (summary judgment) is De Novo.
A simple google on, “standard of review for summary judgment de novo” supplies tens of authorities on the issue. I guess Sotomayor would rather be wrong than google on such a rudimentary issue. She also could have assigned her flock of law clerks to research the issue. Further, on a motion for rehearing specifically pointing out her error she did not act and correct it.
Here is the link to the Sotomayor summary order from this case in which she presided over.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb42154f-30e6-47ee-ae7c-d8e4c3acc2e5/1/doc/03-7036_so.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb42154f-30e6-47ee-ae7c-d8e4c3acc2e5/1/hilite/
See also,
http://www.judgewatch.org/web-pages/cja-members-efforts/huminski-scott.htm
Where the order states “For the Court”, it refers to Sotomayor and the 2 other judges on the case.
Empathy, not much empathy for this wrongly convicted and incarcerated citizen,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/nyregion/10dna.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
See a different case of mine, Huminski v. Corsones, No. 02-6201 (2d Cir. 10/07/2004) (“We review a district court’s grant or denial of summary judgment de novo.”)
— Scott Huminski
(202) 239-1252
I do not doubt for one second the hypocricies of the so-called religious leaders. I understand that diplomats are much too sophisticated to ever let religion or faith dictate their actions.
BUT it is the masses I’m talking about. It is the ignorant masses whom these hypocritical leaders play to.
When answering those questions I would like your opinion to what do you say to the so-called moderate acedemics that promote those claims about Islam.
I give no credence to fringe groups like LDS and I mainly dismiss the Bible-thumping Christians as I explained in an earlier post.
But even so-called main-stream Muslims will NOT question a word attributed to Mohammed. And they accept his revisionist history.
Christianity and Islam are branches from the Jewish root there is NO denying that.
I would hope there are reasonable Christians who believe that. And this is in no way an excuse for there ignorance BUT in 2009 there is no legitimate, mainstream Christian sect advocating Jihad for those who refuse to submit to all of Mohammed’s revisionist claims.
Most Muslims will NOT question Mohammed’s claims and untill they admit their Jewish roots and stop trying to steal Jewish history for themselves there will never be any progress.
Maybe if Christaians were living side-by-side Jews in the ancient Land we’d have the same problem. But the problem in the Land is b/t Muslima and Jews. And the Jews refusal to submit to all things Islam is a big part of the problem.
I am NOT conned by their hypocracies but as long as they use “faith” as a shield in their discussions to play to theirmasses there will always be a problem.
No Muslim/Arab leader can sit down diplomatically then play to his base without spewing Arab/Muslim exclusivity to Allah, th Land, Zionism, American imperialism. That is the problem.
My question is how do you educate and force the masses to let go of the strict fundamental exclusive rights beliefs about everything God and everything territorial and the entire history no matter the specificity of dates?
Even if one were to believe this all to be a fairy tale and that the Hebrews cribbed the fairy tale off the Egyptians that still doesn’t deny the fact that the Arab/Muslims cribbed the fairy tale off the Jews AND they want to kill them b/c the Jews won’t “Submit” to the Ara/Muslim claim that the Jews were the plagerists.
Whatever the diplomats believe, that is the attitude they MUST play to and deal with.
I understand Christian hypocricy and sins. I do NOT excuse it. But my specific question is how do the Jews and Arab/Muslims come to a peaceful co-existence?
And how do they do that with all the revisionist history that has been bought hook-line-and-sinker by much of the world.
I am also interested inyour take on my 1st questions. How even so-called academics and intellects refuse to examine Islam honestly and dismiss all criticisms as bigoted diatribes?
Mike,
That’s why I kept my mouth shut and let you answer this one.
“What I feel is certain is that a people who came to be known as the descendants of “Abraham”, started a civilization and practiced a form of monotheism that came to be known as Judaism in the mesopotamiam region back approx. 2000 B.C.E.”
sicilian 1,
Much as I’d like it to be different, the current archaeological record can first date the “Hebrews” from about 1,200 BCE, with a mention on an Egyptian stele. If we charitably add 300years to that we’re only back to 1,500 BCE.
The Mesopotamian origin also is not helpful to your thesis since there is much in Genesis that seems to be cribbed from the Sumerians, a Mesopotamian Civilization dating back to at least 2,500 BCE.
“My question to you is this; how do you sit down and reason with a people who INSIST that the story of your faith and history in general is their’s alone?”
Christianity does the exact same thing, however, by claiming to have replaced Judaism, with Christ’s teachings and the Jewish people as the chosen people. LDS teachings also make extensive use of Judaism for the purpose of de-legitimizing
Jews and replacing them with Mormons. LDS even goes so far as to baptize dead Jews from the Shoah. Why should I expect Islam to be different? Please understand the fact that it is precisely because of the Jewish longevity, definitely 1,000 years by Jesus’ time and 1,600 by Mohamed’s that made it so attractive for these new faiths to usurp Judaism. So what else is new in the world, when it comes to all religions?
Hinduism, usurped Buddha after his death (about 600 BCE), into their pantheon. This is why Buddhism was more popular in China, Japan and SE Asia than in his home country.
Most of the people who one would sit down with to discuss matters of diplomacy are more sophisticated then you give them credit for. Religion is used by the power hungry to keep the masses in line and not something the leaders particularly believe in themselves, despite their outward manifestations. The Saudi’s for instance ostensibly practice Wahibism, but the Royal Family and their minions behind closed castle door drink liquor and may even eat non-Halel foods.
You may get insulted by their outward obtuseness all you want, but you are being conned if you think that any of these people are inwardly religious, even the religious figures. Remember Mother Theresa appears to have admitted that she doubted God’s existence and yet she’s about to be made a Saint. In the end all foreign policy is about power and the human ego and it is much better to see this when you are pondering policy and the settlement of disputes.
Mike S,
Yes, the U.S. is in no position to legitimize the Iranian regime. That is why I wish Obama would stop trying to sway public opinion in the direction. Their is no legitimacy for oppressive theocracies. And the saber-rattling by the likes of Achmedinejad should cause isolation from the international communtiy.
Obama’s continued drive to get the American public to exxcuse every outrageous act by the Arab/Muslim world as the cries of victims antagonized by American imperialists is getting real tired. Americans are getting tired of Obama wagging his finger in moral indignation over every sin he’s assigned America. And as an excuse for every action by anyone in the Arab/Muslim world.
Obama talked out of both sieds of his mouth in Cairo as he always does.
As to your last pargraph, NOTHING has stopped the hate/blame America speech from the Mullah’s. So silence is not working. Obama needs to show leadership by speaking out forcefully and letting the world know their will be dire consequences for the continued brutality to the protesters.
sicilian 1,
Thanks for the reply and the honesty to state that your opinions of President Obama is what drives your perceptions of him, rather than any factual basis. That’s fine, we are all entitled to our opinions. My opinion, however, was that the Cairo speech was brilliant as a foreign policy initiative and that his policy towards Iran is also correct and a breath of fresh air from the blundering incompetence and wanton murder of the Bush Administration.
“The way he’s trying to legitimize Iran before the protests and now that he doesn’t want to even step his footin the fray with simple words of support for the supporters and condemnation for the oppressors proves to me that he is not happy with the circumstances because it does not fit his adgenda.”
You really need to understand that the US is in no position to legitimize, or de-legitimize the Iran regime. They are a sovereign nation, as repugnant as they may be. It is attitudes like this that made the world such a mess in the first place, when in fact after the collapse of the USSR, there was a real chance to change things. The foreign policy establishment, led by GHW Bush made sure of it. Bill Clinton followed through and led directly to the election of GW Bush who was the worst of all.
When America stops behaving as if we are an Empire and starts adopting a responsible way of dealing with the world, we will find the possibility of peace coming to the fore. Right now the US is hardly in a position to lecture other country’s after killing thousands of our soldiers and murdering perhaps a million Iraqi’s in an unnecessary war, that displaced a totalitarian but secular government, with what is turning out to be a Fundamentalist Totalitarian government allied with Iran.
Now if he did evince support for the protesters, as you seem to wish, he would only make things worse for them and solidify the regime in the bargain. Be very careful what you wish for, because the law of unintended consequence has for years been biting the ass of people with the same beliefs you espouse.
MIKE S,
The previous preface still stands to all other readers.
Whether “Abraham” was allegory (Probably was) is not relevant to my premise. What I feel is certain is that a people who came to be known as the descendants of “Abraham”, started a civilization and practiced a form of monotheism that came to be known as Judaism in the mesopotamiam region back approx. 2000 B.C.E.
“Abraham” and his descendants were from mesopotamia. There is no legitimate claim that can be made that these people originated in Arabia nor that they ever made their way into the Arabian peninsula at the time that the people of “Abraham” were laying the groundwork for their faith and civiliztion.
If their was an “Ishmael” or “Issac” and whoever was the legitimate heir is not important. “Ishmael” whoever he may have been and whoever his mother may have been lived in the mesopotamian region also. The “Ishmaelites” made their way into the Arabian peninsula decades or centuries after the birth of the Jewish (Hebrew) people and the monotheistic faith they were practicing that became known as Judaism.
If the Arabs claim bloodlines to “Abraham” or his people through “Ishmael” then it is obvious to conclude that these figures/peoples were NOT of Arabian blood and that when they did make their way to Arabia they mixed with the Arabian natives. So even if “Ishmael” and his descendants are fathers of the monotheism that the Arabs adpoted, there is no WAY to reject their mesopotamian roots nor the fact that they adopted the monotheistic religion that is known as Judaism.
Those are the premises.
Do you agree?
Now Mohammed comes along and says that it’s all wrong. That “Abraham” or the people known as his descendants were practicing Islam all along. He makes many claims in the Koran that “Abraham” was running back and forth into the Arabian peninsula from the mesopotamian region. A highly unlikely possibility in those times.
He claims descent from “Ishmael”. Fine BUT there is NO way he can make a legitimate claim that “Ishmael” was an Arabian. And even if you concede the Arab/Muslim bloodlines from the “Ishmaelites”, at the time of the suppossed “Ishmael’s” life he was NOT a religious leader leading an Islamic people.
During Mohammed’s time the Arabs were still practicing polytheism. His brother-in-law, the brother of his first wife Khadija was an Ebbionite priest which was a sect of Christianity much in the tradition of the Nestorite’s who did NOT believe in the divinity of Jesus, though they excepted him as a prophet. (MMMHH kind of like Islam)
My question to you is this; how do you sit down and reason with a people who INSIST that the story of your faith and history in general is their’s alone?
Do you find it impossible when they insist that everything the Jews started was in fact started by them and that the Jews stole it all from them?
How do you argue their claims to exclusivity to “Abraham”?
How do you argue their claims to exclusivity to God?
How do you argue their refusal to accept their Jewish roots when they claim those Jewish roots are in fact their roots?
How do you argue the contradiction that they claim Arab exclusivity then point to “Ishmaelite” bloodlines.
How do you combat the “Mohammed said it defense.”
I just get insulted by their stubborness. Even so-called moderate Muslims are stubborn when it comes to claims of exclusivity and the so-called words out of Mohammed’s mouth.
What do you say?
MIKE S,
That comment about Obama was said in fun becvause everyone seems to expect me to take a shot at Obama.
But I do believe he is pro-Muslim to a fault. I do believe his sympathies are with the Muslims and it has to do with his familial background.
His speech in Cairo is all done to legitimize Muslims beyond the fact that they’re only catered to because they;re oil barons.
The way he’s trying to legitimize Iran before the protests and now that he doesn’t want to even step his footin the fray with simple words of support for the supporters and condemnation for the oppressors proves to me that he is not happy with the circumstances because it does not fit his adgenda.
Obama is going to do what his handlers instruct him to do but if he has any say he’ll waeken Israel as much as possible. As long as the Arab/Muslim world continues their oppressive and terroristic ways Obama will never get public opinion on his side that is why he goes out of his way to always paint the Muslims as victims of American antagonization.
A legitimized Arab/Muslim world that is accepted by reasonable people paints the Jews as the bad guys. An out of control nuclear Iran can be used by Obama to get the Jews to concede.
MIKE S,
I must preface this:
Please, whoever reads this do not use it as a chance to get on your soapbox to play tit-for-tat about the “sins” of every religion. I acknowledge the “sins” of Christianity and do not make excuses for them. My questions are specific. And they are asked to Mike S because I am interested in his perspective.
Whenever I get into a discussion with so-called acedemics or psuedo-intellects they “break their necks” coming up with any angle to criticize any religion but when you bring up a criticism of Islam , no matter how cautious it is framed they start hurling the accusations. The conversation devolves into you trying to defend yourself from being labeled a Zionist, bigot, racsist, etc. When all you did was bring up some intellectually honest and objective criticisms.
All other religions have to have EVERY base covered. Even the smallest of inconsistencies is latched onto as the critics try to expose “hypocricies” But dare you criticize Islam! What would ever think you would have the right!
Why is that?
Also, as I said any word from any significant father of faith can be diseccted every which way BUT dare you question a word uttered by the prophet Mohammed. Every other figure needs cooboration on every front BUT then they just defend any contradiction or inconsistency about Islam by saying, “Well Mohammed said it”. That’s it end of discussion. If Mohammed said it than it can’t be questioned. And this argument comes from the seculsr progressives NOT the Muslim apologists. These seculat progressives rail against ALL religions except Islam. And they denigrate the words uttered by any religious leader excpt Mohammed
Why is that?
“But I wouldn’t be “sicilian 1″ if I didn’t give Obama a shot.”
sicilian 1,
If I may a question: What does the above mean? It is almost as if you are saying that you have adopted a persona for your blog and must live up to it?
“I would not trust an overtly pro-Muslim American president”
What actual proof have you seen to convince you that the above statement is true? I’ve answered your questions honestly, please answer mine.
Buddha,
Good analysis. Did you know that Freud in “Moses and Monotheism” proposed that the Exodus was a story of either Akhenaton’s being deposed and leading his followers out of Egypt to become Hebrews, or that Moses (an Egyptian name really)was his chief follower and did the same thing, after his Pharoah was murdered? I was unimpressed by this book, but then Freud in general left me unimpressed, genius though he was.
Misleadingly enough, many comparative religion texts and general history texts credit the creation of monotheism to Pharaoh Amenhotep IV, who in the fifth year of his reign changed his name to Akenanten and changed the state religion from the pre-existing polytheism to the worship of the Aten, the Disc of the Sun. But it is a misnomer that what Akenanten did was found the monotheistic tradition. What Akenanaten advocated in the worship of the Aten was a form of henotheism – worshiping a single god but accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities. Had the Pharaoh gone the route of monotheism as we know it, likely the nobility would have assassinated him if they could beat the priests of Ra/Isis/Set etc. to the dirty deed. As it was, it caused him all kinds of problems. The sad thing about it is that the misguided monotheists of this world could learn a lot from the idea of henotheism. By it’s very nature it stresses acceptance of those different. Contrast that to the divisive way the most zealous monotheists use their one god today as an excuse to not only create divisions among men and cultures, but to encourage death . . . all for the glory of God’s/Mohamed’s/Your God of Choice’s Name Here’s name. So here’s the challenge all you zealots ready to kill for your one true god – Is your God big enough to encompass all the many names he has and many different ways he is loved and honored?
If he/she/its not?
Well then that’s not much of a god, is it?
Mike,
He did qualify that it was Western religions that were built upon Judaism.
Gyges,
Make that five. It is hard though because there are really so many more religions of import in the world besides. Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Confuscism(sic), Zoroastrianism,
Animism, to provide an incomplete list. All of which have rich histories and sophisticated philosophical views. One of the worst myths about religion is that Judaism developed monotheism followed by Christianity and then Islam. These other religions used their god pantheons metaphorically, but at bottom really believed in one creative force. Hellenism, for instance,was so much more sophisticated in outlook than the doings of Zeus and the gang. Then as you mentioned there is Atheism, Agnosticism and my own predilection Deism. We in the US are so culture centric, that we think our ways are the only ways that are modern and that count.
Sicilian,
My Wiccan friends will be interested to know that their religion comes from Judaism.
Sorry, even though I’m one of the four it really bugs me that religion in the U.S. means “Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Atheist.”
Mike S,
Thank you once again for the insight and thoughtfullness. It has been greatly appreciated.
You’ve given me much to ponder. Believe me when I tell you that I am going to save your response and take time to really absorb it.
From my own study of religion I have incredible respect for the Jewish people and their faith. It is truly the rock upon which all others (At least the Western religions) are built.
I get very defensive against “ignorant” anti-Jewishness. i can understand a beef here and there but dismissive hatred towards the Jews is uncalled for. Christians and Muslims can NEVER even begin to understan their faiths unless they begin to study Judaism. I’ve actually heard Protestant ministers rant and rave about how the “O.T.” was made null and void by the N.T. And that Christians are the “New Israel” with the Jews being abandoned by God b/c of their rejection of Jesus. This is the nonsense they spew in some Protestant Churches. Even the Catholic catechism at this point acknowledges their Jewish roots. For the Western faiths to deny their Jewish roots/connection is like trying to say your grandfather wasn’t really your grandfather. I find it insulting.
I am definitely going to pore over what you said and I may have some more questions.
But I wouldn’t be “sicilian1” if I didn’t give Obama a shot. Yes, it is my opinion but I would not be confident that he would stand strong for Israel. Yes, the Jewish people are stubborn But I also believe they are sometimes trusting to a fault. They have been burned many times by the Muslim world and I would not trust an overtly pro-Muslim American president with deep familial Muslim roots and sympathy’s.
Thanks again, Mike
“I do feel that Obama is an anti-Semite. His sympathies clearly lie with the Arab/Muslim world.”
sicilian 1,
Not only do I disagree with this I don’t think you have any evidence other than opinion to back it up. While I dislike Rahm Emmanuel, I highly doubt he would work for someone who is anti-Jewish (once again anti-semite is a formulation developed by Jew hating eugenicists and the Nazi’s)nor do I think that the President’s Jewish base in Chicago would have tolerated it. to me as I said he’s doing good so far on Israel.
“I do NOT believe any of us will ever experience Armegeddeon in our lifetimes”
Armageddon as formulated in Revelations will never happen. Any reading of the Christian Canon can only fairly conclude that revelations has no nexus to the rest of the writings. It was unfortunate that it was included in the canon, but put in to give church authorities the ability to scare people into faithfulness. The Jesus depicted in Revelations bears no resemblance to the Jesus of the Gospels.
“I can not see how you could ever trust an Arab/Muslim state to abide by an agreement.”
I trust that the Israeli’s will be able to ensure that the agreement holds. Secondly, it is everyone’s but the Saudi’s best interests to make it work. Also Jordan and Egypt have done pretty well in keeping their word.
“What do you say about the Arabs nations (most likely Jordan for their obvious commonalities with the Palestinians) giving the refugee’s citizenship?”
The pseudo-Palestinians could have been granted citizenship in Arab lands for seven decades and the individual states didn’t grant it. Predominately for the reason that the Arabs
wanted the Israeli problem to perpetuate to obscure their oppression of their own people. There was a possibility in Jordan in the early 70’s that this would happen, but then the PLO tried to unseat the government and got booted out.
“Also speaking from your perspective, do you feel the LAND is tied unbreakably to Jewish identity?”
As a Jew, Israel is tied inextricably to my concept of Jewishness. At each Passover Seder we end with the statement and toast “Next Year in Jerusalem!” The identity and the land cannot be separated, though it would certainly make life easier. However, I don’t use the Torah as the justification for the current State of Israel, or as a guideline to what territory it entails.
Israel exists and is not going away anytime soon, nor are it citizens ready to abandon it. Such is the way of countries, they arise and then they sometimes fail. AS I grew up Czechoslovakia was a country, now it isn’t. The USSR was a country, now it isn’t. The African continent was made up mostly of imperialist territories, now it isn’t. Israel will continue to exist because the Israeli’s are in power there and will continue to be, unless they keep taking the Likud
direction seriously.
“Would a “Home” anywhere else on the globe be sufficient?”
My home as a Jew is America. I could have made “Aliyah” (emigration to Israel) any number of times and had no desire to. I am an American and I dearly hope that the anti-Jewishness of my parent’s youth’s and my youth doesn’t return. I love this country, while I am not always in agreement with its’ policies. I think though that for all Jews Israel is the homeland, just as Eire is for the Irish and Italy for the Italians. A Jewish homeland in some other venue simply wouldn’t cut it.
“Do you feel there will ever be a point in history when it will be more important for the Jews to just have a peaceful place to “home” and not be tied to the Land?”
The real question should be will there ever be a time when anti-Jewishness per se will ever be gone. I’m not optimistic.
My lack of optimism is based on the simple facts that because
Christianity and Islam have tried to appropriate out Torah,
our mere existence as a religion and an ethnicity will always be threatening to those faiths. If Judaism is right, then they are wrong and ill-founded. The failure of Jews to totally assimilate and convert, remains a thorn in those religion’s sides that they, or some of they at least, can’t seem to get over. That is the basis of hatred against Jews.
The problem is we are an extremely stubborn group and by teaching and nature argumentative. We also seem to be highly adept at survival. As long as we exist then there probably will be those who hate us. Ironically, the only real end to this could come when these religions adopt the teachings of their own prophets, i.e. “Do unto others….etc.” I don’t know how likely that is.
Mike S,
Very good opinion. Lots of food for thought.
I do agree that the U.S. has served the Saudi’s interests, especially the Bush’s. The Bush and the Saud families are arguably the 2 most powerful dynasties in the world. Much of what goes on in the ME is collusion by those 2 families to protect their interests.
The reason for the 2 Iraqi wars were done to serve the interests and objectives of those 2 families.
Hussien was a tyrant and I do not sympathize with him. There is no doubt he should have been taken out for the sake of human rights if anything.
(Please all of you who want to rail against human rights violations everywhere and America’s enabling or outright guilt in violations of their own, do NOT even bother. I do acknowledge them but I am talking about something specific right now.)
Back to Hussien, The Saud dynasty wanted Hussien taken out. They didn’t trust him and were NEVER happy with they way he was dumping oil on the market to screw up the Saud’s bottom line. The Bush family which is obviously deeply involved with oil and has been partners with the Saud’s had an interest to play the heavy and take out Hussien for the Saud’s.
WMD? Harboring of terrorists? Human rights violations? Etc? While on some level maybe true, they were just excuses to turn Iraq into an oil colony. Do NOT think for one second that that isn’t true. All the sweetheart deals and the like are meant to enrich the powers that be forever.
Now this can be argued forever. But the simple fact is that fossil fuel’s are still the cheapest form of oil. The worls needs the energy oil provides to allow it to function. That is a fact. Untill alternative sources that are cost effective are developed the most cost effective way to fuel the combustion engine, which is what is the major responsibility for transportation, is still fossil fuels and untill that changes every single one of us is held hostage by ALL the oil men everywhere in the world. America’s prescence in the ME is needed to guarantee OUR own soveriegnty. Even a raging liberal like Jimmy Cater recognized that by building military installations all over the ME. While this is a reality we have to live with the robber-barons like the Bush’s and Saud’s as they exploit the worlds dependency for their own enrichment.
That being said, I am of the opinion that the ONLY true morally justifiable stance is to stand for Israel.
(Forgive me if I’m misquoting) But I pretty sure MLK, to paraphrase said, ‘If you’re anti-Israel then you’re an anti-Semite.’ MLK who based almost all of his civil rights ideology on Biblical teaching was saying something very powerful.
I do NOT believe any of us will ever experience Armegeddeon in our lifetimes, if in fact it does ever happen. I think it is ridiculous to try to predict the future with the Bible because you can read anything into it you want. However, I am of the stong conviction that is the Israeli’s ever do get sold-out or feel as if they’re being cut loose and given no options, I do believe there will be catostophic consequences for all mankind.
Whay you said Mike S, about “Never again” is true. And your prediction I believe is also on point.
I do feel that Obama is an anti-Semite. His sympathies clearly lie with the Arab/Muslim world. His objective is to legitimize the Arab/Muslim world beyond their powers as strictly oil barons, he wants to make their lifestyles excepted by all society. While I believe the Bush family was bought and paid for by the Saud’s and did their bidding as a business arangement, I believe that Obama has much more personal inclinations to side with the Ara/Muslim world. Obama is not much more than a lackey for Soros, a self-loathing Jew and Nazi collaborator. But b/c of Obama’s personal leanings he is the perfect puppet for those who control him. He is strictly on board with their adgenda’s
Obama would be happy with a nuclear arms race in the ME. That way it would be easier for him to muscle Israel into concessions. He’ll promise to get a nuclear Iran or whoever to back down as long as Israel gives in. That is one reason why Obama is not happy with what’s going on in Iran. To him stability is an unreasonable, fanatical Islamic Republic. A more reasonable, secularized Iran makes it harder for him to squeeze Israel.
I agree with your 2 state solutions and your reasons for why are legitimate and hard to argue against but I can not see how you could ever trust an Arab/Muslim state to abide by an agreement. History has proven they don’t. And it seems that the Israeli’s are always the only ones giving anything up.
Some questions.
What do you say about the Arabs nations (most likely Jordan for their obvious commonalities with the Palestinians) giving the refugee’s citizenship?
Also speaking from your perspective, do you feel the LAND is tied unbreakably to Jewish identity?
I understand the Biblical history behind the Land argument, but does it have as much meaning to a non-native born Israeli?
Could the identity and the Land ever be seperated?
Would a “Home” anywhere else on the globe be sufficient? I know the Brits offered that to the Jews (mainly Zionist leaders) back after WWI and it was rejected.
Do you feel there will ever be a point in history when it will be more important for the Jews to just have a peaceful place to “home” and not be tied to the Land?
“As a Jew, I would like to know, objectively, how you feel Obama’s actions are going to effect Israel. Other administrations have “leashed” the Israeli’s. But I personally feel that Obama’s inclinations are pro-muslim/Arab and that his desire would be to weaken Israel’s hold on the “occupied territories”
sicilian 1,
I am quite happy with President Obama’s ME stance so far and I’ll explain why. In truth the West Bank Territories and Gaza should be the Israeli’s territories due to the 1967 War. They were under siege by forces on all sides and defeated them regaining territories lost in their war for independence. However, in “realpolitik” equity doesn’t enter the equation when you are searching for entente.
Netanyahu carries on the tradition started by Begin/Likud in the 70’s to encourage Israeli settlers in these territories.
The purpose was to hamstring the possibility of future Israeli governments giving back the territories. This has the support of Fundamentalist Jews, who believe in Biblical
ordination of Israeli land. This was an ill thought out policy for two reasons.
1. From a world opinion context the “land for peace” solution is the only acceptable one despite the equities.
2. Much more importantly though, Israel cannot exist in a
state of apartheid. The Arab/Muslim population of the territories is such that if given Israeli citizenship the
Arabs would be in the majority and there goes the concept of a Jewish State. If the Arab/Muslim population is not given full citizenship then Israel will be an apartheid state and that is not sustainable.
The territories must go as part of a solution that offers the Arab/Muslims their own State. This is what this Administration is working towards thus far and it is the only
one that might truly bring peace.
“But I personally feel that Obama’s inclinations are pro-muslim/Arab”
If that is the case, which I doubt, they would only be carrying on in the tradition of every Administration since Eisenhower, that is where the “leashing” comes in. The US is neither the closest ally of Israel, nor has it served as Israel’s protector. Indeed, for most of Israel’s history the US refused to sell it arms, while arming the Saudi’s, Egyptians, Iraqi’s, etc. The US ME policy has been twofold:
1. Follow the bidding of Big Oil.
2. Act in the interests of the Saudi’s.
If you want I can give you clear examples of this, but I suspect you are aware of them. The Bush family has played a major role in this and indeed are in the Saudi’s pockets, even GW was in at least two businesses with them. That is why Saudi Prince Bandar is nicknamed “Bandar Bush.”
The problem for Bibi is that he is in power by dint of Fundamentalist Extremist parties and Mr. Lieberman, who represents the settler’s interests and so he is constrained
under pain of losing his majority. He needs to be pushed and this Administration is pushing him. To me that is good.
“Also what do you feel Israel would do in a worse case scenario where if they were made to feel they could not depend on a U.S. ally? Would they do what they felt they had to do regardless of the consequences? Or would they back down?”
The Israeli’s are not stupid. They already know that in the main they can’t depend on the US as an ally, while the US is in the Saudi/Big Oil pockets. They play the game because they have to, but they know that when push comes to shove the US will not save them. Bibi is a truly ignorant man in the sense of constantly doing what has failed in the past. He
is a captive to the ideology of his Grandfather and Jabotinsky. He won’t last and he will be replaced by someone more pragmatic. Aside from their Fundamentalist crazies the Israeli’s are a very pragmatic people.
Israel will survive despite the US and despite world opinion.
This is true because of their nuclear capability. The only constructive thing about the Shoah is Jews learned to understand that “Never Again” is a necessity for survival.
The Israeli’s, prior to being driven into the sea, would use that nuclear arsenal and the entire world will be deprived of
ME oil for the next 6,000 years, not to mention the fact that most of the ME country’s and populations would be destroyed. That is the not so secret fact that has kept Israel safe for the last 40 years and not the US aid.