“Imperfection Doesn’t Preclude Greatness”
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
That is strong line from USA: The Jewish Promised Land, by Stephen Richer, a piece reflecting on the unique degree of tolerance exhibited in America, in general, toward Jewish Americans. He writes:
We Jews have always looked to Israel as our promised land. The dates 586 BCE and 70 CE (the destruction of the first and second Temples and the start of the Diaspora communities) are etched into the collective Jewish mind, and we end each Yom Kippur and Passover with the saying: “Next year in Jerusalem.”
But in many respects, we Jews found our promised land when we first stepped foot on American soil (Boston, 1649, Solomon Franco), and later when we came in larger numbers during the 1800s (250,000 Jews by 1880). For the first time, Jews had a home country devoid of a history of Jewish expulsion or systematic Jewish bloodshed. For the first time in history, Jews had a country that – from the beginning – gave de jure acknowledgement to the right to practice to Judaism and the right to be an equal citizen as a Jew.
Read it all. Your patriotic heart will swell with pride. While he acknowledges the sad reality of American anti-Semitism, he also recognizes that such incidents stand out because they are out of place. America’s truest self is one where no discrimination is tolerated but what arises from merit and conduct.
And indeed in my opinion it is that egalitarian element in the American psyche that leads many of us to support Israel itself. Too often liberals who oppose the so-called occupation of so-called Palestinian lands think that conservatives like me support the Isrealis out of some sense that the Jews have a right to that land as a matter of faith. I am sure that element exists, but for myself it is about a morality that has little to do with any historic Israel or any biblical status as a chosen people. Simply put, after being murdered by the millions in the Holocaust, and facing endless pogroms in Israel, the Jews had the same right to end that oppression as we had the right to end the oppression we faced at the hands of Great Britain in 1776. Indeed frankly things were worse for Jews in “Palestine” in the 1940’s than in the colonies in 1775. So, it is not the Bible, in my mind, that sanctions the War for Israeli Independence. It is the Declaration of Independence that does the intellectual work for me. And likewise when faced with genocide in the Six Days War, the Israelis were correct to fight back and even to gain some land so as to ensure their own security. They are most likely the only country in human history that won land in a defensive war and for some reason is expected to give it back.
Conservatives like me don’t support Israel because we think Jews are somehow special. They are not. They are no better or worse than other people. But we have noticed that Jews have been uniquely singled out, arguably above all other groups, for abuse and discrimination, yes even at the hands of so-called Christians. (At the severe risk of engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy, I deny the true Christianity of any person who harmed a Jew in a fit of anti-Semitic hate. They might claim to follow Christ, but they are willfully oblivious to His message,) And seeing them singled out for a special degree of hate, Christians like me react with a special degree of loyalty. One blogger (I forgot who) once said that he wished we could treat Israel as being no different from Uganda or Austria, just another country in the roster-list of countries, but the unique hostility to Israel makes that impossible. That is pretty much exactly how I feel.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
And indeed in my opinion it is that egalitarian element
I don’t think you mean egalitarian.
Gerald A (7d960d) — 7/6/2011 @ 12:20 pmgerald
it can mean nothing more than equal rights and opportunities. i do mean it in that sense.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 7/6/2011 @ 12:26 pmI think you mean “willfully oblivious to his message,” not willfully obvious.
DanH (c0df68) — 7/6/2011 @ 12:45 pmDamn you, spellcheck ;p
Dan
er, right. my bad. and no, thank you for the human spellcheck. 🙂
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 7/6/2011 @ 12:47 pmAaron, while you obviously meant egalitarian in the sense you meant it, there is, in the context of modern American Judaism, a specific meaning for that word. If you see a Jewish congregation describe itself as “egalitarian”, that means women are treated as equal to men in worship–it’s used almost exclusively by Conservative synagogues. Those Conservative synagogues (a dwindling number) that still differentiate usually call themselves “traditional”, In Orthodox and Reform, the terms are not used because no synagogue could be “egalitarian” and remain Orthodox, while Reform synagogues long ago abolished the different treatment.
But in a modern Jewish context, the term is really limited to mean “equality of the sexes”.
(Rather similar to what is happening in some Christian churches, where terms like “inclusive” and “welcoming” seem to be code words for “pro gay marriage and pro gay clergy”).
To a Jew of my generation (born c. 1960), his essay is a little bit naive. We were brought up with the understanding that, without the First Amendment, there would be nothing to protect us from what had happened two/three decades earlier in Germany, and that the four worst events in Jewish history happened immediately after, and in fact ended, four of the most prosperous periods in Jewish history. The Romans under the Flavians and then Hadrian, who did their best to destroy Judaism, ended the Second Temple. The pogroms of the Crusades destroyed the relatively prosperous Jewish communities of the Rhineland; the Expulsion and Inquisition destroyed the Sephardic Golden Age (which Richer refers to); after the era of Emancipation and the early 20th century in Western and Central Europe (which again Richer refers to) came of course the Nazis. (And the Chelmnitzki pogroms in 17th century Eastern Europe could arguably also fit into this mold.)
So if the Jewish community in America was now so well off, perhaps that was just a measure of how bad the catastrophe would be when it comes.
I’m pretty sure that feeling of dread has diminished over the years, and isn’t shared by most younger Jews, fortunately.
JBS (799d07) — 7/6/2011 @ 1:47 pmJBS
i literally had no idea that egalitarianism meant that in judaism. you learn something every day. 🙂
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 7/6/2011 @ 1:59 pmGreat link. Makes me proud of this country.
I agree that there’s nothing special about any race, Jew or otherwise. Except that some of the world seems to particularly hate Jews.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/6/2011 @ 2:10 pmAmerica as The Promised Land?
AD-RtR/OS! (c036a6) — 7/6/2011 @ 2:16 pmWell, it sure beats most, if not all, of the alternatives.
And, I would think that Dennis Prager would vote Yes!
JBS
i will add that in my faith we do believe in men and women being treated equally as clergy. but that is not a value i expect in others. priests can be men only. nuns can only be women, etc. and while i respectfully disagree, i don’t get worked up over it.
my wife is catholic and i am presbyterrian and i remember before we got married she said to me that when we got married her priest would be our marriage counselor if we needed help. The conversation went like this:
me: honey?
her: yes?
me: um, isn’t a priest fundamentally unqualified to be a marriage counselor?
her: but they study psychology and all that.
me: i can study internal combustion all i want, but that won’t teach you how to fix a car.
By contrast at my church, we not only had a male and female minister, who were both married, but they they were married to each other. as i said, “this works out well. if he ever says anything stupid, she is there to correct him.”
so i have my preference for equality between men and women in that respect, as expressed in part in my choice of faith, but its not something i try to press on others and be obnoxious about.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 7/6/2011 @ 2:27 pmAmong conservatives, at least this one, there is a combination of feelings that this article brings inspires. One is a feeling of pride in our great motto e pluribus unum, something that I believe in.
Second, is a nice feeling of “rooting for the home team.”
I like my melting pot; and I like the things that fill the pot.
Does that make sense?
Pious Agnostic (6048a8) — 7/6/2011 @ 2:43 pmToo often liberals who oppose the so-called occupation of so-called Palestinian lands think that conservatives like me support the Isrealis out of some sense that the Jews have a right to that land as a matter of faith. I am sure that element exists, but for myself it is about a morality that has little to do with any historic Israel or any biblical status as a chosen people.
Aaron, this is a slander by the leftists in order to water down the support by non-leftists for Israel in general and Jews in specific.
The “narrative” by leftists, that non-leftists are racist, Jew-hating, ignorant, homophobic, religious zealots and inbred Jeds…NEEDS some lie to spread about the overwhelming support for Israel, as a land, as a homeland for Jews, and as an ally.
In essence, this slander is basically the “Supporters of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, part deux.
Quite innocently, when you pronounce that you are “sure this element exists”…you are advancing the libel.
Leftists (I make a very definitive distinction between liberals and leftists, just as an aside) continue to paint non-leftists with this brush in order to keep up the masquerade that THEY deserve the support of liberal Jews.
Leftist Jewish organizations and individuals use their heritage as a sword and a shield against criticism when they attack Israel. Chomsky, J Street…and one may or could include Soros, although the case of his attachment to Judaism at all is rather tentative.
Non-leftists support Israel and leftists despise Israel as a free market democracy, a valuable ally to America and a Judeo-Christian legal framework, where the laws inculcate that shared seminal launching point.
Our job is to expose that slander and not feed it, even innocently.
The overwhelming support for Israel by non-leftists is based upon a genuine attachment to our friend and ally….not some fantasmic “end times” Big Lie.
cfbleachers (fb9900) — 7/6/2011 @ 2:58 pmWell said P.A., the Nixon line.
Rhodesian (4de175) — 7/6/2011 @ 2:59 pmCountries are expected to give back land they won in a war all the time. Otherwise Mexico City would be part of the United States, since we conqured it in the Mexican-Amerian war. Would the United States be better off or worse off if we had tried to hold on to all the land we ‘won’ in that war that was filled with Mexicans? We gave back all the land we conquered from Germany and Japan in the defensive war of WWII. Or should we have decided the Germans were not worthy of having their own country so it is ours now and we should start building settlements in the middle of Germany?
Patterico is right that, of course, based on morality, history, politics, and geography, Israel has the right to exist. Despite the left-wing noise machine, most people know that. But he moves way to quickly from the idea that Israel has the right to exist in defensible borders roughly conforming to the demographic reality of 1967 to thinking that since Israel is ‘right’, they can seize land that has next to no Jews in it but does have large numbers of other people living in it that don’t want to live in Israel. It can both be true that Israel is the good guys and has every right to exist, and they should not take other people’s land. Just as the U.S. has every right to exist by the principles of 1776, but that doesn’t mean we can seize Mexico too, even if we are the militarily stronger.
Counterfactual (19ca0e) — 7/6/2011 @ 3:00 pmI thought the only chapter in Modern American History Books was “Slavery: December 21, 1620 to Today.“
Sponge Bob Square Pants (786e37) — 7/6/2011 @ 3:10 pmThe Vanishing American Jew — by Eli Klavon
The Vanishing American Jew — by Alan Dershowitz
Random (4dc233) — 7/6/2011 @ 3:19 pmGinsberg, Kagan, Breyer. Yup, real support for conservative principles there.
James Baker had it right.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 7/6/2011 @ 4:44 pmThe period of anti-Semitism in America, the tail end of which I witnessed, was almost certainly a reaction to the large volume of Jewish immigration following the 1880s pogroms in Russia. That was also the cause of the 1920s immigration limitations.
Before and since that period, anti-Semitism has been a small and discredible part of American life. I grew up in a part of Chicago with many synagogues and a large Jewish population. It was called South Shore and is now all black, the Jewish temples now black churches, many of which are spouting Rev Wright rhetoric.
At one time, a bunch of us Catholic high school kids were members of the Young Men’s Jewish Council because they had a basketball court and the YMCA didn’t.
Mike K (8f3f19) — 7/6/2011 @ 5:08 pmcfbleachers, a great many of us on the Right reject your atheistic position. I’m Pre-Trib. I know the Rapture and the Tribulation and the Great Tribulation are all prophetic facts. And I know the Jews are Providence’s Chosen.
And, quite frankly, I reject your utilitarianism as a philosophical approach to anything.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/6/2011 @ 5:58 pmcf
But there are documented examples of that element existing. There are people who raise money to send jews to isreal because they believe it will accelerate the end times.
I didn’t say there were many of them, but i can’t say there are none.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 7/6/2011 @ 6:15 pmI kind of agree with Aaron it’s like Sarah Palin’s panderings with her tacky huge star of david bling bling – she’s not flashing that at jews she’s flashing that at her base of left behinders I think
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/6/2011 @ 6:24 pmhey sarah there’s a jewish bratz doll what be needin her neckuhlace back, yo?
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/6/2011 @ 6:27 pmThose comments from the head of the supposedly
ian cormac (d380ce) — 7/6/2011 @ 6:36 pmsane Wafd party, referenced in the previous thread,Aaron, are very distressing, doesn’t he know you can never outpander the Ikwan faction, or
the openly Salafi one.
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 7/6/2011 @ 6:15 pm
“God gave it to us” is the guiding principle behind the religious settler movement. In fact, many of them take the idea and turn it into an ideology that make them feel it’s okay to hurt, and even use violence or otherwise violate the rights of neighboring Palestinians.
And you need to differentiate between those Jews who are anti-Israel, like Chomsky; those Jews who are anti-Israel for religious doctrinal reasons (Neturei Karta is the best known group); and those Jews who think the current policies and choices of the Israeli are wrong, both because they will result in bad things happening to Israel and possibly the entire Jewish people, and because we believe they are morally wrong–that a nation whom G-d ordered to be “a holy nation, a nation of priests” and who was told by G-d that they should be a “light unto the nations”, should not be doing those things, no matter what the short term practical benefits might be.
JBS (dec991) — 7/6/2011 @ 6:47 pmAt one time, a bunch of us Catholic high school kids were members of the Young Men’s Jewish Council because they had a basketball court and the YMCA didn’t.
Naturally. Basketball was once a sport dominated by Jews (mid 20th century, roughly).
JBS (60aae7) — 7/6/2011 @ 6:50 pmyank your yarmelkeh
ColonelYachsen (822dce) — 7/6/2011 @ 7:00 pmyou yeshuvnikeit yukel
yield to the yachsen
Indeed, that is quite counterfactual.
After the war with Mexico, the U.S. required, as a condition of peace, that they sell us the land referred to as the Mexican Cession, as well as accept the Rio Grande as the border with Texas. So in point of fact we did keep territory that we had conquered.
After WW II, the U.S. did indeed give up all territorial claims on Germany, as well as all claims on the Japanese home islands. We did of course divide the Japanese Pacific Islands with Great Britain, China reclaimed Manchuria and Taiwan, the Soviet Union took Sakhalin Island, Korea was made independent, and we occupied Okinawa for several decades before allowing it to return. As for Germany, it lost all of East Prussia and part of Eastern Germany to Poland and the Soviet Union, while the Soviet Union kept the parts of Poland and Finland they had taken in 1939, as well as Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.
So again, as a matter of historical fact, we and our allies kept land we had won in war.
It was only after all the territorial revisions of WW II were done that the UN “conveniently” adopted the principle of the inviolability of current borders, oxymoronically also proclaiming the principle of minority self-determination, then selecting whose rights to which they would respect as politically expedient. Before then, territorial acquisitions as a result of war were the standard, universally accepted, practice.
Sam (8d527c) — 7/6/2011 @ 7:01 pmAaron, there are people who believe that aliens are going to come down on a date certain and take them to a new planet.
They do not represent any significant portion of a larger belief system.
The overwhelming majority of non-leftists who support Israel are not attached to an end times belief system or agenda.
To include them in the discussion is to give them larger significance than is warranted.
There are some. And, I simply will not engage in the value discussion of their belief system. They are entitled to it. In fact, I make no judgment here…or anywhere…about it.
I only say that giving credence to the argument by leftists that they dominate the landscape…or even make up a large segment of it…is simply an intentional falsehood used for reasons by the left to discredit the support.
It’s an unnecessary inclusion and causes more harm than is warranted in the discussion.
cfbleachers (fb9900) — 7/6/2011 @ 7:18 pmSam, I agree that it is somewhat a matter of judgement. We took some of the land we won from Mexico (or forced them to sell it us, same thing perhaps) but we didn’t take it all. I believe a good part of the criteria is that the land we took was not heavily occupied by Mexican citizens, as we understood to try to incorporate that land into the U.S. would have been bad for both countries. It was not anti-American to think the U.S. should not have tried to build settlements in deeply Mexican land and fold that land into our country, it was, I believe, far thinking pro-Americanism.
Is it right and proper that Israel uses their victories in the war to make their borders more defensible? Yes. But does that mean it is proper and in Israel’s interest to try to take the full West Bank with all its anti-Israeli population. I do not believe so. But with every settlement built in the West Bank, it becomes less likely Israel will ever give back that land. So what is the plan, make the Palestinians living there an occupied people forever? Get them somehow to leave? Just hold onto it unitil somehow, somewhere some Palestinian group gets hold of a WMD and all Hell breaks loose? Tell me how Israel comes out ahead at the end with this building of settlements policy?
Counterfactual (19ca0e) — 7/6/2011 @ 7:23 pm“Non-leftists support Israel and leftists despise Israel as a free market democracy,”
Actually Israel has a solid dose of socialism. Which makes sense, given its history. They even have that ultimate boogeyman, a health care insurance mandate!
stone (8c2482) — 7/6/2011 @ 8:06 pmThe Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, doesn’t ring a bell for you, by the 60th anniversary of the US, we had expanded our territory, three fold, what happened to those indigenous people, we didn’t kill,
ian cormac (d380ce) — 7/6/2011 @ 8:09 pmwere put in reservations,
More of a human grammarcheck. The words were spelled correctly, they just weren’t the correct words in context.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 7/6/2011 @ 8:51 pm;D
I believe that one can argue for marriage as a part of the ministry, but still argue for males in the position. There are reasonable arguments to be made that there is a “father” element to the social order in Christianity that a female figure pretty much cannot perform. And yes, further, that changing that aspect of the religion does change the religion in a significant way — akin to arguing as a Buddhist that you can/should eat meat.
In no sense am I claiming such religion is wrong… just that I believe it may have altered or left behind a key element of Christianity which it’s not appropriate to do. Faith, in general, is a matter of personal choice, and as such it’s between you and God as to whether or not there’s a problem there.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 7/6/2011 @ 9:02 pmComment by stone — 7/6/2011 @ 8:06 pm
It’s been steadily abandoning that over the last three decades. That’s a portion of the Begin legacy people don’t usually talk about.
The biggest step–actually a series of smaller steps–was undoing the intermingling of Histradrut and the government. Histradut was not merely the only real labor organization, but also the biggest employer and involved in many sectors of the economy for the first three decades or so of Israel’s existence. Think of the AFL-CIO owning most of our major industries and have a large share of the banking/financial sector to boot.
JBS (60aae7) — 7/6/2011 @ 9:04 pmI remember 9-11 as if it were yesterday.
I shared an office with a young Jewish woman who asked me what was going on, why did this happen?
To my shame, I answered honestly. I said because they hate you.
I wish I could have been wrong, but I was not.
I will never forget her face when I said what I thought. I also will never understand the consumate hatred for a certain people simply for existing.
I regret saying what I said for the pain it caused her, no matter the truth.
Ag80 (391f9a) — 7/6/2011 @ 9:13 pmConservatives like me don’t support Israel because we think Jews are somehow special. They are not. They are no better or worse than other people.
Jews are just like everybody else — only more so.
aunursa (f1f4c4) — 7/6/2011 @ 9:25 pmI remember yesterday like it was 9/11. I remember I woke up kind of late, but that’s ok I figured cause I live really close to work. What else I remember is I should have had watermelon for breakfast. I had a half leftover from the weekend just sitting in my fridge – all I had to do was slice it up. But I didn’t.
And a day later that watermelon is still sitting in my fridge. Waiting.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/6/2011 @ 9:29 pmMy garden has yielded seven watermelon so far. Every weekend lately I get fresh watermelon.
If everyone on the planet had a garden like mine there would be no war.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/6/2011 @ 9:34 pmThat was in really bad taste, pikachu, if you need reminding there were some close calls with the Millenium Bomber who targeted LAX, or the two teams
ian cormac (d380ce) — 7/6/2011 @ 9:34 pmthat focused on the Library Tower,
I don’t like watermelon. That’s just me.
I don’t like hating Jews because they’re just Jewish.
Watermelon is a treat, but being Jewish seems a long wait for something good.
Ag80 (391f9a) — 7/6/2011 @ 9:36 pmYour story is one of the saddest 9/11 ones I’ve ever heard, AG. I’m sorry you feel conflicted about explaining this sad aspect of the world we live in, but I’d probably have been unable to be so direct.
Anyway, I can empathize with Happyfeet’s wish for inappropriate humor on the subject. What can you seriously say about this that can help? There is no argument that will convince some of these people to get over their obsession with Jews.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/6/2011 @ 9:39 pmComment by Counterfactual — 7/6/2011 @ 7:23 pm
The settlement of the War with Mexico, like many things in the first part of the 19th-Century, got caught up in the question of Slavery.
AD-RtR/OS! (c036a6) — 7/6/2011 @ 11:25 pmThere was a strong feeling, particularly among politicians from below the Mason-Dixon Line, that Mexico should be annexed (they believed that it would be “slave” territory, and would buttress their struggle against the abolitionists in the North). Since there was virtually no way that “slave” states created from Mexican territory could be balanced with new “free” states, the Abolitionists in the North strongly opposed any move to annex Mexico as new U.S. Territory.
The compromise was the Mexican Cession, and the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.
Our big mistake was allowing the border to bend to the North-West in AZ allowing Mexico to control the mouth of the Colorado River and giving them a land bridge to Baja – we should have kept Baja and the rights to full navigation in the Sea of Cortez that would have gone along with it.
“We gave back all the land we conquered from Germany and Japan in the defensive war of WWII.”
Not hardly. Germany had to hand over about 25% of its pre-war territory (mainly to Poland and the USSR). Japan was stripped of all its overseas possessions.
Dave Surls (8e8d37) — 7/6/2011 @ 11:32 pmstari_momak chimes in with his usual line of absolutist liberal babble.
And David Ehrenstein, the self-hater, is predictably conspicuous by his absence.
Icy Texan (c3206e) — 7/7/2011 @ 2:18 am(At the severe risk of engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy, I deny the true Christianity of any person who harmed a Jew in a fit of anti-Semitic hate. They might claim to follow Christ, but they are willfully oblivious to His message,)
For what it’s worth, No True Scotsman is only a fallacy when it’s used to try and defend a previously-stated universal. E.g., if you had asserted that no Christian would be anti-Semitic, and then were presented with an example of a Christian engaged in anti-Semitic behavior, following it up with “no true Christian would …” would be redifining your terms to fit your thesis. And since you’ve just defined “Christian” as “one who is not anti-Semitic” (among other things), that turns your statement “no Christian would be anti-Semitic” into a mere tautology, rather than a useful statement.
However, here you’re not trying to argue a point (“No Christain would do X, and Robin is a Christian, therefore you can trust him not to do X”) but rather you’re only arguing about the definition of a Christian. So while you’re standing on the edge of the No True Scotsman fallacy, you haven’t actually jumped off the edge yet.
Robin Munn (69cc95) — 7/7/2011 @ 3:11 am“We gave back all the land we conquered from Germany and Japan in the defensive war of WWII.”
The US also gave back to the south all that was conquered after they attacked fort sumpter.
stone (39ffdf) — 7/7/2011 @ 5:08 amOy gevalt!
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 7/7/2011 @ 6:31 amNo, it didn’t. All that land became Union land. Ask yourself this: if the Confederate States had won the war, would that land have been made Union land?
Chuck Bartowski (e84e27) — 7/7/2011 @ 6:33 amStone/imdw had to be excited to see his buddy Bret Kimberlin in that prior post. Maybe stone/imdw will post links to Patterico’s house again.
JD (25ebf9) — 7/7/2011 @ 6:39 amMaybe on counterfactual’s world, the statue of Liberty does have a zeppelin docking port, and Walter Bishop is the Secretary of Defense, you reach it by climbing into a big blue box, but in this world, it didn’t. In fact, the expansion westward, led to the secession crisis that Britain and France, tried to exploit, as Amanda Foreman,
ian cormac (d380ce) — 7/7/2011 @ 6:46 amshows in World on Fire,
“No, it didn’t. All that land became Union land. ”
It was union land to begin with. But we let too many white supremacists stay in power.
stone (8c9005) — 7/7/2011 @ 7:30 amThat is a ridiculous thing to say. Once the Confederacy was in rebellion, the land ceased to be Union land. Only after the Union recaptured the land did it stop being part of the CSA.
A statement which has absolutely nothing to do with whether the US gave back any land.
Don’t double down on stupidity: admit your mistake like a gentelman, and move on.
Mark Halperin (4c6c0c) — 7/7/2011 @ 7:37 am“Once the Confederacy was in rebellion, the land ceased to be Union land.”
That’s how I mean that it was Union land to begin with.
“A statement which has absolutely nothing to do with whether the US gave back any land.”
We let them have too much self-rule by too many sympathizers of racist treason — that’s how we gave it back to them.
“Don’t double down on stupidity: admit your mistake like a gentelman, and move on.”
My mistake? It was a mistake by the Union — it took another 100 years to work to destroy the terrorist racist states of the south.
stone (c10981) — 7/7/2011 @ 8:06 amMaybe Zimbabwe should go back to Ian Smith and Rhodesia, eh. Look at West Africa mate, a revolving door of terror states. The insurgents in most countries only want to govern long enough to rape the land and go into exile. With the booty from diamonds, precious stones and natural resources that are marketable, they finance revolution and destabilize the market and the lives of millions. TIA (this is Africa), eh?
The Rhodesian (4de175) — 7/7/2011 @ 8:25 amLeftists like imdw/stone get their rocks off calling people racists.
JD (25ebf9) — 7/7/2011 @ 9:14 amToday: Eighty percent plus of Jews voted for Obama. I believe every single Jewish Senator and Congressperson, including both our California Senators, are liberal Democrats–with the exception of Lieberman.
History: some of the greatest Americans held views that were quite critical of Jews as an organized ethnic group, probably the most extreme being Henry Ford. Thomas Edison wasn’t too fond of them in general either.
“Conservatives” who give tongue-baths to Jews are like… simile fails me … cuckhold husbands? Patsies in the biggest con ever?
I just don’t get it. Yes, Jews suffered greatly in WWII. So did gypsies — by some reckoning they lost more population as a percentage than Jews did. But you don’t see ‘conservatives’ bending over forwards to get shafted by the Roma.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 7/7/2011 @ 9:56 amNor do you see them bending over to get shafted by the Jews. And if you think otherwise, that’s because you are ignorant.
Citing Henry Ford as an authority on Jews is pretty damn amazing.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/7/2011 @ 9:57 amNot citing Ford as an authority, but using him as an example of a smart guy (obviously) who had quite a dim view of Jews as a collective group.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 7/7/2011 @ 10:17 amHere you go, conservatives — a trip down memory lane. ‘Comedienne’ Sandra Bernhardt at ‘Theater J’ Yes, the J is for Jewish, and yes the no doubt predominantly Jewish audience is enjoying the ‘comedy’.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 7/7/2011 @ 10:43 am—–
NSFW NSFW NSFW
—–
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEB1OxjXYFs&feature=related
Comment by stari_momak — 7/7/2011 @ 9:56 am
All Aaron said is this country hasn’t killed Jews, appropriated their property, prevented them from earning a living or practicing their religion, as has happened in many other places. Are you saying that conservatives should be in favor of doing those things?
Gerald A (9d78e8) — 7/7/2011 @ 10:53 amAs did T.S. Eliot, among others, but neither of them, propagated a vile forgery cooked up by the Czarist Okhrana, in it’s darkest days, which Hitler
ian cormac (d380ce) — 7/7/2011 @ 11:00 amused as his touchstone.
You are a liar. You are trying to say Jews as a collective group are inferior and evil. You think Henry Ford is “obviously” worth listening to on this topic, but like all your ‘arguments’ you have nothing but hatred and ignorance.
Don’t be such a coward. Say what you have to say directly, instead of hiding behind the skirt of some dead guy. You certainly act like you know what you want to say is shameful.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/7/2011 @ 11:02 amThank you for the stormfront/Nazi/KKK perspective, stari.
JD (29e1cd) — 7/7/2011 @ 11:34 amEric Cantor (R-VA) is an exception. According to his Wikipedia entry, he is rated 100% by the National Right to Life Committee and has an “A’ rating from the NRA.
aunursa (f1f4c4) — 7/7/2011 @ 11:49 amOK, I’ve been keeping out of this thread, but some things need to be said:
Aaron, everything you wrote is true as far as it goes. Even if Israel were not inhabited by Jews but by Hottentots (and it were situated where the Hottentots come from) it would be in the right, and it would be right and proper for all decent people to support it. If an American Indian tribe had the same history, and founded a state under the same circumstances, all lefties would surely support it. Their opposition to Israel and support for its enemies is ultimately based on antisemitism.
But you go too far when you deny that Jews are special, or that Americans’ support for Jews and Israel is in great measure based on that special status. The fact is that a great deal of the support for Israel among Christian conservatives is based on God’s promise to Avraham that “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you”. Those who want that blessing, and want to avoid that curse, will act accordingly.
God identified Israel as “My first-born son”. He made a treaty with the Jewish nation, and told the prophets repeatedly that that treaty is unbreakable on either side, and will last forever. Therefore anyone who takes the Bible seriously must accept that the Jews are special, and not like any other people, and also that the Land of Israel is not like any other place. “A land after which God inquires; God’s eyes are always on it, from the beginning of the year to the end of the year.”
A review of history will bear out this specialness, both of the people and of the land. In the long run, those who were kind to the Jews have prospered, and those who were not have failed. And it’s to America’s credit that it has been der goldene medinah, “the golden country” for so many Jews. But it can’t substitute for the promised Land; German Jews made the mistake of thinking that “Berlin is our Jerusalem”, and they paid the price. America may be a welcome haven for the Jews, but it can never be our home. Israel is the only homeland a Jew can have, even if he’s never been there, and even if he believes he has no right to return there on his own.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/7/2011 @ 11:58 amOh, and stari_momak is an antisemite; there’s no use in engaging him. He’s scum, he’s cursed by God, and that’s all there is to say about him.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/7/2011 @ 11:59 am“It was a mistake by the Union”
True.
What we should have done after the Civil War was line up a few thousand Democrat traitors and shoot them. It would have saved us endless trouble down the road.
As a matter of fact liquidating thousands of Democrats would be a good policy at any point in American history, though I’d prefer to skip the bloody civil war stuff and just start purging.
Dave Surls (7bf26f) — 7/7/2011 @ 12:05 pmFor example…
“I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States… [W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. And my husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly the verse from Genesis, we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong and beautiful principle.”
aunursa (f1f4c4) — 7/7/2011 @ 12:13 pmMichele Bachmann, Feb. 2010
My apologies:
should have been di goldene medineh; “medineh” is feminine. My Yiddish grammar would appall my Yiddish gramma.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/7/2011 @ 12:28 pmWe baited the South to attack Fort Sumter by breaking a verbal agreement not to reinforce the Fort. Instead what the North did was close some (undefendable) Fort in the interior and moved the men and the arms into the Fort Sumter. SC viewed this as an act of war by the Federal Gov.t and the rest is history … but the North was no saint by a long mile even if the cause to end slavery was noble.
Sponge Bob Square Pants (786e37) — 7/7/2011 @ 12:29 pmin = un
Sponge Bob Square Pants (786e37) — 7/7/2011 @ 12:29 pmA truly Democratic Middle East is the end of days for the “symbiotic” Israeli / US relationship.
Sponge Bob Square Pants (786e37) — 7/7/2011 @ 12:31 pmA truly democratic Middle East would be the end of days for aggression against Israel.
Don’t hold your breath.
aunursa (f1f4c4) — 7/7/2011 @ 12:38 pm#72, definitely not holding my breadth either but I think the hypothesis will prove out over time.
Sponge Bob Square Pants (786e37) — 7/7/2011 @ 12:42 pmFWIW, my opinion on the overall issue raised in the post is this:
The Zionist Jews were complete morons for going to Israel (they should have come here).
We (Americans) were complete morons for getting politically involved with Israel (or Saudi Arabia, or the UK, or France, or China, etc., etc., etc.).
Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag now, so we’ll just have to deal with the consequences or our collective idiocy.
Dave Surls (3db74f) — 7/7/2011 @ 12:50 pm#74 Reminds me of an old racist joke by a hassidic furrier down on 35 th….
Sponge Bob Square Pants (786e37) — 7/7/2011 @ 12:55 pm#75 too racist to tell.
Sponge Bob Square Pants (786e37) — 7/7/2011 @ 1:01 pm#64 Milhouse
Well said, and well argued.
I may not completely agree (yet) but you’ve given me something to think about.
Also:
Groan!
Pious Agnostic (6048a8) — 7/7/2011 @ 2:13 pmComment by Milhouse — 7/7/2011 @ 11:58 am
The Christian theological system known as Dispensationalism which began in the 19th century predicted the rebirth of Israel – something that the leading denominations were not expecting. It’s the source of much of the end-time theology identified with Evangelicals (a lot of which I subscribe to).
Gerald A (9d78e8) — 7/7/2011 @ 2:41 pm1) I stand corrected on Cantor, I forgot about him. And maybe there are 1-2-3 others. But that leaves something like 10-1 Democrat vs. Republican.
2) “Don’t be such a coward. Say what you have to say directly, instead of hiding behind the skirt of some dead guy. ”
I think that Jews in general are a hardworking, intelligent, and highly ethnocentric group. I think that politically active and organized Jews in particular are generally more devoted to their ethnic group than they are to their fellow citizens. I think that many are more devoted to Israel — and its inhabitants — than to America and gentile Americans. That is the message implicit in Milhouse’s statement.
I don’t want persecution, I don’t want expulsion, I don’t want expropriation. All of those things are un-Anglo-Saxon. However, I also believe that non-Jewish conservatives should be realistic and even skeptical about Jews. For example, I don’t think Jonah Goldberg is particularly conservative, nor is David Brooks, and nor is the Jewish populace in general, yet somehow the two Jewish men get to represent ‘conservatism’ in the mainstream media. Why? And why should we listen to them?
Listen to the S Bernhardt clip. Realize she is performing at a Jewish Theater, part of the Washington D.C Jewish Community Center, and no doubt that the audience yucking it up is not doubt very Jewish.
It may be Christian to return love for hate, but you don’t have to be stupid about it.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 7/7/2011 @ 4:01 pm…it is that egalitarian element in the American psyche that leads many of us to support Israel itself.
It is also true that the U.S. is overwhelmingly Christian, and that Christians in this country, explicitly or otherwise, recognize Jews as “our elder brothers in the Faith”…as our Pastor once put to us.
furious (e0071c) — 7/7/2011 @ 9:43 pmFor Milhouse and furious. From the Jerusalem Bible translation, Galatians 3:27-29. “All baptized in Christ, you have all clothed yourself in Christ,and there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Christ Jesus. Merely by belonging to Christ you are the posterity of Abraham, the heirs he was promised”.
mr. archer (4de175) — 7/8/2011 @ 8:31 amAh, replacement theology. God said repeatedly that His treaty with the Jews is eternal and unbreakable. Therefore not even God Himself would have the right to replace them with a new people; and certainly neither Paul nor anybody else could have that authority. Jesus himself distinguished between the sheep and the dogs. Replacement theology is in blatant contradiction to the prophets, and thus cannot be true.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/8/2011 @ 10:33 amOne wonders how many Palestinian Christians, like Hanan Ashrawi or Edward Said, are descendants of the Jews of Christ’s time.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 7/8/2011 @ 11:03 amWhat are the odds that Stari is just one of those Twittergate kooks bent on proving the right is antisemitic and racist?
Does he ever really come across as interested in convincing us?
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/8/2011 @ 11:08 am“One” may wonder anyone “one” likes, but the fact is that it’s extremely unlikely.
BTW, Edward Said wasn’t “Palestinian” but Egyptian; he was born in Jerusalem only because his mother didn’t trust the hospitals in Egypt, and wanted to give birth at a hospital with Jewish doctors.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/8/2011 @ 11:51 amGod said repeatedly that His treaty with the Jews is eternal and unbreakable.
Comment by Milhouse — 7/8/2011 @ 10:33 am
Reminds me of The Devil and Homer Simpson:
FLANDERS (as the Prince of Darkness): I hold here a contract between myself and one Homer Simpson pledging me his soul for a donut — which I delivered! And it was scrump-diddly-umptious! I simply ask for what is mine!
LIONEL HUTZ: That was a right-pretty speech, sir. But I ask you, what is a contract? Webster’s defines it as “an agreement under the law which is unbreakable.” (with emphasis) Which is unbreakable! … (the jury stare at him) Excuse me, I must use the restroom.
aunursa (f1f4c4) — 7/8/2011 @ 12:10 pmBy the way, it makes absolutely no difference whether you agree with the theological position I’ve presented; indeed, insofar as I’ve presented it as a Xian position I disagree with it myself. My point, though, is that a very great many Americans do believe it, and one can’t understand American politics on this subject without recognising this.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/8/2011 @ 1:19 pm“What are the odds that Stari is just one of those Twittergate kooks bent on proving the right is antisemitic and racist?”
No, no, no. I freely acknowledge I am at odds with the neoconnish tenor of this blog and what passes for mainstream conservatism in general.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 7/8/2011 @ 2:53 pm—
According to wiki (well sourced wiki), Said’s father was a Palestinian American of Protestant background. Fought with Pershing. His mother was a Protestant ‘Xian’, born in Nazareth.
Maybe stasi and epwj could count joooooooooos together.
JD (d48c3b) — 7/8/2011 @ 3:00 pm57. Not citing Ford as an authority, but using him as an example of a smart guy (obviously) who had quite a dim view of Jews as a collective group.
Comment by stari_momak — 7/7/2011 @ 10:17 am
— And when it comes to dim views, no one is smarter than our stari.
Icy Texan (07c5b7) — 7/8/2011 @ 3:06 pmWho, other than David Brooks himself, EVER said that David Brooks was conservative?
Icy Texan (07c5b7) — 7/8/2011 @ 3:09 pm“And when it comes to dim views, no one is smarter than our stari.”
I gotta admit I laughed at that.
stari_momak (a9a265) — 7/8/2011 @ 7:37 pmPalestine could kidnap and kill code pink and the left would still insist that not giving them a state is a civil rights violation.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/13/2011 @ 5:33 pmI think the value of your first clause overpowers the negatives involved in the second.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (89e0e7) — 9/13/2011 @ 6:01 pmThanks Islam has been at war with all of us for 1400 years. Israel has a right to defend themselves.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/13/2011 @ 6:05 pm