Comments: I Have Uncovered Possible Hypocrisy On The Part Of The United States!

From what I can gather all the leading candidates hold basically the same view as Netanyahu.

Nevertheless it does seem likely that a Likud Prime Minister wouldn't have as good a relationship with Obama, and therefore might be a weaker force for evil.

In any case that's my rationalization and I'm impervious to counter-arguments. Many of my hopes nowadays consist of imagining how one disaster might mitigate another. (Maybe our economic collapse might help slow global warming and save humanity! Yay!)

Posted by Carl at January 31, 2009 03:34 PM

Maybe the WORST disaster of all could happen to the Israeli v. Palestinian Conflict. U&I STOP PAYING FOR IT.

Posted by Mike Meyer at January 31, 2009 04:11 PM

I think Mike means our creditors paying for it,we're to broke to pay attention.

Posted by par4 at January 31, 2009 05:14 PM

par4: U R correct, OUR creditors deserve some of the "credit" too.

Posted by Mike Meyer at January 31, 2009 05:27 PM

bet that even if they win, the US will still speak to Israel.

Speak - yes, but oral sex is out of the question, until Netanyahu brings some flowers.

Posted by abb1 at January 31, 2009 05:41 PM

That's a good point...really it is China that is funding the whole thing. Phew, what a relief!

Posted by Seth at January 31, 2009 05:54 PM

Since CHINA is so interested in Israel's Defence, I would suggest that "they" park a carrier group offshore in the MED. It would be MUCH MORE cost effective for "them" to shell GAZA and/or West Bank themselves, supplies them Chinamens with jobs, AND "they" get to keep the equipment when Israel is finally "saved". 3 billion a year can buy a lot of Sailors and Marines and a big rowboat to sail in

Posted by Mike Meyer at January 31, 2009 07:21 PM

Seth: Figure it out, Man, China is just raping YOU just like ANY street loan shark does.

Posted by Mike Meyer at January 31, 2009 07:29 PM

Yeah but look what they're getting-US dollars. So who's raping whom?

Really US-China is one entity.

Posted by Seth at January 31, 2009 08:42 PM

A friend once asked me what I felt was the biggest obstacle to peace in the mideast. I told him the US, which surprised him.

I wonder how much of American popular support of Israel is predicated on hearing our politicians close ranks on the issue, and how much of it would wither away if one side said that we were willing to help both sides negotiate when we were convinced both sides were serious about it, and left it at that-- but I'm guessing even that would be impermissible.

Posted by Versen at January 31, 2009 09:15 PM

The important thing for both Israel and the United States is to ensure that their economies are never converted from that of a militaristic economy to that of a civilian economy part and parcel of the military-industrial-scientific-complex. Israel relies on the billions we send it for its survival to prop up its military so it creates the illusion that it is forever on the brink of being destroyed by the Arab world. The United States does the same thing with the war on terror which the Bushies found to be a convenient tool to destroy our basic freedoms like habeas corpus, the spying on civilians, etc. all of which helps keep our economy militarized. The threat of terrorists is I believe greatly exaggerated beyond what terrorists could actually achieve but having a phony war on terror enables the military-industrial-scientific-complex to remain intact. This is our “special relationship” with Israel for Israel is symbolic of the war on terror and as such we certainly shall continue to talk with them no matter what atrocities they commit which echo our own atrocities which we both commit to maintain the status quo.

Posted by Rob Payne at February 1, 2009 02:08 AM

Yep, Rob. But, seriously, what do we have left? We're like Brezhnev's red star...too much military spending, too much military intervention, no gain. So much for hegemony. Out red star is collapsing on us as rapidly as the soviet's did on them. Soon we will no longer be able to sustain ourselves let alone our allies.

Posted by Paul Avery at February 1, 2009 05:02 AM

Boy, am I tired of hearing that stupid, meaningless phrase "Israel's right to exist".

Posted by RobWeaver at February 1, 2009 06:49 AM

Rob-I know! It's almost as bad as hearing about the Palestinians' "right of return."

Posted by Seth at February 1, 2009 09:01 AM

Paul Avery,

You’re right, there isn’t much left at this point yet the feds keep acting like the U.S. hegemony can be maintained forever. Unfortunately there is no real opposition to maintaining empire. I would give it another ten years or so before our red star collapses.

Posted by Rob Payne at February 1, 2009 10:37 AM

"Israel's right to exist" and "the Palestinians right to return" are EXACTLY the same, except that the first isn't even in question and the second doesn't even exist.

But other than that, spot on, Seth.

Posted by SteveB at February 1, 2009 11:22 AM

There is, of course, no problem whatsoever with Israel existing for a thousand years. Zionist ideology, however, needs to be relegated to the trash bin of history. Now.

Posted by abb1 at February 1, 2009 12:04 PM

I know-they are just equally annoying to hear about.

Posted by Seth at February 1, 2009 12:31 PM

I know-they are just equally annoying to hear about.

Damn Palestinians. Why can't they stop annoying Seth with all their dying, and bleeding, and right-of-returning. I mean, this schtick is really getting old. Try to suffer under your injustices in a way that's more novel and amusing.

Posted by SteveB at February 1, 2009 03:43 PM

I also wonder if there's a solution to his annoying-to-hear-about-all-this-stuff problem that Seth hasn't hit on yet.

Posted by SteveB at February 1, 2009 03:47 PM

Lessee - I think "Israel's right to exist" is a meaningless phrase because nation states aren't people and consequently have no rights. And Seth thinks "the Palestinians' right of return" is meaningless because...

I assume when people say "Israel's right to exist" they actually mean something else. It's just a pity they're so coy about what they do mean.

Posted by RobWeaver at February 1, 2009 06:27 PM

Seth, why are you harping on Israel's right to exist when you are also happy (happier, I'd say) to argue that "Territory has always been fought over and won through bitter struggle"? If a country is entitled to seize any territory it wants "through bitter struggle," then a country's "right to exist" is irrelevant, even if there were such a thing. A country, by your logic, has a right to exist only as long as it can fend off those around it who want to take it, but it's always up for grabs.

If the Palestinians got some heavy armament for Christmas, they could wipe Israel off the map and you wouldn't have a viable argument against it, since might makes right on your assumptions. But it looks as though you reserve this "right to exist" for Israel alone, while everyone else exists at the sufferance of potential invaders.

Posted by Duncan at February 2, 2009 10:12 AM

Duncan-I haven't even mentioned Israel's right to exist. Honestly I don't think any state has a right to exist. One exists or one does not exist. I think all individual people have a right not to be killed.

There are no problems in life-only situations.

Posted by Seth at February 2, 2009 01:56 PM

Seth, one thing I have always loved about Teh Intertube is the way that people's own words contradicting their claims about what they've said are still there, often within the same thread. You didn't even mention Israel's right to exist?

Rob-I know! It's almost as bad as hearing about the Palestinians' 'right of return.'

"It" here is, of course, Israel's right to exist. As you just conceded, there's no such thing. There is, however, a Palestinian right to return, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And since countries do not, has you said, have a right to exist, does this mean you're not particularly bothered by Hamas' and other groups and countries' refusal to recognize that right? At the very least, will you join others in jeering when fans of Israel start talking about the moral high ground it occupies, alone and unchallenged in the Middle East?

Posted by Duncan at February 2, 2009 02:37 PM

I'm an aesthete and totally untroubled by my own inconsistency. Nevertheless the right of return is never happening and is pointless to make a stink over...great-great-grandchildren of Palestinian refugees from 1948 are going to "return" to their ancestral olive fields...right on...and Obama is going to provide rainbow cupcakes for everyone's breakfast.

Posted by Seth at February 2, 2009 03:14 PM

'Never', huh. What's the weather is going to be like two weeks from today?

Posted by abb1 at February 2, 2009 04:06 PM

I don't know but it can be roughly predicted-probably on the cooler side in NYC, maybe sunny maybe rainy, chance of snow.

Posted by Seth at February 2, 2009 05:45 PM

No nation state has the "right to exist" on land that they stole from people against whom they have attempted genocide. The ideological discipline that is necessary to continue to misunderstand this would be inspiring were it not so stupid.

Posted by notchomsky at February 4, 2009 07:38 PM

A slight amendment to the post: Netanyahu's statement was made on Thursday, January 1, not, as the post implies, Thursday, January 29. The Haaretz link is dated 1/1, as are a good number of the comments on it at the site, so I assume that date is the correct one.

Posted by LarryE at February 6, 2009 07:00 PM