Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post questions or suggestions here.
Locked
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Alex Jacob »

"But he still talks and acts like one."

It's great, isn't it? I'm celebrating along with you, Diebert. America has, and I hope will continue to have, a strong and long-lasting relationship with Israel. In a certain sense, from the popular perspective, it is 'the will of the people'. In life, it seems, you 'cast your fate' with various winds or trends. America has, from Israel's inception, given it support to Israel. I don't see it changing, frankly. As to the reasons why Emanuel dropped the dual citizenship, it seems likely it was so to be able to pursue politics, doesn't it?

So, we've got a Mutt President and a Heeb-Zionist Chief of Staff, my head spins wondering what'll come next.

Is it really such a bad thing that---by all appearances---the US has assigned itself the role of architect of the world order-of-things and that, from the look of it, Jews and Israel have a role in it? I mean let's be frank: this is the dark paranoid vision of the conspirationists, isn't it? That an order is being designed and implemented? The demonological idea is that the Jews, as evil envoys of Satan, have insinuated themselves, for evil purposes, for purposes of world-dominion.

But the fact is that this project is Judeo-Christian, and really far more Christian, far more universal. Did you think you wouln't find Jews---those hard working worker-ants of civilization---toiling in the direction of the Terrestrial Jerusalem?

It is nothing less than the natural and expected outcome of a grand Biblical vision of things that a certain order take shape in the world, and that it be designed: intuitively to start and then quite rationally later. Would you rather have the Chinese do it? Or the Russians? Or the Mexicans?

Go out today and thank a Jew, Diebert! Or better yet, invite one home for dinner.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Alex Jacob wrote: Go out today and thank a Jew, Diebert! Or better yet, invite one home for dinner.
No need, we're obviously all Jews now. We're all in the Great Conspiracy together! If only the Zionists would see it too, they could end their make-believe project in Palestine. And those dabbling with literal Judaism could become atheists!
As to the reasons why Emanuel dropped the dual citizenship, it seems likely it was so to be able to pursue politics, doesn't it?
It doesn't seem to be a requirement at all in the United States! There appears to be some screening when there's a security clearance involved but the dual citizenship itself is not a show stopper.

Also, being a Jew would give automatic citizenship of Israel, when so desired, so there's nothing to ' give up' really, apart from an active participation in the military or policy making organizations.

In my view Israel and the United States have quite a few diametrically opposing interests on the geopolitical stage. Therefore the amount of Jews and dual-citizenship Israelis involved at the core of the US government should be a matter of concern for people interested in worldly affairs.
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

SCOTUS Souter tells Obama to produce birth certificate

Post by Tomas »

.


SCOTUS Souter tells Obama to produce birth certificate December 1, 2008

-snip-

This is interesting. Souter tells Obama to produce the vault copy. I believe the messiah will defy the Justices.

-Click URL for complete article-

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... ter-t.html

.
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Alex Jacob »

"No need, we're obviously all Jews now. We're all in the Great Conspiracy together! If only the Zionists would see it too, they could end their make-believe project in Palestine. And those dabbling with literal Judaism could become atheists!"

It is actually a very significant event that Christians support and defend Jews, Zionists and Israel. It seems mean-spirited that you'd wish to end such a beautiful segment of the long historical drama. I think it has to go much, much farther though, as an acceptance of Jews and Israel is still so provisional, so potentially fleeting. There is always an undercurrent that rises to the surface and shows its face that would set back all that healthy progress. In some way it is like a weird psychological drama, a sort of living process-therapy. If you can get people to accept the Jews, and now to accept Israel, and to work nicely and sincerely (not so easy for Gentiles vis-a-vis Jews) it seems to me that all the desirable processes of the World move forward, and the Kingdom is constructed, step by step.

But when there occurs that frightful upsurge in the Gentile soul of what always seems to lie so close to the surface, ready to erupt in all its Pagan Fury, lo the hands of the clock of history are bend backward, and chaos storms the land, laying waste to all the good things that have been so painfully constructed, leaving death and destruction and jackdaws cackling against a backdrop of leaden clouds.

Obama teaches us that the road to a bright future lies before us, if we will only cooperate with each other, and sing redemption songs as we make our steady way along the earthly path to that Kingdom that is surely there, spread all over the Earth, if we'd only cooperate with our Kindergarten teachers, avoid bad association, tattoos and labial piercings, and keep reading the Bible and holding tightly to the Mission that has been bequeathed to us.

"In my view Israel and the United States have quite a few diametrically opposing interests on the geopolitical stage."

Sure, but you have an admittedly narrow point of view from which you observe. Here, come closer and peer with me through a chink in our shared prison wall:

When Heaven glimmers before me and all the Field of Life seems to glow with Tinkerbell lights, and the Effervescent Bubblings rise in my soul; I hear the voices of celebration of the myriad of child-spirits who hearken to me from outside of Time, and I turn back to a Surrealistic Poster of Obama and say: Instruct me for Thou Knowest. Be a Lamp Unto My Feet. Thy Will Be Done, Thy Kingdom Come. And then I know that not everything should be measured in terms of mere terrestrial interests.

Do you hear the Angels singing, Diebert?
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Cheney Refuses to Leave

Post by Tomas »

.


Cheney Refuses to Leave (see photo)

-snip-

Vice President-Elect Joe Biden said that the new administration expected to be tested early on, but the Cheney decision came as a surprise to all. (see photo)

-Click URL for complete article-

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm? ... e=s2i43316

.
Don't run to your death
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Iolaus »

Oh, really, Alex? What about this:

"The Arabs of the Land of Israel have only one function left to them - to run away."

David Ben-Gurion, October, 1948
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Alex Jacob wrote:It is actually a very significant event that Christians support and defend Jews, Zionists and Israel.
Of course, they all represent the same psychosis, shaped through all kinds of different cultural layers. The natural bonding comes as no surprise; a marriage made in heaven! Their real roots do not trace back historically, but psychologically, and always have been so.
It seems mean-spirited that you'd wish to end such a beautiful segment of the long historical drama. I think it has to go much, much farther though, as an acceptance of Jews and Israel is still so provisional, so potentially fleeting.
And it will go further, to the point the contradiction and psychosis involved becomes so obviously clear that even less sane individuals start to back off from it. It will probably end like 'Monty Python and the The Holy Grail' - everyone will be carried off in straight- jackets.
In some way it is like a weird psychological drama, a sort of living process-therapy. If you can get people to accept the Jews, and now to accept Israel, and to work nicely and sincerely (not so easy for Gentiles vis-a-vis Jews) it seems to me that all the desirable processes of the World move forward, and the Kingdom is constructed, step by step.
Mainstreams Jewry, Israel and Christianity, and all that came crawling out of them - all have been defined by a war against reality, that is: reality on the ground. In that sense it's a weird psychological drama but on a scale larger and more terrifying than you seem to be willing to entertain.

The continuing fear for extermination, or the 'falling towers', can be traced back not to historical events, which are mainly markers, but to the dynamic of the everlasting return of 'the real', which manifests only as the destruction of the 'unreal' - as 'reality' has no shape or form in itself. The greater the unreal, or attachment to it, the greater the fear and deluded behavior that radiates out of this.
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Alex Jacob »

Anna, I stick to and defend the basic argument that Israel is a Jewish possession. That it was then and it is now. The argument, though it is weak at certain junctures, holds that though greater forces have acted on Israel, and contributed to dissolution/dispersion (despite the argument that negates a Roman forced dispersion and frames it as a choice made by Jews), I choose to see Jews as continual inhabitants of the land, and that they have an essential and inalienable right to it. I know that there are counter-arguments, and whole counter-narratives which are designed to defeat that view-understanding-insistence. But that is the belief I hold to, and with some notable exceptions it is the belief of modern Jewry. Additionally, there are perhaps hundreds of millions of Christians who rally to the defense of Israel and the structure of view that upholds it. It does indeed fit into a structure of view with labyrinthine aspects, and even into a sort of spiritual metaphysics, which is of course difficult and convoluted territory. There are all sorts of strange somersaults performed to bolster these metaphysical views, but the core one (for me) is that of historical will, which from the look of it is a peculiarly Jewish possession or trait. Jews possessed Israel and forces act to push them out of Israel, but they held to the idea of its possession and never waivered, and through a long, long arc of strange history, willed a return to that land. I don't think there is anything comparable in any other record of human history, and again, it is a unique, Jewish attainment. It will never be relinquished.

After that, what else does one say?
Ni ange, ni bête
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Leyla Shen »

Jews possessed Israel and forces act to push them out of Israel, but they held to the idea of its possession and never waivered, and through a long, long arc of strange history, willed a return to that land. I don't think there is anything comparable in any other record of human history, and again, it is a unique, Jewish attainment. It will never be relinquished.
Except there's no link between those that have "returned" to that land and the one's exiled from it more direct than the link between the exiled and the ones the "returned" are pushing out of it, you stupid fucking Jew!
Between Suicides
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Alex Jacob »

Speak of psychosis and look who pops in!

Leyla, the unfuckable Turkish thorn-patch.

Yes, Diebert presented this argument in the fellow who was interviewed by Ha'aretz. And, like our prolific Leyla his core preparation seems to be a strain of Marxian materialism. But it is not, exclusively, mere bodies that determine who is and who is not a Jew, it is ideas. We have already been through all this Leyla! There is no doubt in my mind that there are problems and inconsistencies in these Jewish ideas about 'being Jewish'. In the end, though, we decide, not you. It starts and it ends there. The arguments you would concoct are only for yourselves, they have nothing to do with us. It's not as though you are going to create converts among us with ideas whose sole purpose is to undermine our platform. You see this, don't you?
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Shahrazad »

So, Jews decide who is Jewish, and who gets access to the land they think is theirs by birthright, and the rest of us have to abide by their decision? Yup, that's reasonable.

I'm going to define a Guevarista as one who is an ideological fan of Che Guevara. I claim the lands of North America belong to Guevaristas, and this right is unalienable. Whoever lives in these lands and is not a Guevarista, needs to leave or risk being bombed.
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Alex Jacob »

Is your sovereignty (that of Panama) up for world referendum, Shah? The answer is 'no', obviously. If you were at all current, or even interested in---and you clearly are not---ideas about race and identity, you'd know that the question of identity, the right to define identity, is in the hands of a given people, not outsiders, and certainly not their enemies. You just celebrated your own fucking sovereignty, which was acutely wound up in a struggle for self-definition, and you can't make this connection? Do you have any intellectual life at all, Shah? Do you do any sort of thinking?

Even when your sitting on the poceta?

;-)

Also, if you knew anything about Judaism or Christianity---and you do not, it is of no interest or relevance to you---you would know that the issue of Jewish identity hinges into distinguishing beliefs, the acceptance of certain norms. etc. It has a long, historical precedence. It is unusual and certainly odd from other possible perspectives, but that is the way it is. And that is the origin of Jewish identity, and it is certainly not up for referendum by you or anyone else. You in fact do not even have basic preparation to be able to discuss it, Shah.

Your analogy of Guevara is simply stupid. You'd do better to think a little before you blurt out nonsense. In relation to Latin America the notion that Latinos have a right---based in their nationalism---to resist false definitions put on them by outsiders, and to define themselves as they see fit, is far more in agreement with the ideals of Guevara, and it is likely for that reason that the ideals persist. And not only do they persist but they make sense, because they extend from a sort of 'naturalism'. The Guevaran ideal is an extension of the Martian (Jose Marti) idealism, and is certainly a real, valid and discussable thing, you nut. Have you ever read either of these people? Do you have any fucking idea at all how this idealism fanned the nationalistic fires of your own Torrijos? You don't do 'recreational drugs', according to you, but you sure seem doped-up, Shah...

In your argument you turn Guevarism into something as arbitrary as liking a certain color or a certain soccer team.

Do you even have the vaguest idea of the actual history of Judea, and more specifically the way that it was reclaimed or reconquered? You don't, Shah, you're just a little bored with the 3 day weekend and there's nothing on TeeVee...

Haz clic aqui para la version calientisima!

;-)
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Shahrazad »

I really struck a nerve, didn't I? You really have a lot of your emotions tight up in your idea that "Jews have an inalienable right to Israel", don't you? Spare me the drama. I'm not impressed.
You just celebrated your own fucking sovereignty, which was acutely wound up in a struggle for self-definition, and you can't make this connection?
When, and after, we got our sovereignty back, we did not use a stupid ideological, cultural or racist definition to determine who the real Panamanians were. The thousands of Chinese that were born here have just as much a right to be here as anyone else, even if they cannot speak our language. And we did not have a silly rule about "Panamanians" who were born abroad, and whose parents, grandparents, great-great-grandparents, up to who knows how many generations, have a right to come and take the land away from those of us who are already here. So your comparison is either stupid or ignorant, or both.
Do you have any intellectual life at all, Shah? Do you do any sort of thinking?
Ad hominem fallacy. Is that the best you can do?
Even when your sitting on the poceta?
I have never heard that word in my life. I looked it up in my dictionary and did not find a match.
You in fact do not even have basic preparation to be able to discuss it, Shah.
This is crap. You made a statement about who determines what a Jew is, and that because Jews claim Israel is their land, the rest of the world has to go along with it. Even if I was from another planet and knew nothing about Jews, I could still point out that the idea you expressed is flawed and ridiculous. Claiming you know more about Jews than I do is not going to help your irrational argument seem rational.
Your analogy of Guevara is simply stupid.
It is a good one. The only reason my claim is not as "good" as yours is because Guevaristas do not have nukes to back them up and terrorize others, and they are not backed up by the mighty empire of the north, led by George Bush, and soon by Obama. If we had that, we'd make the rules for everyone else.

I'll be generous and give you another chance to argue why my analogy of self-proclaimed Guevaristas claiming a right to land they have never seen is "simply stupid". It does seem that the one who is simply stupid is you.
Do you have any fucking idea at all how this idealism fanned the nationalistic fires of your own Torrijos?
You in fact do not even have basic preparation to be able to discuss Torrijos, Alex Jacob. Or are you now going to claim to know more about him than I do?
You don't do 'recreational drugs', according to you, but you sure seem doped-up, Shah..
Because I disagree with you? Irrational asshole.
You don't, Shah, you're just a little bored with the 3 day weekend and there's nothing on TeeVee...
I'm certainly not bored now that I really got you into aggressive mode. And it wasn't even planned.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

To Shahrazad, Alex Jacob wrote: Do you even have the vaguest idea of the actual history of Judea, and more specifically the way that it was reclaimed or reconquered?
That's the thing Alex, there are only vague ideas, that's the problem, and with you it's no different. In your case I even doubt how far it goes as the self-proclaimed ancestors try to reclaim Israel, not only Judea as you implied above.
Steven Coyle

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Steven Coyle »

Who fucking cares!
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Tomas »

Steven Coyle wrote:Who fucking cares!
Steve,

It's one of the disappointing areas about this same clatch of crows.

It always returns to Jews, Arabs (the semites) and who gets to stomp on anothers face :-)

These idiots can never start a thread and hash it out .. there.

Theirs in an "urbane" Ivy League educated-folk (semi-literate peasants,)and know what's best for the rest of us simple-living (commoner-peasants).

More infighting amongst the winners. The neo-cons win by keeping the winners (Obama's pals) at each others thoats.

Can't we all just get along? ~ Rod King



.
Last edited by Tomas on Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Hey you two, get a room and fucking care for each other, and proper topics and correct places to post something. Jeez! Just when I think it were the Jews who were more confused than anyone else! My whole theory destroyed by two out-of-place remarks... You win Alex!
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

The Black (colored) Crows

Post by Tomas »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Hey you two, get a room and fucking care for each other, and proper topics and correct places to post something. Jeez! Just when I think it were the Jews who were more confused than anyone else! My whole theory destroyed by two out-of-place remarks... You win Alex!
Lemme count the (caw-caw) crows:
1. Anna
2. Shah
3. Leyla
4. Diebert
5. Alex (by default)


Methinks Alex has been the sanest of you all!

He has the best combacks, his argument comes across as clear...

Really!


.
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Alex Jacob »

Your-plural problem with Jews or Israel has a root in your-plural pathology, and you-plural are the only ones who can deal with it. Basically, my grasp of the situation is expressed and summed-up here. Y'all have a whole slurry of reasons for your fear and hatred of Jews and/or Israel, and because this is your own trip, your own troubled psychology, no Jew or Jewish or Israeli well-wisher can do this work for you. I know that the directing, underpinning to all that you-plural say stems from an irrational hatred that I doubt you are aware of or even understand, and as a pack will look for someone you can lay your teeth into to unveil your 'arguments'. But, we all know there is no sense to this, don't we? You've seen it all unfold here month after month, year after year? Isn't it a smarter choice just to note the controversy? I doubt that many of you---at least as a public comment---would ever simply say 'I am an anti-Semite, I simply hate the fucking Jews and wish them only the worst'. Yet, because you are 'intelligent' people, you certainly know that such sentiments exist, don't you? Can you find the places where your own 'analysis' combined with this sham righteous indignation dovetails into the standard and predictable anti-Semitism? That would be the first step toward honestly, and it is much easier to deal with an honest anti-Semite and Jew hater than it is to deal with the hidden, subterranean version, that is a bit like a sort of serpent---it slithers up out of its hole and just as readily slithers back into it.

The advantage for me, at this point, is I know exactly what I am up against. It is wise and also 'liberating' to know how the opposition is informed. If I show 'anger' it is a kind of sham anger, especially concocted for you, my darlings, my geniuses.

But the other part---and this we were actually discussing---is the role that Jews, and by extension Israel, play in the designing and implementation of a certain structural unity. The old canard of Jewish complicity in a Jewish-dominated world system is simply too transparent, in and of itself. But I do actually feel that Jews, and by extension Israel, has a useful, productive and positive role in the world-system that is emerging, and it is nothing at all to disguise or be ashamed of.
____________________________________

Tomas writes:

"He (Alex) has the best combacks, his argument comes across as clear...Really!"

(*snif*) You really think so? Well, I'll work on your coalition is you'll work on mine. And I promise you that NO UNMARKED WHITE VAN with men who look like gay nurses will stop at your house over the next 4 years. Honest!
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Alex Jacob »

'Poceta' is Venezuelan for 'escusado', toilet.

As to the rest, my sleepy Panamanian, take up shadow-boxing with yourself, it may make you a little intellectually stronger.

"When, and after, we got our sovereignty back, we did not use a stupid ideological, cultural or racist definition to determine who the real Panamanians were."

As an interesting aside, the 'sovereignty' you had was the fruit of a deal made with the US, and was a selling of yourself, the availing of yourself for a world-project then on the drawing board. This was not a sovereign movement and did not spring from any native ideal of sovereignty. It had to do with running with or sailing with a movement you as a nation would have been powerless to stop (the imperial decision to build a canal through Panama). Your 'sovereignty' is a vastly problematic one and has not, in truth, been adequately defined. It was the taking-over of a piece of technology you had little to do with designing, and the immediate gaining of tremendous advantages as a result. That is the sovereignty of a chump, if you will permit me to say so.

What I say here is the sort of 'Machiavellian truth', and is more a stating things as they are, not as they wish to be seen, presented or framed. (But don't get confused, I am completely en pro of Panama's sovereignty, and I also think it needs to extend much, much farther. The road to real sovereignty is, though, beyond your ability to articulate, dormilona).
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Shahrazad »

Alex,
As an interesting aside, the 'sovereignty' you had was the fruit of a deal made with the US, and was a selling of yourself, the availing of yourself for a world-project then on the drawing board. This was not a sovereign movement and did not spring from any native ideal of sovereignty. It had to do with running with or sailing with a movement you as a nation would have been powerless to stop (the imperial decision to build a canal through Panama). Your 'sovereignty' is a vastly problematic one and has not, in truth, been adequately defined. It was the taking-over of a piece of technology you had little to do with designing, and the immediate gaining of tremendous advantages as a result. That is the sovereignty of a chump, if you will permit me to say so.
Here’s how Panama negotiated its sovereignty:

http://www.americanpolicy.org/more/whypanamacanal.htm
That, however, created a new crisis. Panama dictator, Omar Torrijos refused to sign the Treaty if it contained the "DeConcini Reservation." So again, Carter suggested that Torrijos write language that would satisfy him. Again, in the strongest language possible, the Panamanian strongman wrote three paragraphs that effectively cancelled the "DeConcini Reservation."
Here is what the good General wrote, in his infinite wisdom:
The Republic of Panama agrees to the exchange of the instruments of ratification of the aforementioned Neutrality Treaty on the understanding that there are positive rules of public international law contained in multilateral treaties to which both the Republic of Panama and the United States of America are Parties and which consequently both States are bound to implement in good faith, such as Article 1, paragraph 2 and Article 2, paragraph 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, and Articles 18 and 20 of the Charter of the Organization of American States.

It is also the understanding of the Republic of Panama that the actions which either Party may take in exercise of its rights and the fulfillment of its duties in accordance with the aforesaid Neutrality Treaty, including measures to reopen the Canal or to restore its normal operation, if it should be interrupted or obstructed, will be effected in a manner consistent with the principles of mutual respect and cooperation on which the new relationship established by that Treaty is based.

The Republic of Panama declares that its political independence, territorial integrity, and self-determination are guaranteed by the unshakeable will of the Panamanian people. Therefore, the Republic of Panama will reject, in unity and with decisiveness and firmness, any attempt by any country to intervene in its internal or external affairs. (Emphasis added)
Does that sound to you like a country who sells its sovereignty?
That is the sovereignty of a chump, if you will permit me to say so.
No, I will not permit you to say so. Many lives were sacrificed for what we have now.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Iolaus »

Alex,

I am severely disapopinted in you. On another recent thread, you talked all high minded about ethics. Is it ethics or might makes right? Your arguments, admittedly emotional, about the Jewish right to Israel does strike something of a cord, and I agree that there is that unique quality of the Jews, whether it is a good or defensible thing is something else again.

Yet if it is so that Jews have a right to Israel, then they must have possessed it ethically. Evicting 800,000 people in 1948, with the callous remark that all they are fit for is to get the hell out - are you proud of that?

Then please cease the horseshit about ethics.

Furthermore, you are convinced that everyone who dislikes what Israel is doing has these ancient medieval unconscious aversions to Jews. Nice try, but what if they actually simply disagree with evicting 800,000 people who, while not Jews, have lived there many centuries? Is that actually not possible? We could at least say that these two people both have a real claim on the land, and how are we to fairly reconcile it? But no, instead it has been strongarm tactics, with the Jews as terrorists these past decades, undoing all their claim to a moral debt on the part of humanity.

And how can you explain the Jewish opposition to the Israeli policies, some from the religious, but not all? I guess they must be self-hating Jews. But just suppose that what the Jews are doing is wrong - then what are your choices to deal with that? If you will not admit that it is wrong, then it must be justified, no? That is what humans do, they justify their bad actions. So if you did happen to be wrong, Alex, then you would need to justify it, and it looks to me like that might be what you are doing.

And the whole world lives in fear and danger because of this. I worry that this will, eventually, result in a new wave of antisemitism, and won't it be deserved?

A good tree does not bear evil fruit.
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Alex Jacob »

Anna writes:

"I am severely disappointed in you."

I don't write here, and I don't exist intellectually, to seek anyone's approval. The goal of thinking, of even coming into association with ideas, is to make one's own choices after examining ideas, after allowing ideas to work on you. No one here, and not you, as much as I may respect and like you, stands as a judge over my ethical assessments, and I find it arrogant that you would even include this sort of wording. Are you my ethical preceptor?

"...and I agree that there is that unique quality of the Jews, whether it is a good or defensible thing is something else again."

Could you ever imagine such a statement being formulated in regard to any other people? Do you have an idea how this fits into the old discussions of 'the Jewish question'? Something that you must ponder and decide? I suggest to you, Anna, that you examine some of your own core assumptions, that you look into the fabric of what is informing your notions about Jews. Just in the spirit of comparing notes, I come across these sorts of attitudes and expressions all the time in my travels ('up and down the face of the Earth'). People who share some intimate idea about 'the Jews' and who only reveal their deep-seated prejudices and a whole slew of demands that are made of them, but not on their own selves or their own polity.

"Yet if it is so that Jews have a right to Israel, then they must have possessed it ethically. Evicting 800,000 people in 1948, with the callous remark that all they are fit for is to get the hell out - are you proud of that?"

You---and this is a current theme and is not your own formulation---set up the 'argument' so that you win it from the outset. This is a ridiculous rhetorical question. The issue is much more complex than this, and I refer you again to the page of condensed points that refer to different views of history. Again, you set yourself up as judge and with this high-sounding tone present me with a little ethical test. It is like something out of the Merchant of Venice, isn't it?

"Then please cease the horseshit about ethics."

This is a very arrogant statement. An ethics has to take place on a real platform, not in an ideal or abstracted zone. To enter into and try to decide very complex ethical problems is anything but easy, and so in a modern age, with power struggles that take place on the ground (meaning, in reality) the practice of ethics is made infinitely more difficult. All polities are structures that deal with, struggle with or against, certain aspects of their own being, and Israel is no different in that sense.

"Furthermore, you are convinced that everyone who dislikes what Israel is doing has these ancient medieval unconscious aversions to Jews. Nice try, but what if they actually simply disagree with evicting 800,000 people who, while not Jews, have lived there many centuries? Is that actually not possible? We could at least say that these two people both have a real claim on the land, and how are we to fairly reconcile it? But no, instead it has been strong arm tactics, with the Jews as terrorists these past decades, undoing all their claim to a moral debt on the part of humanity."

Criticism of Israel has to be very carefully disentangled from a prevalent and very basic anti-Semitism, but there is nothing at all wrong with criticism of Israeli policies in se. But it has to take place in a context that is precisely equal to all other sorts of conversations about other, existing polities.

I don't think I would have said that anti-Semitism attitudes and notions are the order of the day when people discuss Jews and Israel, say, 8 years ago, before I started conversing with people on Internet forums. Today, I am more than ever convinced that the ideas about Jews and Israel that motivate many people arise from a basic, a visceral, and also an unconscious hatred of Jews. The worst thing ever, from the perspective of those who have this 'view', is simply that Jews exist. You can find this thesis developed by people like Dennis Praeger and Joseph Telushkin in their book Why the Jews? The Reasons for Anti-Semitism. You, to me, are a peculiar case because of your own Jewish background, and I have always felt inclined to try and point out ways that you might expand your own understanding of Jewish issues and problems. I think we even came to a juncture like this at another time, and I really can't say anything more to convince you of this need. Criticisms of Israeli policy are completely valid, except when they hinge into the right of Israel to exist! All the 'arguments' of those who write here on this theme trace back to this core question: Do these people even exist? Do they have a RIGHT to exist? As if you are going to decide this in some sort of Kangaroo Court! And then, in a more scholarly way, you can bring in such questions as 'Well, I agree that Jews are a unique people, with a unique destiny, but whether (tut, tut) that is a good or defensible thing, well, that's another question'.

So, again, when I come face-to-face with these sort of formulations, I simply say: Your anti-Semitism is your own issue, your own pathology, and is for you to confront, or not, as you see fit. At this point, and especially on this forum, I present information and a recommendation dispassionately but with no illusions that you or anyone else will heed my recommendation. I kind of feel like an inferior version of Victor: I am not really very good at it but I will make a showing here, just because I feel I must.

"And how can you explain the Jewish opposition to the Israeli policies, some from the religious, but not all?"

The breadth of conversation, the depth of consideration, the grasp and the understanding of Jewish issues and Israeli problems, in just one issue of Ha'aretz puts to shame what you-plural consider is an open, thoughtful ('ethical'!) conversation on the theme, and reveals, to me at least, that a majority of Jews and Israelis understand the core issues and problems of Israeli society to a far greater degree than any of you likely ever will.

But you see, this present 'conversation' has nothing to do with truth or reality as it pertains to Jews or Israel (does anyone here think that it does? I mean really!) This conversation about Jews, here, serves a whole other purpose. You do know that, right Anna?

Did you actually look over the web-page I included in my post a few posts back?
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

Post by Shahrazad »

I know more about history of Panama than you know history of your own country, whatever that is. Not only did I study what has been written, but I lived a whole era, from the ringside. I was there as it all unfolded. Your opinions about what I know and do not know are not worth the bandwidth that is spent to express them. Did you honestly think they had the power to hurt me? You think I come here in search of your approval? Why would I care?

And if your purpose here is to impress anyone by claiming to be an intellectual, and to know more about Panama than a ringside Panamanian, and whatever other arrogant claims you make, I don't think it's working on many, though it probably works on Laird who will believe anything. I and a few others see you for what you are, which is a dishonest piece of shit who has nothing better to do than play dramatic roles on the internet.

Have fun with your GF roles, present and future. I prefer to keep my role-playing in the theater.

Edit to add: For anyone reading this post who may not understand what I was responding to, there was a condescending post Alex addressed to me, which seems to have "disappeared" before I posted this reply.
Locked