March 26, 2008

But "he's like an uncle"

Yeah, an incredibly loopy one. Check out Rev. Jeremiah Wright's "Pastor Page" (.pdf file) from his church's June 2007 newsletter. Ali Baghdadi not only offers up a totally revisionist history of Israel and its conflict with its Arab neighbors, but delves into conspiracy theories that make Jeremiah Wright's beliefs about AIDS seem tame in comparison:

I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs. (h/t to The Corner.)

I wonder if Obama's campaign co-chair is also sort of a "crazy uncle" when he blames the influence of American Jews for the lack of a lasting peace in the Middle East?

Posted by Hube at March 26, 2008 10:24 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Hube, while I don't agree with all Rev. Wright has stated, I'm wondering how well you know Israeli history (NOT the biblical version) if you opine McPeak is another "crazy uncle" for his beliefs or opinions. Out of curiosity I read your last link which contained, in part:

"Following the latest revelations, the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) called on Obama to remove McPeak as his military advisor and national campaign co-chairman.

"By choosing to have a military advisor and national campaign co-chairman like General McPeak, serious questions and doubts are once again being raised about Senator Obama's positions and judgment on Middle East issues," said RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks.


"Rather than putting the blame where it belongs - on the Palestinian leadership and their continued reliance on terror, General McPeak finds it more convenient to blame American Jewry and their perceived influence," said Brooks. "This is the same dangerous and disturbing canard being promoted by the likes of Jimmy Carter and authors Mearsheimer and Walt in their book, The Israel Lobby."

Don't you find that telling to some degree? I'd suggest, if you can find a copy, also read "They Dare To Speak Out" by Findley with regards to AIPAC.

We seem to have a major problem in this country in speaking out against Israel...those who do are instantly accused of being Anti-Semitic (when it has absolutely nothing to do with that) and those who might want to give it some thought are wary of doing so. For the same reason. Seems we can't even seperate religion from politics in global affairs when, just as was done with Ireland the 'troubles' were attributed more to religion than politics the 'troubles' between Israel and everyone else in the Mid-East (not only the Palestinians) we find we daren't speak out lest we are lumped with nutty Nazism.

And, just for the record, I have no religious affiliation nor am I an Obama (or Hillary or McCain) advocate.

Posted by: Nancy Cleveland at March 26, 2008 11:04 AM

Nance: I do not agree with the RJC. I think it'd be great for Obama to keep McPeak b/c it'd help sink his chances.

I'm fairly cognizant of Israeli history, Nance. Are you? Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me as to what I'm missing (non-ideological, of course).

The problem with McPeak and others isn't that they criticize Israel. Instantly jumping to the "anti-Semitism card" is as bad as jumping to the race card, I agree. His problem is just what Matt Brooks says -- he believes that the Israel lobby here and abroad is more of a problem to mid-east peace than Palestinian (and other Arab) terror.

Do you believe the same as McPeak, Nancy?

Posted by: Hube at March 26, 2008 11:47 AM

I can't tell you if I believe everything McPeak does on this issue, Hube...all we have are soundbites. What I do believe is that the Israeli lobby, both here and abroad, is no less of a problem than any other terrorism. Israel itself is no stranger there and I don't know that anyone can deny this, in all fairness.

Yes, to answer your question Hube, I am cognizant of Israeli least as far as my interest goes, going back to the Brit occupation of what was then Palestine. Thrown into that mix is some, somewhat personal, history which has never been honestly resolved and continues to aid doubt as to Israel's honesty of purpose.

Posted by: Nancy Cleveland at March 26, 2008 12:11 PM

"the Israeli lobby, both here and abroad, is no less of a problem than any other terrorism"

The Israeli lobby is terrorism? Huh?

Posted by: soccer dad at March 26, 2008 12:19 PM

The Israeli lobby is terrorism? Huh?

You beat me to it, SD.

Nance: Are you SERIOUSLY equating the Israeli lobby here at home to terrorism?? If so, you have a very serious problem.

Posted by: Hube at March 26, 2008 12:24 PM

How so, Hube/Soccer Dad? Care to elucidate? To be honest, my intent was not "the lobby" specifically but Israel itself as frequently employing terroristic activities. However, when the lobby "demands" it generally gets. How long before you think McPeak is dumped? And why, Hube, given the man's quoted professional experiences with Israel, would you dismiss out of hand as a "crazy uncle" what he said?

Posted by: Nancy Cleveland at March 26, 2008 01:08 PM

Thanks for clarifying Nancy. The syntax of your sentence made it seem that you were equating the constitutonally protected activity of lobbying with terrorism.

Now that you've explained what you mean, I understand. Israel, whose hospitals treat Palestinian children is guilty of terrorism. The Palestinian Authority that honors a monster who entered a seminary and murdered eight unarmed students in cold blood is a functioning liberal democracy.

I understand perfectly.

Posted by: soccer dad at March 26, 2008 03:53 PM

Certainly, soccer I assume you might just see the parellels with Israelis opening fire on refuge camps, using bullets to fight rocks and bulldozers to kill protesters. Of course it's not the same thing as bombing hotels, stealing a people's lands, displacing them to shove off in a corner...long before there were such things as suicide bombers, rock throwers and protestors, when the world was more concerned with remorse and guilt at what happened to 6 million scant years before...and more recently decide they want that corner back to build more and more communities to house immigrants...many of them American nationals. I certainly don't dispute the 6 million deaths or the fact that we all need a country to call our own but why treat others, particularly in the intial processes and beyond, what you have hated in others so treating you?

I don't like terrorism in any form, regardless of whom the perpetrators are but I'm not one sided. It comes in many forms from many places and people and Israel is NOT an innocent party to it.

Anyone who would advocate that it is...well, suffice it to say is I, too, "understand" perfectly.

Posted by: Nancy Cleveland at March 26, 2008 04:57 PM

I don't like terrorism in any form, regardless of whom the perpetrators are but I'm not one sided.

Nancy. Your moral equivalence is startling. I know what you're referring to in your "bombing hotels" bit; I wonder -- do Arab terrorists give warning when they're about to set off a blast? (No, I'm not excusing the act, but there is quite a difference.)

And who stole whose land? The Palestine partition was a UN act, not an Israeli one. There was a Palestine all set up. They didn't want it. They wanted ALL the land, including the land set aside for Israel. Don't delude yourself into thinking there were no Jews living in that territory, now. And after the 1948 War, why did Egypt and Jordan acquire the land set aside for the Palestinians? Can you answer that, Nancy? Why do you assign blame to the Jews for this?

It is indeed PATHETIC how you dare to equate a small nation's occasional isolated acts of violence when constantly dealing with terrorism of its neighbors backed by the philosophy that Israel has to be "wiped off the map."

Again, your moral equivalence is repugnant.

Posted by: Hube at March 26, 2008 07:19 PM

Violence is violence, terrorism is terrorism, would seem your moral equivalence is akin to "being a little bit pregnant". Or, as we war wont to here so often these days with an election coming up, "lesser of two evils". Occasional acts of violence? More than just violence but, even were I to acquiesce being that rather than terrorism, where and how is it okay for them to be so without question or criticism?

You may find my morality repugnant..I find your questionable, perhaps even hypocritical but, in any case, we agree to disagree. Interesting discussion...thank you.

Posted by: Nancy Cleveland at March 26, 2008 07:31 PM

You wind up being funny and sounding too serious all at the exact same time, I can not tension that significance in writing and enhancing ones personal web space.

Posted by: BioBasics at April 20, 2011 01:48 AM