Read it on KevinWillis.net
Israel is under attack with rockets by a group of terrorists whose avowed agenda is the complete anhilation of the Jewish race and the media is pointing out the vile anti-Semitism of . . . Mel Gibson?
A friend of mine blogs here, at Subtle Oak Flavor; Pleasing Finish. Her August 1st, 2006 post is on Mel Gibson's recent mea culpa for his anti-Jewish comments. Which of course led to comments about the current conflict in the Middle East and, in the comments, Walker notes that she is not as pro-Israel as most conservatives. Which inspired the following comments (expanded for my blog) on being pro-Israel. As I am a conservative, generally vote Republican, and am pretty firmly in the pro-Israel camp.
Though I am pro-Israel, I am not, frankly, pro-putting-Israel-in-the-Middle-East. Of course, Israel was intitially a left-wing experiment in introducing socialism to the Middle East, not the war-mongering, pro-democracy capitalist state they ended up being. But either way, putting the Jewish homeland where they did, no matter what historical claim the Jews had, was probably not the best way to nurture regional peace.
Anyone who has ever watched the process of corporations getting states to bid for the new headquarters or plant, or cities to bid for movies to be made in their town, could see how the Jewish state should have been handled. They should have done a big slide show with all the projected tax revenue that being the location of the Jewish State would bring the parent country (or state--Israel would fit in Texas about three-hundred times over) based on the Jewish People's previous earnings capacity.
On the other hand, other than a general sympathy for humanity (I don't want anybody getting blown up, period), I have no real sympathy for any middle-eastern dictatorships or, these days, even the Islamofascist democracies (although, the long run potential with even a theocratic democracy is much better than a strict totalitarian society).
More to the point, I agree with the sometimes brilliant, sometimes insane and/or willfully ignorant New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, who recently said on NPR that, essentially, Israel is inventing new microchips and curing diseases while the folks trying to wipe them out can't manufacture a light bulb or build a hospital that isn't on top of a rocket launcher or missile silo. I'm paraphrasing, but the innovation and invention that comes from that postage stamp of desert that is Israel is truly remarkable, especially considering that fifty times the people with a hundred times the natural resources around them contribute nothing to humanity but explosions, hate and death.
I could go on. Frankly, I'm neither a military man (and neither are most politicians or media pundits, as Thomas Sowell points out here) or an expert on the middle east, so I don't know if the Israeli strategy regarding the current conflict will work (or, for that matter, if Iraq will turn out well or not). But I think it's obvious that previous diplomacy and cease fires have failed, and, come on, conservative and pro-Israel punditry does have a point when it complains that you can't have a truce or a negotiated settlement with a group whose sole, sworn objective is the obliteration of you and everybody like you. I just hope for the best outcome, in the long run. I expect the only real option is for Israel to keep going, and keep turning on the heat. They've withdrawn, given up land, traded both land and hostages for "peace", and the results have been more attacks and terrorism against Israel. I can certainly see why Israel sees going on offense as their only option.
Then there's the Mel Gibson controversy. I find it interesting that the often Christian-hating (and, let's be fair, Orthodox Jew hating, too) Bill Maher is actually on Israel's side. But then he goes on to say Mel's problem is not alcoholism, but religion, so Mahr still hates religious folks. So I'm comforted.
As far as the media tarring and feathering Mel, and using him as a "wedge" against conservatives--they've already done it, they'd do it anyway, they won't get any mileage out of it because they already drove that car 'til the wheels fell off about ten years ago. Just like Pat Robertson's heretical nonsense is cited by the media (and, in the case of my link, Positive Atheism) as evidence of the intolerance and messianic insanity of all Christians, the attempt to equate Mel to all Catholics, Christians, or Conservatives has zero political or ideological value to them. Although they think it has plenty. Hey, let 'em spin their wheels.
It may help maintain the lefties with the red meat they need to keep their hatin' muscles good and strong, but the implied "you don't want to be like Mel Gibson or Pat Robertson or Ann Coulter so be a lefty" argument is way past it's prime.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment