Opportunity for peace between Isreal and Palestinians now that Arafat kicked off? A chance to show that the US has a balanced approach to Isrealis and Palestinians? ******** that ********! Only hard right-wingers need apply. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5556-2004Nov22.html Bush met for more than an hour on Nov. 11 with Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident now known as a far-right member of the Israeli cabinet. Joined by Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., incoming national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and administration Mideast specialist Elliot Abrams, Bush told Sharansky that he was reading the Israeli's new book, "The Case for Democracy," and wanted to know more. Sharansky, with co-author Ron Dermer, had a separate meeting with Condoleezza Rice, later chosen by Bush to be the next secretary of state.
Oh, how promising! Natan Sharansky belongs to the part of the Israeli right that advocates a three-pronged approach to solving the Middle East conflict: 1) A quick show trial for the liberals whom they blame for the second intifada 2) Fire and sword to the Arabs 3) Then, with some luck, everything will be back to the pre-Clinton days "Yes, yes, Natanchik, tell me more, please! I especially like Prong 1."
Once again the source is a far-left newspaper's op/ed piece giving THEIR opinion of the political position of a foreign government official. Brilliant. Did it ever occur to the Post that conservative Israelis are going to have some say in the eventual peace and therefore their opinions should be heard if for no other reason than to give them some lip-service? The fact that Bush has read Sharansky's book is called "doing your homework" and is one of the reasons that legitimate journalists like Tim Russert are so good. They do their homework, not just do their knee-jerks like the WashPost.
At least one of the "Founding Fathers" is turning in his grave. A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. Such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.” Sage advice from George Washington 1796
stopped reading. right there. had too. tears in eyes. laughing too hard. to type. side hurts. must post. need to. breathe.
Perhaps you should have read what I offered in addition. That would have contributed a bit more to the discussion. However I can wait until you regain your breath.
Anyone who still characterizes the WP as a "far left wing" newspaper hasn't been paying attention since...oh 1974, give or take a few years.
Sorry, still laughing at you from the other thread. Seriously, if you think the Washington Post and New York Times are "far left," you are too unread to even listen to. Now, as far as the rest of your post... that would be fine, and it would indeed constitute the President doing his homework. However, his entire career has been marked by a steadfast refusal to get a wide-range of opinion, hence his surrounding of himself with yes-men, so I suspect it's not part of an extended syllabus designed to expose himself to a diversity of opinion on the middle east, but rather a search for confirmation of his present opinion.
And that is YOUR opinion. You're entitled to it. I assume you have formed it through your own research. The fact you quote/support the Times and Post would indicate a propensity for you to listen to/read sources that support YOUR view and not those of the opposition. Sounds familiar enough.
Yes. That's why in the political books thread I mentioned the likes of Edmund Burke, Matthew Arnold, and Russell Kirk, and why I'm currently reading a book entitled Hayek's Challenge: An Intellectual Biography of F. A. Hayek by Bruce Caldwell. I'm not going to read all of it, as I'm mostly just interested in the chapters on Hayek in Vienna (a fascinating place from the mid-19th through the mid-20th centuries, IMO) and his time at the London School, and I'll definately be reading the chapters on Hayek's relationship to Karl Popper, too. Which is how I developed a perspective (call it "YOUR opinion" if you like, and thank you for entitling me to it) that enables me to see that the NYT and the Washington Post are decidedly NOT far left, by any serious criteria.
Interesting. I don't think the Times are far left. The Times is somewhat liberal, the WaPo considerably less so. But what do I know - I have a subscription to that bastion of pinko commie thought - the Economist.
Thank God I don't have to subscribe to the Economist. I work in a library, and it's on display 20 feet from where I'm sitting. Great articles on outsourcing in the Nov 13th-19th issue, IIRC.
From the article: Granted, I view this from a distance, but what exactly is the problem here? I do support the pull out from Gaza, and finishing the wall. And I support a Palestinian state, with or without negotiations. Unless I am missing something, what exactly is wrong with Sharansky's views? Arafat was no "partner for peace" (he could have been Michael Collins, but instead died a sorry old autocrat). Instead, Israel shoudl simply draw a border and announce they are leaving (and that border should be east of the 1967 border, as punishment). If the Palestinians agree to peace and become democratic, help them. If they refuse and continue to act badly, the Israelis should simply build the wall higher. (In any event, if I were Israeli, I would be a supporter of Lapid and the Shinui Party)
Yeah, its got good stuff every week. By far the best magazine out there, even if I often disagree with its viewpoint (they still think Iraq was a good idea).
Lots of founding fathers are turning in their graves, as Clarence Thomas routinely tells us. I'm not willing to use strict construction and original intent in judicial thought, and I'm no more willing to use them here.
Sharansky, of course, was one of the heroic dissidents in Soviet Russia. He has taken a pretty hard line on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, but one can do that without being ideologically right wing. But in any event, I think Anthony is spot on here. Give lots and lots of $$$ to the Palestinians if they reform, but don't coddle them if they refuse to. Normally, leftists like to criticize the U.S. for supporting autocrats (a criticism I share), but apparently there is an exception to that criticism if the autocrat in question wants to kill Jews.
He continued: "Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collusions of her friendships or enmities."
So basically, George Washington was telling us to stay out of WWI, WWII, and the Cold War? What are his views on Palestinian statehood? Who does he think we should make ambassador to Bavaria and the Hapsburg Empire? I revere Washington greatly, but I also recognize that times change. And for the most part, we should be happy it is 2004 and not 1796.