Comments on: Podhoretz’s Extremist Vision of a Jewish ‘Judea and Samaria.’ Who Shares These Views?

By: liberal white boy

liberal white boy — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

"What is the thinking of Podhoretz's son-in-law Elliott Abrams, the president's top adviser on Middle East stuff?"

"According to congressional records, under Abram's watch, the Contras "raped, tortured, and killed unarmed civilians, including children," and that "groups of civilians, including women and children, were burned, dismembered, blinded and beheaded."" Wow what a guy. These are the kind of family values us good Christians look for in our management of national affairs. What would our Neo-cons do without presidential pardons from guys named Bush?

What was it you trying to figure out about this savage's thinking Mr. Weiss?

Why Won't Hugo Chavez Let Us Assassinate Him?
http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2007/02/why-wont-hugo-chavez-let-us-assassinate.html

Count Aipacula and the Axis of Weasels

http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2007/02/count-aipacula-and-axis-of-weasels.html

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

"Podhoretz refers to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria, religious language that is not helpful to anyone."

-- phil, I hate to be the one to tell you, but yehuda ve shomron is normal radio speak.

By: Charles Keating

Charles Keating — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Exactly, and that's a big problem. What do you think was the point Phil was making?

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

I think the point Phil was making was that Podhoretz using these terms was in his eyes somehow eccentric, and it isn't.

By: jim byers

jim byers — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

I don't understand why a one state solution is not desirable. Isreal has dug itself into a mighty chasm, not just a hole. Maybe they should start with sending the settlers back to Brooklyn. Israel for Jews will have to lose eventually.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

I just saw an extended interview with Podhoretz on Youtube, from the University of California.

Contrary to the convention of understanding here, Podhoretz' neo-conservatism IS his assertion of patriotism, of primary loyalty, his rejection of essentially critical identity towards the US.

I don't believe that Phil is characterizing Podhoretz accurately in general.

I disagree with much of his assumption and conclusion. (In the same interview, Podhoretz claimed that one of his big shifts - from radical to neo-conservative, was his necessity of examining the assumptions that made up his radicalism AND what constituted radicalism publicly.

He specified one turning event was the Free Speech movement in Berkeley in 64-5, which he characterized as an effort to shout down free speech, more than an exercise of free speech.

That rings quite true to me. I wasn't there, but I do socialize mostly with those on the left, and publicly present some ideas that conflict with correctness of the left.

Shouting down and calling it "free speech".

Its possible to disagree with assumptions and conclusions without heading an article "Podhoretz Extremist views.. "

Ethics is comprised of noting behavior (not conclusions) that one is repulsed by and not practising those behaviors.

As there are ethics for states (though many rationalize that as irrelevant to the role of a state), there are also ethics in the practise of journalism (though many rationalize that as irrelevant, in the name of free speech usually).

By: American

American — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

"Now by the astonishing Henry Siegman in the London Review of Books (thank you, Jim Haygood), who argues, based on three Israelis' books, that the peace process has simply been a cover for relentless expansion by the Jewish state."

It takes three Israelis' books to argue that? Gee...

All of us who have watched the Isr-Pal conflict could have told him that.

It's been as plain as the nose on your face...provoke, seize more land, provoke, seize more land, provoke, seize more land.
Talk about peace, build more settlements, talk about peace, build more settlements.

By: Charles Keating

Charles Keating — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

RE Witty: "Ethics is comprised of noting behavior (not conclusions) that one is repulsed by and not practising those behaviors."

Yep. Except actual conduct is a conclusion per se. If not, what is?

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Rip van Winkle would suit you better than 'Richard Witty'.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

"Conclusions"

Having a conclusion is NOT the same as coercing others, as Podhoretz is accused of.

Content of the argument is whats important.

The arguments that he makes are full of holes. There are other options besides fight or flight.

Focusing on the persons primarily is smoke. But, that is the content of this blog and audiences, the persons NOT the content.