Michael Walzer was my government professor in college. We revered him. Today I celebrate him for saying just what John Mearsheimer says, that the American gov't must put heavy pressure on Israel to defeat the settler movement; but I cannot forgive his parochialism, his endlessly justifying Israeli militarism, lately defending it during the Gaza slaughter. I have meant to write about this, but been inhibited by that old reverent feeling. Here is the brilliant Magnes Zionist:
Israelis appear to be doomed to live in a
perpetual "Groundhog's Day" where they repeat the endless cycle of
being shocked whenever they hear of the IDF's traditional and
predictable behaviour. Even their reactions are predictable. And there
will always be the New York Times Israel correspondent (using a liberal
Zionist Jew) consulting the Hartman Institute "philosopher" (a modern
orthodox liberal Zionist Jew) for the "moderate" position.
In the beginning there was Tom Friedman interviewing
David Hartman. Friedman begat Bronner and Hartman began Halbertal.
Nothing has changed; they all say the same thing.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the IDF, the Hartman
crowd just follows in the footsteps of another Israeli apologist,
liberal Zionist, Michael Walzer, who has constructed an entire Just War
theory with the IDF in mind.
All the military ethical codes don't do a damn thing
when the folks in charge are operating under their own tribal morality,
and when the "war on terrorism" becomes cover war crimes. The
difference between the US and Israel is that we have been governed by
Bushes and Chenies for the last sixty years (with maybe a slight breath of fresh air from 1993-1995.)
yes, I have Israelis leaving dirty comments on my blog now, as a result of my re-posting Amira Hass and co there. I have a good mind to block the whole IP range from 89.138.0.0 to 89.139.244.244, because that's where they all are, but then again, as you know, I have a soft spot for Israeli punks.
"liberal Zionist, Michael Walzer, who has constructed an entire Just War theory with the IDF in mind"
Oh, the lengths these insane Jewish Zionists will go in order to rationalize their culture of hate and advance its expansionist territorial agenda. Now they're creating an entire canon of Judaized approximations of the Western canon in order to fold themselves further into the West with the ultimate goal of sparking a "Judeo-Christian vs. Islamofascism" showdown.
Funny how they always manage to highlight the "Judeo" while simultaneously waging a subversive, back door war against the "Christian." Any "Christian" or gentile who would enlist in this Judeo-Christian partnership is either corrupt, stupid, or begging to be a Jew's slave.
Bravo, Ed, you managed to say that without invoking the 'left-right' paradigm.
I made a long post on Walzer earlier. I wonder why it didn't post.
To summarize, Phil misrepresents Walzer in picking a quote from him that occurred EARLY in the Israeli military response to Hamas shelling of civilian towns.
If Walzer were asked whether the extent of the Israeli military action were "just", I am certain that he would have at least severe reservations if not outright condemnation.
Phil used to assert that his purpose in journalism was to bring fact and nuance to the fore, and NOT to justify his own conclusions, and not to "win".
Its a problem for him, a distraction. Maybe not. Maybe its just a distraction from my goal, and not his.
"Walzer constructed an 'entire Just War theory' with the Israeli army in mind."
Just as Dershowitz constructed a justification for torture with Israeli practices in mind.
(BTW, Israel has the distinction of being the ONLY country whose courts have explicity approved of the torture of prisoners. International outrage caused the the decision to be eventually reversed, but the original intent was clear, and the practice has not stopped.)
Rowan, do you have a way of blocking IP address ranges? What is it? You must have some program other than Typepad, right?
Rowan,
You really have some chutzpah, lecturing me about bringing the larger Left-Right context of the Zionist problem into this blog — you who navel-gaze about all manner of things completely off the map on these very pages.
Todd is right about you: you really are a strange bird. But more than that, you’re a Leftist who professes to be a Muslim. Interesting. The Left once partnered with Jewish Bolsheviks; now it’s partnering with Islamists.
And now that all the Lefties, Left-liberals, Judaists, and Corporatists (aka Nazis) have decimated Christianity in the West, through their subversion, tantrums, sociopathic narcissism and infantile selfishness, and its all falling apart at the seams, they (you) wonder why there is global chaos and perpetual war.
The whole lot of you are enemies of civilization, and should be treated as such.
uh oh. it appears Ed also has a problem with Islam.
is it because they're "liberals"? or are they "hyper-capitalists"? or just "Nazis"?
"the American gov't must put heavy pressure on Israel to defeat the settler movment"
Give me a break! The settler movement is not the problem. The settler movement was created by Israeli governments, and is what successive Israeli governments, including the saintly Yitzhak Rabin, have used year after year, government after government, to achieve their territorial goals.
@ cha,
Islamists belong in Islamic countries because they don't beleive in separation of religioun and state, just as Jewish Zionists belong in Israel for the same reason.
I'm not sure where Government-worshipping Leftist belong, given that their grand experiment in the Soviet Union was an utter failure. (You'd think they would have learned, but some people are just plain dumb.) Maybe San Francisco would be willing to take them in…
I wonder, am I the only one to see the problems that arise in a multi-cultural society without a predominating Western civilization ethic to stabilize the ship? Particularly when, for example, Jewish Zionists are allowed to run wild and hijack the wheelhouse? Or is that too politically incorrect to be publicly observed?
I wonder, am I the only one to see the problems that arise in a multi-cultural society without a predominating Western civilization ethic to stabilize the ship? Particularly when, for example, Jewish Zionists are allowed to run wild and hijack the wheelhouse? Or is that too politically incorrect to be publicly observed?
How do you define "a predominating Western civilization ethic?"
I would wager that a multicultural society would "flourish" best under the guidance of a Far Eastern, specifically Zen Buddhist/Taoist, worldview.
"Worldview" is actually a bad term to use. "Worldfeel" might be better.
I put "flourish" in quotes because I'm also unsure as to how you define that.
"Islamists belong in Islamic countries "
does Islamist = Muslim in your famously flexible vocabulary?
Ed's just the old-fashioned kind of bigot. He's not totally wrong when talking about our elite ruling classes and their behavior, but he mixes it all up with his bigotry, as though the US was a corruption-free paradise when it was ruled almost exclusively by WASP elites. There never was a golden age, Ed.
And I'm a practicing Christian, btw. But if you read Christian history, you'll notice a fair amount of corruption and brutality committed in the name of Christ, often against Jews. It's just true, whether you want to admit it or not. Which doesn't mean Jews can't be human rights violators too when they come into power (see Israel). It's a human problem, not a problem restricted to any particular group. Sensible non-bigoted Christian conservatives know that.
@ cha:
Islamists advocate Sharia law, even within Western civilization. Do all Muslims? I don't think so, but I don't know. Like the Jewish Zionists, the Islamists seek to impose their world view through the institutionalization of their beliefs and interests, and don't conscientiously seek to refrain from imposing their values on others by making distinctions between the realms of religion and state, as the West has.
–
@ Dan: 'I would wager that a multicultural society would "flourish" best under the guidance of a Far Eastern, specifically Zen Buddhist/Taoist, worldview.'
Then maybe that's where left-liberals should take their social experiments. God knows they don't have the backbone to stand up to Jewish Zionists run amok themselves here in the West, which means they probably don't have the backbone to stand up to any other "victim" group run amok. And I've noticed how other minority groups have started to emulate the Jewish Zionists, and why not? It's certainly worked for them, even if their success has come at the expense of everyone else, and the character, integrity, and cohesiveness of the whole.
But, as I’ve noted before, that’s why the Left has historically partnered with Jewish agitators: because they both hate Western civilization and want to see it destroyed. Maybe the Left doesn’t want the Zen Buddhist/Taoist civilization destroyed, and so wouldn’t cynically seek to use minority groups as battering rams to bring it down the way they have here. But my suspicion is the Zen Buddhists/Taoists would throw the Leftists out on their ear if they did.
Also, this left / right argument has become a distraction if not planned obfuscation. Though there is something to be gained from the analysis it has become nothing more than the stench created by Hannity / Limbaugh , who through (occasional) accurate barbs at the Dems, merely intend to create a smokescreen.
And though I agree there is an argument to be made that Christianity has helped lead us to the modern ideas of enlightened jurisprudence of the last few hundred years which I would not like to see diluted by the wacko Christian right, Islamic Shariya, or the enforcement of Talmudic Noahide law, it is simply ludicrous to hold up Christian America as the beacon of world enlightenment considering what the (mostly christian) settlers did to the indigenous population and the fact that much of this great economy was built on slavery (much of which was a true Judeo-Christian collaboration)
Rowan, do you have a way of blocking IP address ranges? What is it? You must have some program other than Typepad, right? Posted by: Citizen | March 23, 2009 at 03:09 PM
Citizen, my blog is hosted by WordPress. It features a blacklist tool which will treat any commenter whose name, emaill adress, or IP contains some given phrase as a spammer, thus if I wanted to block those two IP ranges, I would just enter the first two groups of numerals (89.138 and 89.139) into the blacklist. But in practice, when the little waves of trolls appear, it is simpler for me just to put all comments on approval.
My philosophy is quite different from Phil's, obviously. I permit interesting comments but I do not allow mere polemics, whether from zionists, anti-zionists, semites, anti-semites, or anyone else. My blog is more like a little contemplative art-work than a 'forum for debate'.
Ed – You are combining all of the individuals who follow an Islamic religious tradition into one faceless group, and saying none of them believe in separation of religion and state. From review of websites hosted or with comments by people who espouse Islam, I would say there is ample proof that the second part of your statement is without validity. The first part of your statement constitutes a stereotype that deprives people of individuality. Sorry to be so cranky but such patterns of thought lay at the basis of slavery, religious persecution, etc.
fultronix: I question whether Christianity could be considered to have led us to 'enlightened jurisprudence' unless it was through causing so much harm that there was recognition of the need to separate control of civic life from religious authority.
@ Margaret,
I wrote: "Islamists advocate Sharia law, even within Western civilization. Do all Muslims? I don't think so, but I don't know."
You wrote: "Ed – You are combining all of the individuals who follow an Islamic religious tradition into one faceless group, and saying none of them believe in separation of religion and state"
Where did I do that? My intent was clearly to compare "Islamists" (as opposed to all Muslims) to "Jewish Zionists" (as opposed to all Jews). Islamists and Jewish Zionists definitely do not believe in separation of religion and state; regular Jews and Muslims may or may not.
Perhaps your anti-Christian bias has also impacted your ability to discern the English language. Bigoted thinking often clouds judgment.
Bigoted thinking often clouds judgment. Posted by: Ed | March 24, 2009 at 11:03 AM
– jeez .. ya think?
"Islamists belong in Islamic countries because they don't beleive in separation of religioun and state" Ed
Or perhaps… you forgot what you wrote?