Here’s David Makovsky at Huffpo on the greatest threat to the west. He and I actually concur on the physical threat. But then Makovsky, whom we exposed yesterday for his pretensions to interpreting the Palestinian mind, gets into his ugga-bugga motivational theory:
There is no doubt that the preeminent threat of our time is that radical Islamists– most of whom emanate from the Middle East– may get their hands on a nuclear weapon. All agree about the cataclysmic nature of nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, there was a sense that both the United States and Soviet Union made similar calculations about not using such weapons, and therefore deterrence was successful. Yet it remains unlikely that Islamist religious extremists who embrace suicide bombing are deterrable. They may look at the use of such weapons as a means to reach some form of religious imperative against others, critical to achieve what they consider the legitimate objective of creating an Islamist caliphate or facilitating the return of the Hidden Imam (more on this later) while securing their own benefits in another world. It is precisely the ascendance of such a school of thought that should lead us to oppose the Islamists, even as we seek to partner with those non- Islamist forces in Arab societies who are uniquely positioned to discredit them in a way that we are not.
Yes David, but why do they hate us? Do you really think you can stop everyone with a dirty bomb? Wouldn’t it be better to address their actual grievances? What about Israel/Palestine? Do Palestinians have a grievance?
This is the same type of dreg that Communists and Jews have used against Christians for decades: they’re irrationally motivated by superstitious religion and God-delusion imperatives; they’re religious doctrine is fundamentally extreme and bigoted. Hence they’re irrational, can’t be reasoned with, and so must be crushed or socially engineered away from their beliefs. What are the irrational conscious and sub conscious motivations of Jews, both religious and secular? That they’re messiah has yet to come, and so they must violently prepare the way by utilizing an authoritarian Zionist State? That they are a supreme chosen people, and they’re enemies are motivated by purely irrational jealousy? That they don’t religiously proselytize, so political preaching on behalf of authoritarian “secular” governments (disproportionately run by Jews, of course) becomes they’re outlet in the quest for a mass following?
I guess Phil means he agrees that the possibility of satchel nukes getting into the hands of Muslim fanatics is a top-drawer physical risk. What about the current right wing Israeli regime and the Samson Option? Israel actually has war nukes now. MAD theory was tossed aside by the US to save Israel during the '73 War–it was the USSR who backed off. The US masses paid the price in lines at the gas pump, and actually still do to this day. Now there is only the US superpower. And you have fanatical Makovsky-Ross (Yes, that Dennis Ross) Islamists on one side, and fanatical Israel Uber Alles leaders officially representing Israel, swayed by the fanatical settler mentality. Any sane POTUS would fear both. So what will POTUS do? Stay tuned. And look what he's doing in Afghanistan.
Moshiach now!
RE: "During the Cold War, there was a sense that both the United States and Soviet Union made similar calculations about not using such weapons, and therefore deterrence was successful." FROM WIKIPEDIA: TEAM B (EXCERPT) Team B was a competitive analysis exercise commissioned by the Central Intelligence Agency in the 1970s to analyze threats the Soviet Union posed to the security of the United States. Team B, approved by then Director of Central Intelligence George H. W. Bush, was composed of "outside experts" who attempted to counter the positions of intelligence officials within the CIA known as Team A.[1] Team B concluded the National Intelligence Estimate on the Soviet Union, generated yearly by the CIA, underestimated Soviet military power and misinterpreted Soviet strategic intentions. Its findings were leaked to the press shortly after Jimmy Carter's 1976 presidential election win in an attempt to appeal to anti-communist in both parties and not appear partisan.[2][3] The Team B reports became the intellectual foundation for the idea of "the window of vulnerability" and of the massive arms buildup that began toward the end of the Carter administration and accelerated under President Ronald Reagan.[4]…. ….Team B also concluded that the Soviet Union did not adhere to the doctrine of mutual assured destruction, but rather believed it could win a nuclear war outright. Pipes –in his commentary article–argued that CIA suffered from "mirror-imaging" (i.e., from assuming that the other side had to–and did–think and evaluate exactly the same way); Pipes further wrote that Team B showed Soviet thinking to be based on winning a nuclear war (i.e., not avoiding such war due to MAD, because, he wrote, the Soviets were building MIRV'd nuclear missiles of high yield and high accuracy—appropriate for attacking hardened missile silos, but not needed for such large and vulnerable 'hostage' sites as cities…. ENTIRE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B
The historical lessons taught by Jewish refugee George Mosse (mentor of neoconservative agitator Michael Ledeen) on the psychological and political indoctrination skills used by the Nazi propagandists, showed the way to the fascist transformation of American political parties, using the new mythology of Islamofascism. Israel and AIPAC are the enablers. The American Jew Madison Ave guru Bernays was Goebbels's vicarious mentor. Bernays is famous for teaching Americans to smoke cigarets. Nothing like flags and long-legged ladies in the parade, all smoking…
Again we see a common theme on this website. Use any opportunity to remind Jews about Nazis and the Holocaust.
Note to the idiots: "Hidden Imam" (Imam-e Zaman) is a doctrine of 12 Shi'ism. This is a minority theology/folk belief found mainly in Iran, Basra, Bahrain and small sections of Lebanon. The Muslim population of the rest of the world is fully ignorant of the doctrine, or equates it with "association" (sherk) or unbelief (Kofar). Imamism will never be a rallying point for a"Global Caliphate" – despite Sudan in the 19th century. The supposed "Caliphate" of history was never the great world-empire bugbear that these ZioCons try to frighten people with, in any case. Less than a generation of Caliphs exercised any principal autocratic power. Various Turkish, Kurdish, Druze and other military meritocracies wielded real power in different periods, with the Caliph maintained as religious decoration for the rule they extended. The scourge of the early middle ages, used to frighten "the west" was not Islam, but the Mongols of Changiz Khan and 3 generations of his successors. Curiously, these were largely Christian and Buddhist people. Islamic central and western Asia has had more to fear – and more real destruction – from massacre by Buddhist adherents than any Jewish or Christian population has suffered under Muslims.
Ed, modern Zionism has corrrupted the theology of the most visible Jewish groups. The Neutrei Karta are probably the closest representatives of the Orthodox view on Zionism before the formation of Israel and the complete ideological victory of Zionism in '67. Just as Christians have been corrupted by the false messianism of left-wing social agandas, Judaism has been seduced by the false messianism of Zionism. Many secular Jews, berift of a strong theological grounding in monotheism, seek to replace God with both leftist and Zionist messianism simultaneously. Zionism is simply a particularly (but not exclusively) Jewish form of the old modernist heresy that inflamed the messianic visions of Communism and Nazism: We will be our own messiah; we will be our own gods, and once our enemies are cleared away, the world we be perfect.
Wait a minute, who is it that reminds Jews of Nazis and the Holocaust at every opportunity? Didn’t Norman Finkelstein once write an entire book on that subject?
In a review of Richard Rhodes' "Arsenals of Folly," Joseph Cirincione — he who has argued compellingly that Israel's rogue destruction of Osirak directly incentivized Saddam to ramp up Iraq's nuclear research, causing the chain reaction of Iran likewise increasing efforts to counter Iraq's heightened weaponization — has argued that the nuclear threat from USSR was deliberately exaggerated by, among others, Paul Nitze. " Arsenals of Folly examines the cold war arms race not by recounting treaty negotiations but by studying the psychology, physics, and politics of the era. Perhaps Rhodes's most valuable contribution is his meticulous documentation of how American officials frequently and deliberately inflated their estimates of military threats facing the United States, beginning with the 1950 report to President Truman, known as NSC-68, that exaggerated Soviet military capabilities. As we know from misleading assessments about Iraq and now Iran, threat inflation has continued to this day. America faces real threats that need no embellishment. But as Rhodes shows, politicians have often exaggerated threats for political advantage. "Fear is a very dangerous thing," said British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin after World War I. "It is quite true that it may act as a deterrent in people's minds against war, but it is much more likely to act to make them want to increase armaments…." The manipulation of fear to promote programs that Americans would otherwise not support is different from honest disagreement over the scale of the threats. Rhodes shows how Paul Nitze, the principal author of the 1950 NSC report, intentionally exaggerated Soviet nuclear capacities and minimized those of the US in order to "bludgeon the mass mind of 'government'"—as Nitze's superior, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, admitted years later. Although the Soviet Union had lost at least 25 million people and half its industry in World War II, Nitze portrayed the USSR as a fanatical enemy that, within a few years, would threaten America with an estimated two hundred nuclear weapons. According to his report, the then American stockpile of 1,400 weapons would be insufficient to counter such a threat. " from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21054
It is my personal opinion that no one from left or right should make these comparisons about anyone, Jew or Arab. They ring hollow. Also anachronistic. Though it's true there are people on the right that make Nazi comparisons about Arabs and Jew haters I do believe that the Left does it far more often. Look at this forum, nearly every comment has a Nazi reference, check out a right wing Jewish website and make a comparison.
That’s why I appreciate the genius of the American Founders, who theoretically had designed a way to contain religo-political messianicism by means of Constitutional separation that also respected religious freedom, and that prevented government from becoming an agent of messianicism. But as it turns out, their constitutional design has been sabotaged, eroded, and surmounted by pseudo-secular forces like political Judaism and Neoconservatism, and secular messianic forces like the ones you cite. None of this would be an issue today if America had stuck to the restraints imposed by the Constitution and not listened to the ear-whispering opportunists who insisted the Constitution is an “evolving document” (read: its restraints can be ignored by our betters). They’re actually devolving us back to square one. That's not "progressive," despite the advertising.
I'm glad someone pointed that out. While many Sunni Muslimeen indeed believe in the Mahdi, there's a difference between the Twelver Shi'a take on the Mahdi in that they believe he already existed once in time and will "return" (what Makovsky crudely refers to), and the majority Sunni belief, among Sunni who believe in the Mahdi, that he is yet to be born. It would truly be quite remarkable if the majority of "Islamists" who are Sunni (note that Makovsky makes no distinction between democratic political Islam and its sub-movements in political Shi'ism and Sunni arrangements like al-Ikhwan, and militant Islamic groups of Salafi and Wahhabi tendency) threw out their dogma and took up the Twelver Shi'a doctrine in effort to bring about the return of al-Mahdi. In many ways, it's quite astonishing that this made it past Makovsky's and Ross' editors — in other ways, it's not surprising at all. I'm not about to go buy this ridiculous book, but I wonder what the "more to come" on the Hidden Imam holds in store for all of us (laughing)…
Most of the chasidic sects STILL regard the state of Israel as skew to the messianic age. Neturai Karta and Satmar (a much larger but more isolated sect) describes the state of Israel as a deterrent to the messianic period. The Lubavitch and others regard its defense of Jews that reside in Israel as critical, and a GREAT aid to the messianic possibility in the safety it affords, while the messianic period is still dependant on "keeping the commandments". The less orthodox are the ones that have adopted Zionism as a component of the religion. For example, in Conservative prayer books, there is a prayer for the state of Israel. You're not very clear about who you impugn.
Eitan, Are you aware that land-lust is a violation of Torah? And, that scheming to take what is thy neighbor's through circuitous planned (but individually deniable transactions) is similarly? My son is Lubavitch, and I spend a few hours every week hanging out at the home of his rabbi, and his daughter in law's home (which is in my home town). We often talk politics. Moshiach is facilitated by two things which are related: 1. Keeping the commandments in practice (INCLUDING "thou shalt not steal", "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's possession" – desire and scheme or even benefit from others' scheming, "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" – not only in court). 2. Transforming one's consciousness to submit to God's will (similar to Christian AND Muslim shift in attitude, from individual and even collective objective, to the ONE's). The messianic period is DELAYED by attempting to take the land either by force, or by duplicity. Inhabiting the land and controlling the land are two different commands. The Kahanists that you paraphrase, are revisers of Torah, as much as practitioners.
Witty, I wouldn't call it land-lust. Maybe "land of Israel love" is a better term. Lust sounds a bit vulgar. I don't concur that the land of Israel belongs to "neighbors" I wouldn't call myself a strict Kahanist though I do think that Rabbi Kahana had some great ideas and he died too soon. I am not going to expound on what the moshiach should look like because it's very difficult to say. That being said we will continue to build and hopefully build our temple as well.
I agree with both David F and Ed. Heaven on earth is the goal (since nobody knows if there is a heaven) and the American Founders have been the best in world history in setting up a framework, in keeping with their Christian influenced Deist POV. I just want to add that both the strict constructionist (never go outside the Constitution and its amendments face, and historical intent POV, and the opposing Constitution-as-a-living-document (evolving document) are equally important to consider. Remember Dred Scot? While it's often true, as Ed says, that the "evolving document" approach leads to canceling our most basic rights, e.g., see Santomayor's decision in the firefighter's case, overturned by the SCOTUS ("White Man's Last Stand"), it's also true that "separate but equal" needed to change, as SCOTUS did. Remember that the final authority of SCOTUS itself was once at issue as to disputes between the states and the federal government. It's not an easy balancing act, that's for sure. There is currently a constitutional right to privacy, though that word is not be be found in the Constitution or its Amendments. Those who wish to marry a black, those who wish to have an abortion, for example, can thank the "living Constitution" theorists for those rights. These rights are based on "the penumbra " emanating from the Constitutional paper itself. On the other hand, those fireman recently vindicated by SCOTUS (5 to 4) benefited (finally) by a prevailing strict Construction of the Constitution. Reverse Discrimination. The restraints imposed by the actual words of the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights must be both expressed and implied. SCOTUS at its best uses derivative logic and analogy to extend or curtail "constitutional rights" awarded by federal appellate courts whenever there is a dispute among the judicial circuits and their appellate courts. Again, I wish to say David F and Ed make comments that are very astute.
Keep in mind folks that eitanbenshlomo describes himself as a "zionist jew extremist." At least he's honest. I just don't see how how his line of thought advances the universal humanitarian goal that was laid out by the Allied Powers' prosecutors at the Nuremberg Trials, which were rubber-stamped by the subsequent Geneva Convention. Is it "Never Again" no matter what Israel does? Does the mandate "Never Again" apply to all humans, or only to Jews? Is that not the key question? If not, why not? If so, why so?
Again, I think Nazi references are irrelevant to the debate at hand. That being said we have the right to build in our land and we will continue to do so.
You are right about the variety of attitudes towards political Zionism among the Orthodox. However, even most of the Orthodox who do not see the State of Israel as messianic are very eager to push expansion and use the most inflammatory rhetoric against Palestinians or any political leader who attempts to compromise with them. To find out what is truly *holy* to someone, look at what he reacts to as blasphemy. Only a few Jewish theologians have openly criticized the quasi-christological treatment of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and religious Jews are tolerant of Jewish atheists or Buddhists. Completely nonviolent anti-zionists, though, are reviled and cast out of the larger Jewish community, as an advocate of Baal-worship might have been in the past.
The manipulation of American public opinion is key. Who'd question that most average Americans see the Arabs, all Arabs, as A THREAT TO THE USA. And the other side of the MSM peddled coin, is that Israel is just like the USA? This fiat coin,backed by no gold (en truth), is what the average USA citizen sees. It will destroy the USA.
Eitan. Pedophiles try to explain their perversion as man – boy love, but it is what it is. The same for Israel's land-lust. Yes, they love it, but in a sick and perverted way. Israel is a state, who's borders are definmed by the 1967 armistice line. Within that, lies the state fo Israel. Outisde of that line is Palestine, which Israel has no right to. You have a temple and you have no right to build.
"Again, I think Nazi references are irrelevant to the debate at hand." No bevcasue Nazis, like Israelis, felt they were entitled to take whatever they weanted from the untermention. In your case, your belief that you have the right to build in on land that does not belong to the state of Israel, which is particularly Nazi like. Unles of courese, you support a one state solution and the right of Arabs from outside of Israel's bordersmming into Isrle and bulding Palestinian settlements?
The right of Jews to massively settle our land is not analogous to pedophilia. 1948 Armistice line is just that, a temporary armistice line. We need to rebuild our holy temple and massively continue to build and settle our land beyond the 1940s armistice lines.
You must be typing on a phone or something, I really don't understand what you are trying to say. I think you are trying to make some sort of Jew Nazi comparison. I categorically reject that.
Israel has no reason to cointunue building as it's population is falling and many apartmerts in the West Bank are empty with no one to move into them In fact, it would be criminlaly irresponsible of Isrla to try and expand bevasue it does not have the water resources to sustain it's population as it is. The 1967 border is the internaitonally recopgnized border of Israel. Insode that border, Israel can build whatever it wants. There is no need for another temple.
There are solutions to the water crisis and I believe our ingenuity can solve it. Water crisis is international problem as well. Recognized borders of the land of Israel go beyond 1940s armistice lines. We believe there is a strong need for our temple.
You can reject it all you want, but taking what does not belong to you is fascistic.
The only option to fresh water is desalination, which requires money that Israel doesn't have. There is no need for a temple. Israel's existence does not require a temple, but if yuo need a new one, Israel could build one is Tel Aviv
The Land belongs to us.
That is one option. There are more options. In the coming decades the human race needs solutions for supplying potable water and Israel will be at the forefront of that R&D effort. The temple will be built on the Temple Mount.
Untermenschen mention is close to the German pronunciation of Menschen = people/humans, but we spell it differently. subhumans.
I met Makovsky a few years ago at Harvard Hillel: Ross Belongs in Jail, not Government. I was truly amazed how avidly the Jewish students ate up Makovsky's delusional presentation. There are far too many Jewish racists at Harvard nowadays.
Would stealing the land south of the Litani River in Lebanon be one of them? We all saw how successful the last attempt at that was for Israel.
That's an option, I was talking more about R&D and scientific advancement however
I know this sounds hypocritical coming from me. But the only Zionist on this blog I think we should respond to is Witty (even though he’s intellectually dishonest quite often).
We all know what the rest of the Zionists here are about. They are clowns sent in to divert the discussion and drag down the level of discourse. So just ignore them. I asked Phil if he could AT LEAST implement an ignore feature.
This feature would only affect the person who chooses to ignore – it would not affect all the commentators.
And really, there is only one Zionist on the blog who can maintain a civil discussion (Witty). Thom isn’t as bad and neither is thedhimmi but they still employ sensationalist rhetoric and ‘point-scoring’. But relatively speaking, they are less dishonest than Jake in Jerusalem or Eitanbenshlomo. The latter two are clearly here to instigate and harass people.
So let’s just ignore then on our own. Don’t respond to them at all. Doing so, gives them the satisfaction that we took the time to read their nonsense instead of focusing on Phil’s articles.
Here is the Correct link to Martillo’s discussion of Dennis Ross and Makovsky:
Ross Belongs in Jail
It’s a good read. It amazes me to think that a delusional huckster like Makowski can bamboozle Harvard students with that kind of nonsense