Santorum’s pulp hasbara

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 19 Comments
texas israeli war 1
1974 novel, hokum or visionary?

I recently stumbled across “The Texas-Israeli War: 1999,” pulp fiction by Jake Saunders and Howard Waldrop from back in 1974. The plot: following a global nuclear apocalypse, Israel is one of the only countries “virtually untouched in a world ravaged by war.”

Texas secedes from the U.S., so brave Israeli mercenaries fight alongside the union’s army in its war with Texas.

Notice the cover illustration, depicting an Israeli tank mowing down Native Americans on horseback!

Translation: the Indian Wars continue… in the West Bank of Palestine. GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum approves (as Saree Makdisi notes):

Santorum said it is no more realistic to expect Israel to give back the West Bank than it is to expect the US to give “Texas and Mexico back,” since they too were gained through war. That’s not a typo, not a verbal slip. Santorum refers to Mexico as part of the United States three separate times in the two-minute interview.

19 Responses

  1. Ramzi Jaber
    January 17, 2012, 11:22 am

    Oh, the lows that Santorum dips into, always amazing to watch him (and the other dems and reps). Time to stop AIPAC and the christian zionists!

  2. Oscar
    January 17, 2012, 11:25 am

    So how did the novel end??

    • Charon
      January 19, 2012, 9:58 pm

      Interested to that as well. Interested to read it, too. Just not willing to shell out money for propaganda is that is really what it is.

  3. Avi_G.
    January 17, 2012, 11:40 am

    Santorum said it is no more realistic to expect Israel to give back the West Bank than it is to expect the US to give “Texas and Mexico back,” since they too were gained through war. That’s not a typo, not a verbal slip. Santorum refers to Mexico as part of the United States three separate times in the two-minute interview.

    This is not surprising. The United States ‘acquired’ that land well before any international body or law was in place to regulate such actions. Presently, both Israel and the United States are on a planet where neither one adheres to international law. Israel has been doing so since 1948 and the United States has been torturing human beings, imprisoning and killing them with nary a modicum of legality.

    So what’s the big deal?

    P.S. – As everyone knows by now, both the US and Israel are special. Those pesky international laws apply to Other countries.

    • Citizen
      January 17, 2012, 12:08 pm

      Avi_G, you could not be more astute. Your knowledge and wisdom is a giant thing. Keep it up! I wish I personally knew somebody even with the tad of knowledge and wisdom of you that would fit on their pink finger on one hand.

    • kylebisme
      January 17, 2012, 3:05 pm

      The surprising part is where Santorum suggests that Mexico is US territory.

    • talknic
      January 17, 2012, 3:39 pm

      Avi_G.

      The US annexed Texas through a referendum amongst the Mexican citizens of Texas. It was one of the annexations that were instrumental in the International Community embracing the notions of self determination and formulating a corner stone of the UN Charter ’45, before the partition plan ’47, before Israel was Declared ’48 and before Israel was admitted to the UN ’49, when Israel obliged itself to the Charter in its entirety.

      “The acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible” A sovereign may however, ‘restore’ their own territory by war. Schwebel/Lauterpacht
      Israel has never had to ‘restore’ any sovereign Israeli territory by war. It has ‘acquired’ Palestinian territory by war.

  4. Citizen
    January 17, 2012, 12:18 pm

    Santorum is a boy-man, an Eagle Scout totally ignorant and proud of it. As an American i am much embarrassed by him, and about all the GOP nominees for POTUS except Ron Paul. EU thought Shrub Jr was a stupid ignorant cowboy, imagine what they think of this ilk? Good thing the Russian winter and millions of Stalin’s conscripts won WW2 (albeit only with US economic industrial help, e.g., all those trucks), or we would not get to behold this moron, Santorum in all his goyische kopf glory. Not to mention the door2door vacuum salesman, Romney, the Beverly Hillbilly Jethro, err I mean Perry, the rabid Uncle Tom, Cain, so aptly named, the closet picture of Dorian Gray, Newt G, and the female SS guard, Bachmann.

    • dumvitaestspesest
      January 17, 2012, 12:41 pm

      :))) Nice

    • lysias
      January 17, 2012, 1:48 pm

      Quickly enough? At the time we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we used the only atom bombs we had at the time.

      And anyway, contrary-to-fact historical hypotheses are open to objections about what else might have happened otherwise.

      For example, if Hitler had either never attacked the Soviet Union or defeated it within months (and I think “without the Russians” implies one of those two things), would there even have been a Pearl Harbor?

  5. lysias
    January 17, 2012, 1:43 pm

    The real reason Texas revolted against Mexico is that Mexico had prohibited slavery.

    By the way, looks like Santorum may end up the winner in the Iowa caucuses: Final Iowa results expected soon, may show Mitt Romney didn’t actually win.

    Actually, it was clear by Jan. 6, three days after the caucues, that Romney’s “win” in them was problematical: Vote Result From Disputed Precinct Deemed Official.

    So, all of the media’s spinning in recent weeks of Romney’s nomination as inevitable has been just that, spin.

  6. pabelmont
    January 17, 2012, 2:00 pm

    Santorum is right! Don’t criticize his statement. It is, in fact, ridiculous to expect Israel to “give up” any (more) of the land it seized in 1967. Not willingly, and he means willingly.

    The water Israel swims in must first turn bitter with chemicals dumped into it by the international community — nation-state BDS — sanctions, reduction of trade, removal of embassies, ending commercial airflights, raising of import taxes, etc. THESE will be bitter medicine and will catch Israel’s notice.

    Israel not willingly give up the occupations, but will do so unwillingly if the pressure is sufficient.

  7. talknic
    January 17, 2012, 2:56 pm

    Amazing how many US Americans don’t know Texas was legally annexed, via a referendum of the Mexican citizens of Texas.

    “The acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible” The notion of self determination was Customary International Law some years before Israel ever existed and; no such referendum has ever been conducted in any of the territories Israel has acquired by war.

    • lysias
      January 17, 2012, 4:31 pm

      Amazing how many US Americans don’t know Texas was legally annexed

      The annexation of Texas was very doubtfully constitutional. It almost certainly should have been done by treaty (compare the Louisiana Purchase,) but it was done by Act of Congress, because President Polk couldn’t get a two-thirds majority to approve annexation in the Senate, which would have been needed to ratify a treaty. (There was already in 1845 a lot of sentiment in the North against a big expansion of slave territory within the Union.)

      • talknic
        January 18, 2012, 4:15 am

        lysias

        For Texas to be annexed by the US there was first a referendum of the Mexican citizens of Texas, BEFORE any US Act of Congress.

        1st) The citizens of the territory to be annexed determine whether they want to be annexed. 2nd) The annexing country then passes an act incorporating that territory.

    • MLE
      January 17, 2012, 11:19 pm

      Texas yes… What about New Mexico, Arizona, Southern California and parts of Colorado….

      • talknic
        January 18, 2012, 9:38 am

        MLE

        Er look them up…. 1847 *First New Mexico Assembly called. *The Assembly suggests holding an “annexation convention.” I believe much of US History is online

  8. RoHa
    January 17, 2012, 7:59 pm

    Santorum is a politician, and an American one at that.

    What do you expect?

  9. Philip Munger
    January 20, 2012, 4:21 am

    Pulp trash book.

    My bodyguard brought it to work, probably in ’79, hoping I’d read it. Got about 50 pages in – 1/4 of the way through it – and gave it back to him, along with my copy of Niven and Pournelle’s Lucifer’s Hammer, which is a far better post-apocolypse novel.

    Got him hooked on Niven and Pournelle, at least.

Leave a Reply