Thursday, December 7, 2006

Why are the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot?

I am a Democrat in part because, historically, the Democrats have been pro-Israel - even moreso than the Republicans. A Pentagon memo states that the land Israel acquired in the 1967 war is of strategic importance. (reference) Namely, that the Israeli borders are not defensible without this land. It would be suicidal of Israel to just give up this land without any assurance of peace. As a perfect example, we all know what happened after Israel gave up Gaza. It is my belief that if Israel were to give the West Bank to Hamas as of today with nothing in exchange except a smile, Israel would be well on its way towards annhilation. Hamas already has stated it hopes to wipe Israel off the map - it is in their very charter. They still have yet to recognize Israel's existence. Giving them land means giving them a launchpad with which to to send missiles and rockets into Israel. (see: Gaza, as a perfect example) Tel Aviv is less than 20 miles from the tip of the West Bank. It would face a daily barrage of rockets, as Sderot does, if this land is given up unequivocably to Hamas. According to Jimmy Carter and far too many Dems (though recently also the Repubs under Baker/Gates), the ability for Israel to defend itself is basically irrelevant. Instead, the entire burden is on Israel, who must somehow unequivocably give up the West Bank to Hamas and Golan Heights to Hizballah. If the Jews give up the West Bank, they will not have access to their holy sites within them, even as they grant full access to the holy sites for Muslims within Israel in present day. Furthermore, should Israel give up all this land, it would be Judenrein - free of Jews. Yet there is this absurd expectation that Jews should flee the West Bank (and grant it to Hamas), while allowing Arab Israelis full citizenship in Israel. (oh yeah, and the Palestinians also want a right of return, on top of that!) Finally, Israel also must not fire back when shot at. Doing anything less than all of this somehow equals apartheid. The standards that Jimmy Carter and those who agree with him give for Israel are so over the top extreme, that they are more fit for Arafat, NOT an upstanding member of the Democratic party. If Jimmy Carter's desires are granted by Israel, then in fact it would be a monumental injustice, for the reasons I cited. It would lead Israel down the path of its annhilation. The only thing Carter forwards is the notion that Democrats are anti-Israel. This is why I am so horrified by him and anyone who agrees with him, as Israel is one of the most important topics in the world to me, and I grew up thinking that Democrats supported Israel, while Republicans, such as Reagan and Bush Sr, did not. I guess times are changing, though thankfully, mainstream Dems such as Pelosi and Dean and even leftist Dems such as John Conyers have come out against Carter's book and have expressed condemnation for what he is advocating. -Red Tulips P.S.: One last thing I remembered, which you would not know by reading Carter's book...Jordan illegally annexed the West bank after the 1948 war, and the Palestinians who lived within that land had no real civil rights to speak of between 1948-1967. (in fact, Jordan has killed more Palestinians than Israel has in its entire history - see the 1970 war - "Black September") My point is that the UN resolution 242 makes no note of Jordan's illegal annexation of the land, and Carter does not mention this, either. In 1967, there was a real question as to who the land should be returned to, the Palestinians or Jordan. There remains that question to this day as the Palestinians are fighting an internal struggle between Hamas and Fatah to determine its future, and more Palestinians are killed by Palestinians than by Israel. I am trying to save the Democratic party from itself. The existence of Baker and Gates is really not a shock, as I assumed that this represented the true beliefs of the Republicans all along. The widespread support for Carter, on the other hand, deeply troubles me.


Albion Moonlight said...

Hey, Red Tulips, no offense, but if you are so pro-Israel, why don't you move there, so you can vote for pro-Israel politicians there? Last I heard this was the United States of AMERICA - why does Israel need US taxpayer money so bad anyway?

Red Tulips said...


It is in American interests to have a strong Israel, but even more than that, it is in the world interests, in order to provide a stable Middle East. In short, being pro-Israel is also being pro-America.

Please read Martin Kramer's column on this subject.


Albion Moonlight said...

I don't see anything stable about the middle East, and I don't see Israel's bully tactics helping out. Please elucidate for me the reasons why a "strong Israel" is in my best interests? Or do you forget one of the main wellsprings of support for terrorism in the middle East is Israeli occupation and belligerance? I'm not trying to be a dick, I just sincerely disagree with you.

Albion Moonlight said...

I just have to say, that article was a lot of sloganeering. Oh, Israel "showed it's stuff" by kicking those stupid Arabs asses! Pax Americana? Oh ha ha ha ha.

Red Tulips said...


Thank you for commenting here. Honest disagreement is welcome and keeps the mind sharp.

What 'bully tactics' are you referring to with regards to Israel? It's very fight to exist? Hardly bullying.

Please go to Memri to see a catalogue of the violent antisemitism/anti-Americanism taught daily across the Mideast. They do not hate because of Israel. They hate because they hate.

Albion Moonlight said...

Bully tactics:

Sorry, still don't know how to post links....

Red Tulips said...


Links are posted this way (I am saying this as someone who spent a long time posting things as you are now!):

(a href="")Link text(/a)

Substitute a < and > for the ( and )

As far as your links - I will read them later. Must get home!

Anonymous said...

I look forward to the day when we and the rest of the world breaks the need for middle eastern oil, then we can just leave the mideast and let them kill each other, and have no stake in how stable that region it is.

The way I see it, the ONLY legitimate stake we have in middle eastern stability is tied to he oil over there.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Historicly the Dems have been more pro-Israel than the GOP???

How on earth can you come up with that? Arafat was one of Clinton's most common guests. It is liberal voices calling out for cutting of funds, for censuring Israel for defending itself. Liberals decided to bring the PLO back from the grave.

Barak was hand-picked by Clinton, and Clinton's main mudslinger, James Carville, worked on Baraks campaign. Barak was a complete fool and cost many Israeli lives.

Don't forget that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are darlings of the Dems, and they are solid anti-semites/white haters.

Anonymous said...

Elder of Ziyon has as interesting theory about Carter.

What're ex-Presidents going for nowadays, anyway?

Red Tulips said...


Thanks for the link. I think this may explain things.


I nearly forgot about you. But I have this to say:

Link 1: Hizballah also used cluster bombs, lest we forget. Do you condemn them? And they targeted civilian areas to kil civilians! Furthermore, the IDF targeted areas with populations, but first sent off flyers warning of the attacks! Moreover, this is where Hizballah was hiding out, so of course civilian areas had to be targeted. Any civilian deaths are the result of Hizballah firing rockets from civilian areas, necessitating Israel's response.

Link 2: I already explained elsewhere that in fact Palestinians have terrorized Bedouins, and treated them like utter crap. Moreover, the homes were in an illegal area. Al Jazeera does not say that. Furthermore, Israel destroyed homes in Gush Katif of Jews - but that of course is not mentioned by Al Jazeera.

Link 3 - Couldn't see that, please repost it?


Red Tulips