Bush Support of Sharon "Could Help With Jewish Voters"

[Theophylact]

according to this story in today's Washington Post. Cynical, opportunistic ... and Kerry's just the same:

That Bush's move was good politics was evidenced by Democratic rival John F. Kerry's quick move not to let Bush outflank him among pro-Israel voters.

"I think that could be a positive step," the Massachusetts senator said, approving of the Bush-Sharon action regarding both refugees and Israel's borders. "What's important obviously is the security of the state of Israel, and that's what the prime minister and the president, I think, are trying to address."

As Billmon says,

It strikes me that bin Laden has been going about this all wrong. If he'd just started his own PAC, and spread enough money around, he probably could have gotten Congress to vote to blow up the World Trade Center.

I mean, why bother with suicide bombers when you've got both major political parties on your side?

[John Prophet]

The "moves" being made concerning Israel go wayyyyy deeper than any trivial political concerns...this move by Bush is but one of a series of Dominoes...so dont look so much at the reasons FOR this or that political move....look more at the Dominos as they fall..this domino hits that domino which triggers the other domino and a chain reaction of events unfold.

if we are looking at trivial US politics we are looking at a side show and missing the grand scheme---we are in the alley watching a crap shoot and missing the parade as it goes by!!!

As I have said before...the "dominoes", one of which fell yesterday, will lead to a "peace treaty" which will allow the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and the reinstitution of animal sacrificies and to other things I have spoken about before.

The world will say 'peace, peace'...but it wont be peace, lol...not quite yet.

----

And I have not tried to think all the dominoes thru as far as possible scenarios...but if the UN and/or EU jumps onboard and says this is a good plan....things will get interesting really fast. Either that will happen or this move by Sharon and Bush will somehow lead to the next move and somehow the UN/EU will buy into either this peace plan or another...but there WILL be a peace plan signed (but later renigged on) and the temple rebuilt.

-----

Possibly nothing REALLY interesting will happen until the EU constitution is ratified etc...which will be , when?? June??


JP

[ShawnD1]

Supporting Sharon might gain Jewish support but it will certainly lose Arab support. There are probably more Arabs in the US than there are Jews.

[MegalosSkylaki]

Ah ! Theophylact,
WTF is wrong with having the support of Jewish voters ?
If there is nothing, than there is nothing wrong in courting it.

Today, Jews are being scapegoated in Europe.

I didn't register for the first article, but the second seems like more of the same-old same old.

Sadly, Iam sure you can cite better...

See the movie, "Gentlemen's Agreement".

The B'nai Brith Anti-Defamation League was founded following the lynching of a Jewish man, Herman Franks.

MegalosSkylaki

[Knothead]

**YAWWNN...**

Yes..politics as usual.

GWB has no more identification with Isreal and Jewish folk in America than his father, plus Reagan, Carter and Clinton.

But....Just try running for the office of the President of the USA and say stuff like "Yeah, the State of Isreal is a hiccup on the line of demarcation of what used to be Transjordan (an area that nobody, prior to 1949, gave a flying fig about) and just takes up too many of the taxpayers dollars to support!"

You'll soon be running for the office of Municipal Dogcatcher. And losing the election.

[Theophylact]

Originally posted by MegalosSkylaki
Ah ! Theophylact,
WTF is wrong with having the support of Jewish voters ?
If there is nothing, than there is nothing wrong in courting it.

MegalosSkylaki

Nothing wrong with having the support of Jewish voters; I'm one myself.

But if you have to buy that support by scrapping thirty years of upholding the position that the West Bank settlements are a violation of numerous UN resolutions, why, where's your case against Saddam?

[Knothead]

Originally posted by Theophylact

But if you have to buy that support by scrapping thirty years of upholding the position that the West Bank settlements are a violation of numerous UN resolutions, why, where's your case against Saddam?

Heh, heh, heh, heh.....

Hey, I didn't say it...I'M all political-correct-like!



nice one, Theo!

[RADAR1797]

I would be interested in hearing Sharon compared to Hussein.

-RADAR

[Theophylact]

Originally posted by RADAR1797
I would be interested in hearing Sharon compared to Hussein.

-RADAR

Well, there are differences, of course. But Sharon barely escaped conviction as a war criminal in an Israeli court for his role in the Sabra and Shatila refugee-camp massacres; it was his idea, as Minister of Housing, to put Jewish settlers on the West Bank to create a de facto annexation of territories; and the UN (with US agreement, and the support of the last six administrations) has declared those illegal.

I hardly need mention his brutal rule over the territories, under the pretext that it's British colonial law he's enforcing, rather than Israeli law. Do I need to mention Israel's use of torture on detainees, or its destruction of the homes and orchards of relatives of suspects?

Is he a mass murderer? Not on the scale of Hussein, no. But he's sure careless of non-Israeli lives.

Does he possess weapons of mass destruction? Everybody agrees he's got some, possibly several hundred, nuclear weapons. Of course, they're not illegal, because Israel has never signed the antiproliferation treaty, so it isn't subject to inspections...

So, in short, he's not the same as Saddam, any more than Saddam is the same as Hitler. But that's a pretty high bar you're setting there, RADAR1797.

[MTAtech]

Theo, what's the alternative?

The Palestinians openly concede that their position is that the land called Israel is illegally occupied by the Jews. Their logical jump is to legalize it by throwing out the Jews in favor of the Palestinians.

As proof, in 2001, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered a peace agreement that was rejected by the Palestinians. That proposal would have resulted in Israel vacating virtually all the settlements in exchange for peace. Obviously, the Palestinians do not want a two state solution.

Given that the only choice the Palestinians are willing to accept is the suicide of Israel, Israel has no choice but to impose unilateral decisions. Certainly, it is not rational for Israel to accept destruction of its country and killing of its people as a solution. The means Israel may seem harsh but what is the choice on an adversary bent on their destruction?

If you think Israel is harsh, let me remind you of how the Arabs handle situations with their people. During "Black September" when Palestinians rioted in Jordan in the 1970s, King Hussein massacred 2,500 Palestinians in 10 days. Likewise, Syrian President Assad slaughtered all of the 20,000 residents of the town of Hama - his own people, during civil unrest, then paved over the dead. Israel's tactics do not come close to these.