Who just stood in front of the UN and said the US will veto any bid for Palestinian statehood?
However, I not only don't like Perry's reasoning, I think it borders on illegal. "Borders" But then, would you rather him not tell us? Try and sort that out. I'm not sure I can On Sep 21, 3:36 pm, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > the idea that a US President’s religious convictions will compel him > to support a foreign government, regardless of whether that support > serves specifically American interests, is appalling – and dangerous. > --- > and very unAmerican > Perry, like Bachmann, is a zionist and should be seen as the enemy. > > otoh - Ron Paul: > - would not stop Israel from defending her interests in any way she > saw fit - but without US support > - has also been criticized for wanting to “end foreign aid to Israel.” > He had in fact called for an end to all foreign aid in general. > - will not allow American lives to be sacrificed for Israeli interests > > Interviewer: [...]“Why do you think that so many US officials, > Congress, Senate, show overwhelming support to involving the US over > there?” > > Ron Paul: [...] “It’s been going on for more than 50 years, because > there has been a pretty strong case made for the Jewish people being > treated quite badly, and emotionally there was an argument for having > a place they can call their homeland, and people bought into this. But > even then there was no justification for us to be using our money for > doing that. > > On Sep 21, 1:43 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Perry’s Faith-Based Foreign Policy DirectiveGod says: 'Put Israel > > first'byJustin Raimondo, September 21, 2011 > > If Rick Perry makes it to the White House, what will American foreign > > policy in the Middle East look like? We got a clear indication of that, > > recently, whenhe stated:“As a Christian I have a clear directive to support > > Israel, from my perspective its pretty easy both as an American and a > > Christian. I am going to stand with Israel.” > > Earlier, inan interviewwith theWeekly Standard, he was even more emphatic, > > averring that “My faith requires me to support Israel.” > > What kind of faith requires knee-jerk support for a foreign country? > > Apparently, Perry is a follower of a Protestant brand of Christianity known > > as “dispensationalism,” which holds that the End Times are approaching – > > and thatone of the signsof the imminent apocalypse is the gathering of the > > Jews in the land of Israel, as supposedly foretold in the Bible. Some > > dispensationalists equate this with the founding of the Israeli state, in > > 1947, and the subsequent migration of many Jews to that country. According > > to dispensationalist theology, this phenomenon prefigures the start of an > > earth-shattering war, one that will pit Israel against the Forces of > > Darkness, herald the rise of the Anti-Christ, and ignite a battle that will > > take place on the field of Armageddon – after which Christ will return to > > earth and the faithful will be “raptured” up into Heaven. > > Now, I don’t intend to disparage anyone’s religious beliefs, nor do I want > > to engage in the kind of snickering that usually accompanies commentary on > > this subject: everyone is entitled to their own faith, and, aside from > > that, there is something a little unsavory about the smugness and > > self-righteousness that is usually attached to discussions of the impact of > > Christian fundamentalism on American politics. There isno religious testfor > > holding office in these United States, and it seems to me that some > > liberals have been trying their best to establish one – a test > > ofirreligion– in order to marginalize millions of Americans. This kind of > > intolerance is mirrored, on the right, by some – like GOP presidential > > aspirantHerman Cain, for example – who have raised questions about the > > ability of religious Muslims to have their voices heard, or even to hold > > office. > > However, the idea that a US President’s religious convictions will compel > > him to support a foreign government, regardless of whether that support > > serves specifically American interests, is appalling – anddangerous. And we > > can see how dangerous it is by looking at Governor Perry’s attacks on the > > Obama administration for supposedly not kowtowing to Tel Aviv with > > sufficient obeisance. At a press conference held in New York City, where > > heappearedwith an Israeli government official, Perrydeclared:“It is time to > > change our policy of appeasement toward the Palestinians to strengthen our > > ties to the nation of Israel, and in the process establish a robust > > American position in the Middle East characterized by a new firmness and a > > new resolve.”What, exactly, does this “policy of appeasement” consist of? > > The Obama administration isdeterminedto veto the Palestinian statehood > > proposal being advanced in the UN Security Council, and hasmade it > > clearthat the US government stands behind the Israelis in their attempt to > > grab as much land – via theconstructionof “settlements” – as they can, all > > of it funded bygenerousdollops of American “foreign aid.” > > Who is being “appeased” here – the Palestinians, or the Israelis? > > Perry supports continued “settlements” of Palestinian lands, and also says > > he wants to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – a symbolic > > affirmation of Israel’s claim to the “undivided” capital of the Jewish > > state. This contradicts the policies of two Republican presidents – both > > named George Bush. It also violates the essential meaning and function of > > US foreign policy – to protect specifically American interests. We gain > > nothing by weighing in on where the capital of the state of Israel shall be > > – although I’ll note that nearly every successful presidential aspirant > > madesuch a promiseduringthe campaign season. That this promise was > > summarily broken once they got in the White House speaks volumes about the > > politics – and the reality – of this issue. > > Perry says we should “stand by Israel,” our faithful ally and the only > > state in the region with a long democratic tradition, and this proposition > > seems reasonable enough – until one begins to examine it a little more > > closely. Because the Israel of yesteryear – the Israel ofExodus, of the > > “peace process,” of theliberal humanistic traditionout of which Labor > > Zionism sprang – is not the Israel of today. > > The foreign minister of the Jewish state is oneAvigdor Lieberman, a fanatic > > whose bigotry and aggressively nationalistic views have made him an > > embarrassment even to the hardline government of Prime Minister Benjamin > > Netanyahu. For example, when relations with Turkey soured, > > Liebermanthreatenedto arm the PKK – a Kurdish terrorist group that has been > > attacking the Turks for years. Netanyahutriedto distance his office from > > such irresponsible ranting, but when I awoke, this morning, to the news > > thata bombhad gone off near government offices in Ankara, I wasn’t all that > > surprised. > > This raises serious questions about who, exactly, is in charge in Tel Aviv > > – the crazies, represented by Lieberman and the “settlers,” or Netanyahu? > > However, a larger question needs to be raised: what has Israel become in > > the years since the signing of theCamp David Accords? Since that time, the > > Israeli electorate has moved so farto the right– that is, in the direction > > of expansionist nationalism – that there seems to be no room for moderates > > of any stripe. After years ofnurturing,subsidizing, and > > otherwiseencouragingthe “settler” movement – which is imbued with the > > ultra-Zionist dream of establishing a “Greater Israel” – the chickens, so > > to speak, have come home to roost. The settler movement represents almost > > as great a threat to the stability and authority of the Israeli government > > as the radical Palestinianfactions– greater, perhaps, because the danger is > > coming from within. > > Perry is encouraging this tendency in Israeli politics: he appeared at the > > press conference with Israeli Knesset memberDanny Danon, an > > ultra-nationalist rival to Netanyahu whowants to revokethe citizenship of > > Arab Knesset members on dubious grounds, and heads up the wing of Likud > > that considers even a hardliner like Netanyahu asell-out. Danon is the > > darling of the settler movement, and enjoys more support outside of Israel > > than he does on his home turf. He headed up the ultra-extremistBetar group– > > an organization which has its origins in an early wing of the Zionist > > movement thatmodeled itselfon the example of Italian fascism, merely > > draping a “Zionist” façade over an authoritarian vision of a > > homogenousvolkishstate. He is a regular on America’s “Israel First” > > circuit, lecturing to groups of born-again dispensationalists – Perry’s > > crowd – as well as more mainstream venues, updating Betar’s authoritarian > > stance bycalling for legal sanctionsagainst those who organize > > “anti-Israel” boycotts, which apparently also means boycotts of “settler” > > products. > > By appearing on the same stage with Danon, Perry is legitimizing and > > encouragingthe worstimpulses in Israeli society – and puttingour own > > interestsat risk. If Israel should implode in civil war – and, with the > > settlers getting increasingly militant, and inopen rebellionagainst the > > Israeli government – it is numbskull opportunists like Perry who will bear > > a large part of the blame. By egging on the Israeliequivalentsof the Aryan > > Nations, they will wind up with blood on their hands. > > Aside from that, it hardly seems all thatpresidentialfor the would-be > > Republican nominee to be onstage with Bibi’s rightist rival in the Likud > > party – not someone who came in second in the bid for the party leadership, > > but Danon, who came inthird! > > What gets me is that these people actually believe they are helping Israel, > > when their actions are the quickest way to destabilize that country I can > > think of. A Christian of the dispensationalist variety, who truly believes > > that the safety of Israel is of paramount concern to God, would have no > > reason to incite an extremist element to violence against the legitimate > > government of Israel. And even if that government came to embrace that > > extremism – and, say, was taken over by the Liebermans and the Danons – > > their policies would endanger Israel’s very existence, and deliver the > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
