Comments on: Are liberals all neocons? http://www.jewlicious.com/2006/09/are-liberals-all-neocons/ It's a Jewish Blog! Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:17:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: VJ http://www.jewlicious.com/2006/09/are-liberals-all-neocons/#comment-359899 VJ Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:19:41 +0000 http://www.jewlicious.com/?p=2695#comment-359899 I read it Phoebe, and it's seriously confusing. Everyone knows not to take what Tony Judt has to say about most things all too seriously. I've learned not to listen when I hear these long winded turgid intellectual arguments offering friendly 'advice'/'analysis/counsel to Israeli intellectuals (and others no doubt). They matter little to me. Everyone knows that Israel is the only functioning democracy for 1500KM in almost every cardinal direction until you get to Turkey, and they've got plenty of problems too. Past that you can expand it to just about ICBM range at or near 4000 KM. I knew this as a child, it was patently obvious then, it's no less true today. No amount ot trees dying for the cause can tell us otherwise. Cheers, 'VJ' I read it Phoebe, and it’s seriously confusing. Everyone knows not to take what Tony Judt has to say about most things all too seriously. I’ve learned not to listen when I hear these long winded turgid intellectual arguments offering friendly ‘advice’/'analysis/counsel to Israeli intellectuals (and others no doubt). They matter little to me. Everyone knows that Israel is the only functioning democracy for 1500KM in almost every cardinal direction until you get to Turkey, and they’ve got plenty of problems too. Past that you can expand it to just about ICBM range at or near 4000 KM. I knew this as a child, it was patently obvious then, it’s no less true today. No amount ot trees dying for the cause can tell us otherwise. Cheers, ‘VJ’

]]> By: phoebe http://www.jewlicious.com/2006/09/are-liberals-all-neocons/#comment-359675 phoebe Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:27:03 +0000 http://www.jewlicious.com/?p=2695#comment-359675 VJ, had you read the post and not just the title, you'd see that the question--"Are liberals neocons?"-- refers to Judt's assertion that this is the case. I argue otherwise. VJ, had you read the post and not just the title, you’d see that the question–”Are liberals neocons?”– refers to Judt’s assertion that this is the case. I argue otherwise.

]]> By: VJ http://www.jewlicious.com/2006/09/are-liberals-all-neocons/#comment-359499 VJ Tue, 19 Sep 2006 07:05:39 +0000 http://www.jewlicious.com/?p=2695#comment-359499 This is some seriously confusing stuff Phoebe. Liberals 'everywhere' are not all one thing or another. It seriously depends on what you're talking about. Neo-Cons are well, Neo & CON(servative). They are most decidedly NOT 'Liberal' in most dimensions worthy of mention. They are creatures of the right wing, exclusively created by right wing minds for 'adventuresome' foreign policy designs that just happen to look a lot like the 'new, new Crusades'. Liberals in Europe are vastly different in many respects than any liberals to be encountered in the US, the same goes for Canada too BTW. The liberal establishment in the US got President Harry Truman to recognize the State of Israel, as the first and most important state to do so. Then those same damnable 'liberals' did something that no Neo-con has ever been reported doing, many signed up to actively fight and defend the new state from attacks from various Arab armies. They kept this up too, and raised plenty of funds to see that this project was a success as well. Our neo-cons are the paper warriors, the same ass clowns w/o any military experience who've seriously botched 2 wars and are going for a 3rd now. Read the new book 'Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone' for a peek into the wonders of what the neo-cons were up to in Iraq. Also read 'Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq' by Thomas E. Ricks, this is what the neo-cons have wrought. Not your hated & much cursed 'liberals' Phoebe! Support of Israel has always been an active Liberal project since it's founding. The same can not be said for any conservative of almost any stripe. Cheers, 'VJ' This is some seriously confusing stuff Phoebe. Liberals ‘everywhere’ are not all one thing or another. It seriously depends on what you’re talking about. Neo-Cons are well, Neo & CON(servative). They are most decidedly NOT ‘Liberal’ in most dimensions worthy of mention. They are creatures of the right wing, exclusively created by right wing minds for ‘adventuresome’ foreign policy designs that just happen to look a lot like the ‘new, new Crusades’.

Liberals in Europe are vastly different in many respects than any liberals to be encountered in the US, the same goes for Canada too BTW. The liberal establishment in the US got President Harry Truman to recognize the State of Israel, as the first and most important state to do so. Then those same damnable ‘liberals’ did something that no Neo-con has ever been reported doing, many signed up to actively fight and defend the new state from attacks from various Arab armies. They kept this up too, and raised plenty of funds to see that this project was a success as well. Our neo-cons are the paper warriors, the same ass clowns w/o any military experience who’ve seriously botched 2 wars and are going for a 3rd now. Read the new book ‘Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone’ for a peek into the wonders of what the neo-cons were up to in Iraq. Also read ‘Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq’ by Thomas E. Ricks, this is what the neo-cons have wrought. Not your hated & much cursed ‘liberals’ Phoebe! Support of Israel has always been an active Liberal project since it’s founding. The same can not be said for any conservative of almost any stripe. Cheers, ‘VJ’

]]> By: Jim R http://www.jewlicious.com/2006/09/are-liberals-all-neocons/#comment-359303 Jim R Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:36:33 +0000 http://www.jewlicious.com/?p=2695#comment-359303 I would add another sameness. The willingness to call evil by its name, in our time that would be Islamist terrorists, and go to war to stop it. I would add another sameness. The willingness to call evil by its name, in our time that would be Islamist terrorists, and go to war to stop it.

]]> By: Jim R http://www.jewlicious.com/2006/09/are-liberals-all-neocons/#comment-359301 Jim R Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:29:50 +0000 http://www.jewlicious.com/?p=2695#comment-359301 "Judt reasserts the Walt-Mearsheimer hypothesis, that the US and Israel are effectively the same, that the US is led by Israel, and what with Israel being evil and all, now the US is a mess." Well he got it half right. The US ad Israel are the same in three important ways that liberals will never understand; Judeo-Christian values, liberal democracies, and a deep disgust for any'thing' or anyone who purposely targets civilians for their evil(a given based own our shared values) aims. This guy is highly confused himself Phoebe, and hardly worth your intelligent attention. On the other hand, it has to be done I guess in order to try to save some of the confused that may be influenced by his educated 'fool'ishness. “Judt reasserts the Walt-Mearsheimer hypothesis, that the US and Israel are effectively the same, that the US is led by Israel, and what with Israel being evil and all, now the US is a mess.”

Well he got it half right. The US ad Israel are the same in three important ways that liberals will never understand; Judeo-Christian values, liberal democracies, and a deep disgust for any’thing’ or anyone who purposely targets civilians for their evil(a given based own our shared values) aims.

This guy is highly confused himself Phoebe, and hardly worth your intelligent attention. On the other hand, it has to be done I guess in order to try to save some of the confused that may be influenced by his educated ‘fool’ishness.

]]> By: themiddle http://www.jewlicious.com/2006/09/are-liberals-all-neocons/#comment-359279 themiddle Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:15:43 +0000 http://www.jewlicious.com/?p=2695#comment-359279 In the same way that Americans consider Canada a natural part of the US? In the same way that Americans consider Canada a natural part of the US?

]]> By: Tom Morrissey http://www.jewlicious.com/2006/09/are-liberals-all-neocons/#comment-359260 Tom Morrissey Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:01:32 +0000 http://www.jewlicious.com/?p=2695#comment-359260 Could be mistaken, but I believe the French regarded Algeria as part of France (and not simply a colonial possession a la West Africa), in the same way that Guadeloupe, Reunion Island, et la Nouvelle Caladonie are officially part of France. Could be mistaken, but I believe the French regarded Algeria as part of France (and not simply a colonial possession a la West Africa), in the same way that Guadeloupe, Reunion Island, et la Nouvelle Caladonie are officially part of France.

]]> By: themiddle http://www.jewlicious.com/2006/09/are-liberals-all-neocons/#comment-359249 themiddle Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:47:10 +0000 http://www.jewlicious.com/?p=2695#comment-359249 Well, there is that entire historical homeland business to consider as well. When French say "Algiers" it isn't the same as when a Jew says "Jerusalem" or "Hebron" or "Safed." There is also that entire business of national presence versus an area being a province of another colonial empire. Finally, one has to consider that the Jews returned to their homeland to re-establish home and their national self-determination, while the French were sojourners intent on despoiling Algeria of whatever goods, wealth or strategic benefits it might lend. The Jews arrived with the notion of building something while absorbing the existing population into its democratic state, the French had no objectives of absorbing anyone or building a state. Well, there is that entire historical homeland business to consider as well. When French say “Algiers” it isn’t the same as when a Jew says “Jerusalem” or “Hebron” or “Safed.” There is also that entire business of national presence versus an area being a province of another colonial empire. Finally, one has to consider that the Jews returned to their homeland to re-establish home and their national self-determination, while the French were sojourners intent on despoiling Algeria of whatever goods, wealth or strategic benefits it might lend. The Jews arrived with the notion of building something while absorbing the existing population into its democratic state, the French had no objectives of absorbing anyone or building a state.

]]> By: Daniel http://www.jewlicious.com/2006/09/are-liberals-all-neocons/#comment-359237 Daniel Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:59:21 +0000 http://www.jewlicious.com/?p=2695#comment-359237 Oops, okay, upon rereading, Judt did acknowledge those arguments, he just didn't take them seriously. Oops, okay, upon rereading, Judt did acknowledge those arguments, he just didn’t take them seriously.

]]> By: Daniel http://www.jewlicious.com/2006/09/are-liberals-all-neocons/#comment-359235 Daniel Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:56:55 +0000 http://www.jewlicious.com/?p=2695#comment-359235 The funniest part of the article is when Judt attacks Paul Berman and Peter Beinart for having the temerity to write about the war on terrorism. Judt writes: "Neither author had previously shown any familiarity with the Middle East, much less with the Wahhabi and Sufi traditions on which they pronounce with such confidence." But what qualifies Judt to write so expertly on these issues? Perhaps he thinks his vast knowledge of France provides him with the requisite qualifications to opine with such confidence. And maybe that's why Judt's writing on Israel tends to be so facile. An essay he wrote for The New York Review of Books analogizing Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza to France's colonial occupation of Algeria comes to mind. The obvious difference (which Judt, of course, conveniently ignores as he scolds Israel) is that the Mediterranean is sufficiently wide that after France pulled out, the Algerians couldn't launch Qassams and Katyushas at them. And there wasn't a substantial body of opinion in Algeria that was committed to France's destruction. But I guess acknowledging these thigns woudl have sort of undermined Judt's expert argument. The funniest part of the article is when Judt attacks Paul Berman and Peter Beinart for having the temerity to write about the war on terrorism. Judt writes: “Neither author had previously shown any familiarity with the Middle East, much less with the Wahhabi and Sufi traditions on which they pronounce with such confidence.” But what qualifies Judt to write so expertly on these issues? Perhaps he thinks his vast knowledge of France provides him with the requisite qualifications to opine with such confidence. And maybe that’s why Judt’s writing on Israel tends to be so facile. An essay he wrote for The New York Review of Books analogizing Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza to France’s colonial occupation of Algeria comes to mind. The obvious difference (which Judt, of course, conveniently ignores as he scolds Israel) is that the Mediterranean is sufficiently wide that after France pulled out, the Algerians couldn’t launch Qassams and Katyushas at them. And there wasn’t a substantial body of opinion in Algeria that was committed to France’s destruction. But I guess acknowledging these thigns woudl have sort of undermined Judt’s expert argument.

]]>