Democrats Take a Brave Stand Against Israeli Self-Defense Israeli Self-Defense and Other Stuff Too
Charming:
The Senate rejected an attempt Wednesday by Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy to prohibit the U.S. military from using cluster bombs near civilian sites in Iraq and Afghanistan. Leahy and California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, both Democrats, sought to clip Pentagon funding for the production of the scattershot weapons until clear rules of engagement are implemented, banning their use "in or near" civilian-populated cities, camps and villages... Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, led opposition to the measure, saying the Senate would endanger troops by legislating combat standards from Washington
Questions:
First question: where's that Israeli Lobby "stranglehold on Congress" that Walt and Mearsheimer promised us (bonus: the rest of line was "a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there"... yeah, if only there'd be a debate on Israeli use of munitions in the Senate! That's be great... too bad the all-powerful AIPAC will never let it happen!)
Second question: isn't it kind of clever when the US uses aid to leverage IDF policy? There's an argument to be made that the US is more or less treaty-committed to maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge (give/take). That's what Carter traded in exchange for a Noble Peace Prize at Camp David. So now just under 30% of the US Senate is saying "yes, you can have a military edge because we know that giving up land endangers you - but you can't use that military edge, so yeah, you're still kind of in danger. A lot. Good luck!"
Facts:
First fact: We think that technically the vote was only a ban about cluster munitions used in proximity to civilian areas, but for Israel that's the same thing since its enemies do most of their shooting from civilian areas.
Second fact: Counting Jeffords (since he caucuses with them) there are 45 Democrats in the Senate. 30 of them voted for this bill, including the Senate Minority Leader and their last Presidential candidate.
Third fact: There are 55 Republicans in the Senate. 0 of them voted for this bill.
Fourth fact: in the last election, 75% of Jews who voted voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate.
We're not sayin', we're just sayin'. The Democrats made another play to their anti-war and anti-Israel base in their quest to get elected (who, by the by, ate it up) - what makes you think, once the base owns them, that they won't keep doing it to stay elected?
And you know what? We recognize that for a lot of American Jews - disproportionately liberal American Jews, but ok... we recognize that there are a lot of American Jews who don't rank Israel as their #1 or #2 priority. But if they're going to not care about Israel, the least they can do for the rest of us is stop publishing sanctimonious articles about how "as an American Jew, of course I support Israel, but..." We used to think that those articles had to be generated by computer, because (a) they were all so similar and (b) there are so many of them that spontaneously appear in letters sections and special columns every time Israel kills terrorists. But alas, no - it looks like those are actually coming from real people.
UPDATE: WOW! That was fast.
To: the liberal gentleman who apparently has us RSS'd (achem - an example the rest of you could stand to emulate)
From: Mere Rhetoric Staff
Date: 2006-09-07 12:05pm PST.
Subject: We know. No really, we know.
Body: We know that this bill was broader than just Israel. But go see who's been needing clusterbombs to retaliate for acts of war and who's been getting condemned for using them – coincidentally, same country. It's like Marx wrote (and they say we don't make an effort to reach out to liberals on this site): you have to analyze "neutral" interventions based on really existing social conditions. So if someone says to you "this will harm Israel" and you say "but it bans all sales and US use" and then that person says "yes, but only Israel uses or needs them", you can either concede or look like an idiot. But those are the only two choices.
And you'd better be careful with your egregious lack of a Marxist sensibility – a couple more slipups like that and they'll take your Starbucks card away.
The Senate rejected an attempt Wednesday by Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy to prohibit the U.S. military from using cluster bombs near civilian sites in Iraq and Afghanistan. Leahy and California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, both Democrats, sought to clip Pentagon funding for the production of the scattershot weapons until clear rules of engagement are implemented, banning their use "in or near" civilian-populated cities, camps and villages... Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, led opposition to the measure, saying the Senate would endanger troops by legislating combat standards from Washington
Questions:
First question: where's that Israeli Lobby "stranglehold on Congress" that Walt and Mearsheimer promised us (bonus: the rest of line was "a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there"... yeah, if only there'd be a debate on Israeli use of munitions in the Senate! That's be great... too bad the all-powerful AIPAC will never let it happen!)
Second question: isn't it kind of clever when the US uses aid to leverage IDF policy? There's an argument to be made that the US is more or less treaty-committed to maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge (give/take). That's what Carter traded in exchange for a Noble Peace Prize at Camp David. So now just under 30% of the US Senate is saying "yes, you can have a military edge because we know that giving up land endangers you - but you can't use that military edge, so yeah, you're still kind of in danger. A lot. Good luck!"
Facts:
First fact: We think that technically the vote was only a ban about cluster munitions used in proximity to civilian areas, but for Israel that's the same thing since its enemies do most of their shooting from civilian areas.
Second fact: Counting Jeffords (since he caucuses with them) there are 45 Democrats in the Senate. 30 of them voted for this bill, including the Senate Minority Leader and their last Presidential candidate.
Third fact: There are 55 Republicans in the Senate. 0 of them voted for this bill.
Fourth fact: in the last election, 75% of Jews who voted voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate.
We're not sayin', we're just sayin'. The Democrats made another play to their anti-war and anti-Israel base in their quest to get elected (who, by the by, ate it up) - what makes you think, once the base owns them, that they won't keep doing it to stay elected?
And you know what? We recognize that for a lot of American Jews - disproportionately liberal American Jews, but ok... we recognize that there are a lot of American Jews who don't rank Israel as their #1 or #2 priority. But if they're going to not care about Israel, the least they can do for the rest of us is stop publishing sanctimonious articles about how "as an American Jew, of course I support Israel, but..." We used to think that those articles had to be generated by computer, because (a) they were all so similar and (b) there are so many of them that spontaneously appear in letters sections and special columns every time Israel kills terrorists. But alas, no - it looks like those are actually coming from real people.
UPDATE: WOW! That was fast.
To: the liberal gentleman who apparently has us RSS'd (achem - an example the rest of you could stand to emulate)
From: Mere Rhetoric Staff
Date: 2006-09-07 12:05pm PST.
Subject: We know. No really, we know.
Body: We know that this bill was broader than just Israel. But go see who's been needing clusterbombs to retaliate for acts of war and who's been getting condemned for using them – coincidentally, same country. It's like Marx wrote (and they say we don't make an effort to reach out to liberals on this site): you have to analyze "neutral" interventions based on really existing social conditions. So if someone says to you "this will harm Israel" and you say "but it bans all sales and US use" and then that person says "yes, but only Israel uses or needs them", you can either concede or look like an idiot. But those are the only two choices.
And you'd better be careful with your egregious lack of a Marxist sensibility – a couple more slipups like that and they'll take your Starbucks card away.
