gprime
March 4th, 2008, 11:07 AM
I've long posited that he was the most anti-Israel democrat to be running, and it seems that I've been proven right (http://sandbox.blog-city.com/speaking_truth_to_power.htm):
Power made her most problematic statement in 2002, in an interview (http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Power/power-con5.html) she gave at Berkeley. The interviewer asked her this question:
Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine-Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide? Power gave an astonishing answer:
What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing—or investing, I think, more than sacrificing—billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.
Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It’s essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called “Sharafat” [Sharon-Arafat]. I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention.... Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced. It isn't too difficult to see all the red flags in this answer. Having placed Israel's leader on par with Yasser Arafat, she called for massive military intervention on behalf of the Palestinians, to impose a solution in defiance of Israel and its American supporters. Billions of dollars would be shifted from Israel's security to the upkeep of a "mammoth protection force" and a Palestinian state—all in the name of our "principles."
Now, there are a range of positions regarding Israel I could see candidates rationally arguing, from increasing military aid to ending all aid and unwelcome intervention. But to invade Israel? Like it or not, they are a reliable ally, which in that region, is particularly significant. Israel has provided the US with too much intel, and done the world's dirty work too many times (anybody remember Osirak?) for this to make sense, much less prove morally sound. I do hope some of the batshit insane Jews (read: most in politics) realize what is going on and start distancing themselves from him. Hillary too. Anybody familiar with the Clinton-JTF dispute should know she isn't our friend. That isn't to say McCain is a great choice, but he appears far more rational, and far less antagonistic towards a key ally. This won't happen of course, but I can dream.
Power made her most problematic statement in 2002, in an interview (http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Power/power-con5.html) she gave at Berkeley. The interviewer asked her this question:
Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine-Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide? Power gave an astonishing answer:
What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing—or investing, I think, more than sacrificing—billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.
Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It’s essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called “Sharafat” [Sharon-Arafat]. I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention.... Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced. It isn't too difficult to see all the red flags in this answer. Having placed Israel's leader on par with Yasser Arafat, she called for massive military intervention on behalf of the Palestinians, to impose a solution in defiance of Israel and its American supporters. Billions of dollars would be shifted from Israel's security to the upkeep of a "mammoth protection force" and a Palestinian state—all in the name of our "principles."
Now, there are a range of positions regarding Israel I could see candidates rationally arguing, from increasing military aid to ending all aid and unwelcome intervention. But to invade Israel? Like it or not, they are a reliable ally, which in that region, is particularly significant. Israel has provided the US with too much intel, and done the world's dirty work too many times (anybody remember Osirak?) for this to make sense, much less prove morally sound. I do hope some of the batshit insane Jews (read: most in politics) realize what is going on and start distancing themselves from him. Hillary too. Anybody familiar with the Clinton-JTF dispute should know she isn't our friend. That isn't to say McCain is a great choice, but he appears far more rational, and far less antagonistic towards a key ally. This won't happen of course, but I can dream.