Do Israel's mindless supporters betray its security?

[Karmadillo]

Robert Scheer seems to think so.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060814/israel_militarism

Those who mindlessly support Israel, right or wrong, from President Bush on through the cheerleaders in Congress and the media, betray the security of the Jewish state. They are enablers who have encouraged Israel's dependency on the drug of militarism as a false escape from the difficult accommodations needed to bring peace to the Middle East.

For too many pundits and politicians, bombing just seems so much simpler -- until, as happened in Qana, Lebanon, on Sunday, those bombs blow up to your nation's disgrace, slaughtering scores of innocents, whose only crime was to be in the crossfire. The alternative to such excessive violence--an authentic peace process--had been supported by every American president since Harry Truman. Yet it was abruptly abandoned, indeed ridiculed, by the Bush administration, which bizarrely believes it can re-create the Middle East in a more U.S.-friendly form. The president has framed this process with a simplistic good-versus-evil template, which has the Christian West and Jewish Israel on an unnecessary collision course with the Muslim world.

Israel foolishly jumped at the tempting opportunity presented by Bush, who believes all the complex issues dividing the Middle East can be neatly summarized as the choosing of sides in a playground game called "the post-9/11 war on terror."

"The current crisis is part of a larger struggle between the forces of freedom and the forces of terror in the Middle East," Bush said Monday. "When democracy spreads in the Middle East, the people of that troubled region will have a better future." Apparently, Bush is unclear on the fact that Lebanon's prime minister -- elected after the country's celebrated "cedar revolution" -- has condemned the uncritical support provided by the United States for Israel since this conflagration began. Or that Hezbollah is an important part of that democratic government because of its popularity among the Shiite Muslims of southern Lebanon. Bush's neoconservative foreign-policy cabal argued that troublesome regimes, such as that of Saddam Hussein, could be easily transformed into pliable, West-leaning democracies. Instead, the opposite has happened. Throughout the region, elections hyped by Bush have turned out to be a vehicle for the expression of religion-fueled rage against Israel and its U.S. sponsor.

more...

[Buzz Clik]

1. That is a pretty offensive title.

Are you implying that all of Israel's supporters are mindless?

Or are you only interested in supporters of Israel who also happen to be mindless? If so, why?

[Karmadillo]

2. Title is drawn directly from the first paragraph

It's clear not all of Israel's supporters are mindless, but those who mindlessly embrace a disastrous militarism seem to be in control at the moment. I don't think (and Scheer apparently doesn't think) this bodes well for Israel's future security.

[w4rma]

32. I think the problem is that Sheer said their *decision* was mindless while

you've extrapolated that to say that Israel's *supporters* (not just their mindless warmongering decisions) were, in general, mindless.

Adjective on wrong noun.

That said, I agree in full with Robert Sheer's analysis.

[Phx_Dem]

37. Militarism?

you think pacifism would work for the Israelis?

[Karmadillo]

41. Are there alternatives between pacifism and war crimes?

I'm guessing there are.

[sgxnk]

3. it is more than offensive

it is a paradigmatic example of "begging the question".

assuming as true what is in fact a point in contentio, that these people ARE blind defenders of israel

it is a very common rhetorical flourish among political ideologues of ALL stripes

it is usually accepted when the discussion is of the circle jerk variety where everybody agrees on X

but causes dissent, like here, when the issue is hardly accepted as fact

it almost instantly diminishes one's credibility, to open an argument by begging the question

[demosincebirth]

5. I caught your drift only and your point is well taken

[Karmadillo]

6. Does the post's title "beg the question"?

Maybe not. It doesn't assume anyting. It simply raises the question. The article posted then presents reasons to support the initial assertion. Seems a reasonable approach to me.

http://begthequestion.info/

<edit>

What is it Not?
To beg the question does not mean "to raise the question." (e.g. "It begs the question, why is he so dumb?") This is a common error of usage made by those who mistake the word "question" in the phrase to refer to a literal question. Sadly, the error has grown more and more ubiquitous common with time, such that even journalists, advertisers, and major mass media entities have fallen prey to "BTQ Abuse."

more...

[Imperialism Inc.]

12. I think the usage is proper.

'Israel's mindless supporters' begs the question are Israel's supporters mindless? The statement assumes they are indeed mindless.

[Karmadillo]

14. It's not a statement.

The post's title is a question. It's raising the question as to whether those who mindlessly embrace violence are undermining Israel's security.

[Imperialism Inc.]

23. The adjective is a indeed an assertion within the question (N/T)

I'm not going to argue with you but the "mindless" portion is begging the question.

It is like the Ontological argument for God. "There is a God because I am going to define God in such as way that he must exist."

Within the question is the assertion "Supporters of Israel are mindless (if they support the violence)... and they support the violence because they are mindless." Begging the question. I'm pretty sure that is what the person meant and it is entirely appropriate. One could argue if that is a fair reading of the OP but that is another issue.

[sgxnk]

28. you are spot on

that was exactly my point

it's always been one of my pet peeves the way people (and i mean a LOT of people) misuse the term "beg the question"

i think the only other term that is so commonly misused is the term "moot"

but regardless, your analysis was spot on as to my point

[Karmadillo]

36. N/T means "no text" doesn't it?

Or am I missing something?

Entirely appropriate to take offense at the claim those who support a nation, right or wrong, are mindless? Interesting concept, although it seems more like a red herring.

[Karmadillo]

35. Assuming Israelis (or Americans) who support the actions of their

government, right or wrong, is offensive? Scheer thinks they are mindless. It seems a reasonable position, though I suppose one can disagree with it (those who support Israel (or America), right or wrong, are not mindless). Why does this offend you?

[uppityperson]

8. "those who" mean those who, those who don't don't

Read the article, it is in there also. "those who" do not mean "all" since that is another thing. If you read something that says "all....", then you can assume that it is everyone. "those who" mean some in particular.

[Tom Joad]

15. I think the title is correct. Because it is not every supporter of Israel

Scheer is referring to, it is the "mindless" ones who support every policy that comes out of Jerusalem that he is talking about, the really "mindless" ones.

not all people who support the USA are mindless, but if they support every policy that comes out of Washington DC we would have a case for those folks in particular are mindless... or just let's say, not very wise.

[bvar22]

21. Agreed!

I strongly support Isreal.
I condemn their current Criminal Agression with the attendant slaughter of civilians.

Simple.

[Tom Joad]

25. There is a difference between caring about people and supporting

specific policies.

[HamdenRice]

31. Anyone who supports Israel "unconditionally" is by definition "mindless"

And I say that as someone who supports Israel conditionally. How can AIPAC type supporters of Israel demand that the US or any American constituency support Israel unconditionally? Do you support US policy unconditionally? Should the US support the United Kingdom unconditionally? If you don't support your own government unconditionally, why would you support a foreign government unconditionally?

Demanding unconditional support of any government is in effect saying, don't think, don't be critical, don't have an intelligent inquiry about what is good for that country or its people or what is in the national interests of the United States.

By definition, unconditional support is mindless.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

34. By YOUR definition.

It also depends on what you mean by "SUPPORT". For instance, I claim that "Support for Israel" means supporting that nation's right to exist, and it's right to forcefully respond to aggression by people and organizations that deny its right to exist - which includes about 3/4s of the Arab street.

Now you can hurl epithets all you want, but my position has come from careful reasoning. And if you are so narrow-minded that you can't acknowledge any position other than your own, you're not worth talking to.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[demosincebirth]

4. I don't support Bush, but I do support Israel's right to defend itself

against terroists groups that try an destroy it, same as I would support any countrys right to do the same.

[Karmadillo]

7. Does Scheer oppose Israel's right to defend itself?

nt

[Casandra]

9. As do I..

...but I DON'T support all this killing and destruction. Sorry, but I think that if you go back with some FACTS, you may find it's hard to say who is responding to who. Who started what? Turns out the capture of 2 Israeli soldiers was in response to a kidnapping in Gaza of a some sort of religious leader and his son. Each side will say they are responding to the other side. Sounds like 2 toddlers arguing.."he started it'.. 'no, he started it". Dont' matter. STOP IT! sit down and SHUT UP!

I do wish some ADULTS would step in here and stop this insanity!!

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeHereNow]

16. Well see, only Israel has the right to defend herself-by killing civilians

Lebanon, on the other hand, does not.
See how that works?
The Bush backed IDF is defending Israel
and is NOT a neocon tool for the PNACers plan
to control the ME.
See?
By the way, don't forget, Iran and Syria are bad...
Now stop thinking and return to your television;
the nice people on CNN will straighten this all out for us.
:smoke: :sarcasm:

BHN

[Nikki Stone 1]

43. Don't play into the media's genderizing pronouns

A message from your anti-propaganda linguist

[furman]

17. Hezbollah is destroying Lebanon

Here's some more facts, or "talking points" as you call them:

Few Israelis have died so far because many left the region or are in bomb shelters.
Hezbollah rockets often land in sparsely populated areas as well.

Hezbollah is not the official military of Lebanon.
They are a rogue militia and terrorist group with a minority of seats in the Lebanese parliament.

The Lebanese central government has allowed Hezbollah to increase their arms supply aimed at Israel.
They are also partly to blame for this.

[Lindacooks]

18. More talking points!!

la la la la la la la la la

Up is down, black is white, war is peace, right is wrong.

[jonnyblitz]

20. that's all they have is talking points and Orwellian ones at that. nt

[Phx_Dem]

38. So facts are now "talking points"?

Strange reality you live in.

[jonnyblitz]

40. last I checked Israel was destroying Lebanon, not Hezbollah

strange world YOU live in if you can't see that.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. What?

Simply calling an argument a "talking point" is not a substitute for rebutting it!

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demosincebirth]

19. Screw Rush.

I am not a far lefty like some on this board who see every situation as black and white, with no in between. I have some conservative values and if they are the same as some "misguided" (Limpball) right wing wacko's, I can't help that.
What Israel is doing now is probably over kill, but how would anyone feel, if they were an Israeli, and one billion muslims were calling for your destruction? That would make anyone a little nervous. Wouldn't it?

[Hoping4Change]

26. The shock and awe tactics of Israel is itself terrorism. nt

[BuyingThyme]

11. By design.

[Tom Joad]

13. That is why we must www.StopAIPAC.org

just a plug for an important website.

[JackNewtown]

29. There is only one way to stop AIPAC:

beat it at its own game. Progressives will need to form a Progressive PAC to counter AIPAC and shell out the necessary $$$ to battle with AIPAC's resources.

[Reckon]

27. Someone must get control of the free flow of news and information!

Edit: n/t

[Clarkie1]

30. There is no Democratic government in Lebanon.

"Hezbollah is an important part of that democratic government."

The first prerequisite for democracy is for a state to be sovereign. Lebanon is not a sovereign state, because it has (or chose not to have) control over the Hezbollah militia. Israel has responded as if Lebanon were a sovereign state that had attacked it, which is understandable because Lebanon and the international community have said Lebanon is a sovereign democracy. In reality, however, there never has been true democracy in Lebanon in the sense of a sovereign democratic state able to govern. Either that, or the Lebanese "government" chose not to govern.

[stepnw1f]

42. And Thanks to Israel... There May Never Be One

after bombing the fuck out of it, and creating more anti-Israel sentiment towards them then there was before. The Israeli government is creating more terrorists, just as the US government has been doing for some time now. If anything, Israeli's government is endangering the Israeli civilians not defending them. Do you care about civilians? Because terrorists don't regardless of nationality.

[malaise]

39. When has the United States or

Europe meaningfully accommodated anyone other than themselves on the planet.

[Lindacooks]

44. Kick