Sound Politics: The worst of Times

December 28, 2005

The worst of Times

The Seattle Times' Bruce Ramsey is our best local editorial writer on local issues, but he's less impressive when he wanders off and writes about the Middle East. His occasional op-eds and unsigned editorials on the subject are as biased as they are ill-informed. Today's op-ed, "Occupiers in another land, but hated all the same", is yet another of his one-sided condemnations of Israel's right to defend itself (or even exist) --

The piece relates the experiences of two former Israeli soldiers who are speaking out against the unpleasantness of their service in the West Bank city of Jenin, with the punchline that:

The facts, as they saw them, were that they were occupiers, they were hated, and they were doing things to make them hated more.

That conclusion might serve Ramsey's anti-Israel agenda (which is used in this instance to also argue against the Anglo-American liberation of Iraq), but it is devoid of essential context. For example, that Israel's actions in Jenin were for the purpose of preventing terrorism against civilians inside Israel; that territorial concessions (e.g. ending the occupation of Gaza) short of surrendering the entire country will not bring peace anyway; and that while some Israelis criticize their government's defensive actions in the West Bank, their views are not in the mainstream of Israeli public opinion, which is strongly supportive of Sharon and those to his right.

If you're interested in learning about the situation in Israel, there's little point in reading about it in the Seattle Times, when the Internet gives you access to a range of Israeli news and commentary, from the left (e.g Ha'aretz), the right (e.g Jerusalem Post), and centrist academics (e.g. my dad). Unlike Bruce Ramsey, these folks all live in Israel, so they know what they're talking about and also have an interest in Israel's secure existence.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 28, 2005 12:07 PM | Email This

Comments

1. Stefan, thanks. There isn't enough hours in the day to refute all the nonsense offered.

Posted by: South County on December 28, 2005 12:38 PM

2. As an American I care about what is in America's national interests. If it is in America's interests to support Israel that is where I stand. If it isn't in America's interests to support Israel then I would not support Israel for my focus is on what is in the best interests of America irregardless of how it effects Israel.

That is why it is so concerning when someone like Kirby Wilbur gets a "friend of Israel" award. Or friend of any foreign country for that matter. His sole alligence should be to America.

http://www.kvi.com/x9977.xml

Posted by: Scott on December 28, 2005 12:51 PM

3. I have a strong feeling that Americans should Support American Interests ONLY. Any country we help should be as a result of their interests corresponding to our interests.

Whether allying ourselves with Israel is in our National interest is up for legitimate debate it bothers me that a Radio Talk Show host in this area has received “Friend of Israel” award.

I would be bothered regardless of what country, be it a “Friend of Great Britain award” or whatever. Again, in foreign policy Americans should support what is in America’s National interests, and everything should flow from that. Which means that if it is in America’s interest to support Israel, then I am all for it, BUT if it isn’t in America’s interests, then I am willing to accept that as well.

But by accepting this “Friend of Israel” award, it means that this talk show host supports Israel regardless of whether it is in our national interest or not. He is looking at it from the wrong direction. He is looking at it from the perspective of “a friend of Israel”, not from the perspective of supporting America’s interests and helping other countries only if it serves America’s best interests.

Kirby Wilbur should be ashamed to accept the “American Jewish Congress Friend Of Israel Award” for it just says that he puts the interests of a foreign country ahead of America.

Look, I criticize naturalized citizens for doing this when it is them putting the interests of the country they came from ahead of that of their new country, America. Can I do any less for someone who was born and grew up in this country?

http://www.kvi.com/x9979.xml

Posted by: Scott on December 28, 2005 12:58 PM

4. The facts, as they saw them, were that they were occupiers, they were hated, and they were doing things to make them hated more.

So that's where these lib columnists get their instaquotes about Iraq: They dive into their Israel archives.

Posted by: Steve_dog on December 28, 2005 01:30 PM

5. Hey, guys, you can be a friend of Israel without putting Israel ahead of your own country! Good grief! And by the way, it does seem to be just a tad in our national interest to help keep Israel safe and free, since it is a very lonely bastion of democracy in the region. Come on, tunnel vision doesn't help anyone.

Posted by: katomar on December 28, 2005 02:05 PM

6. America's interests are the interests of world-wide republican democracy. That is our first and only interest. Only through world-wide republican democracy can we ensure security and prosperity for our people.

Any country that is truly a representative democracy deserves and demands our respect and cooperation. That is why, if Iraqi politics continue on the course they are set, Iraq will become one of our staunchest allies, along with Afghanistan and Lebanon.

That is why the first shot fired on British troops in the American Revolution was the shot heard around the world. If America survives, it is because it has carried that message of independence and freedom to every corner of the earth. If it dies, it is because it has not carried that message.

Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on December 28, 2005 03:08 PM

7. I find this more entertaining than anything else.
These people aptly represent the rest of the democrat party . . . the witzes, igs, and winstons of our world;
. . . liberals . . . degenerates . . . lazy, empty-brained, irrational, filthy, and as we can see . . . living large.

They are the “culture” that Proteus says comes from density. (See Posted by Proteus at December 24, 2005 11:17 AM)
The real truth be known, they are the “art” and the “science” as well.

Very amusing indeed.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on December 28, 2005 03:57 PM

8. Jonathan Gardner,

You said it the best way I have heard it said in a long time. Exactly right.

Thanks

Posted by: Amused by liberals on December 28, 2005 04:08 PM

9. It is not clear to me how being a friend of Israel equates to "putting Israel ahead of the interests of the United States," but then, I'm not looking to find an anti-Semitic slant on everything.

Posted by: steve miller on December 28, 2005 04:35 PM

10. Another Seattle Noam Chomsky-wannabe, ....lacking cajones to explicitly say what he only has the nerve to infer. If the U.S.A. is *the* problem, then why doesn't this creep have the nerve to come out and say it? Why does he hide behind the "we are just like Israel" -B.S.? Didn't Israel give soveriegnty to the PLO for a number of years over a number of cities in the West Bank? What did they get for their experiment in Muslim self-rule? Lots of dead kids and old people from suicide bombers seeking their seventy virgins.

Posted by: John Nelson on December 28, 2005 07:27 PM

11. Great post, John. Also, I always wondered about this 70 virgin stuff. What are they doing? Killing their little girls so they can await warriors up above as virgins? Can anyone fill me in? Where is the great supply of heavenly virgins coming from? After all, it's only good once. Seems like they'd run out!

Posted by: katomar on December 28, 2005 08:01 PM

12. You'e exactly right. Ramsey should stick to what he knows. When he wanders outside the borders of Washington state, he's terrible. Just unreadable.

Posted by: jsa on December 28, 2005 08:55 PM

13. I agree with katomar.

Posted by: Misty on December 29, 2005 02:27 AM

14. Sometimes it is better to be hated. Read Machiavelli's "The Prince".

Posted by: T on December 29, 2005 08:42 AM

15. Yes, our allegiance to our own country should come before any support of another nation. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with counting Israel as one of our most important allies. I cannot count how many times the USA has stood alone with Israel in votes on issues at the UN. Count me among those who highly value our relationship with Israel.

Ramsey's editorial is just another one-sided attempt to increase hatred for Israel and gather support for the plight of the Palestinians.

In the whole Palestinian homeland mess, I side with Israel and support their right to defend themselves against terrorists. I rejoiced the day that Yassar Arafat died.

Posted by: Gary on December 29, 2005 04:35 PM

16. Israel (and it's Jewish citizens) is the most hated country among it's Middle East neighbors. The next most despised people in the Middle East are the Palistinians. Despised by the Syrians, the Jordanians, the Lebanese, the Syrians, have I overlooked any of the "most enlightened countries in that region?" Given the fact that the UN gave the "struggle of the Palistinian people" legitemacy when it allowed a terrorist an audience at the UN (Yassar Arafat) the news media should have an exact number of the deaths and injuries suffered during his struggle for "independence" and also an accounting of how his final estate is estimated to be around a billion dollars, give or take. For a "journalist" ......ah screw it....he writes this crap to collect a paycheck from a paper that thinks it's readership likes to hear how bad "us Amerikans is." I would like to challenge their advertisers to think of looking for a new place to spend their buck 'cause the circulation is going down, and with the education our kids are getting, they aren't reading the rag either.

Posted by: Shmoe on December 29, 2005 08:05 PM

17. We support Israel because essentially, Israel is an intellectual, spiritual, moral and ethical sibling to America.

Israel is the outpost of decency in the Middle East, and along side America and soon Iraq, one of the hopes of liberty and justice in the world. I am a Christian, and truly they are a benevolent theocracy amongst a perilous and despotic region; a nation of heroic practitioners of the faith of their fathers against degenerates from hell. Recently, Americans were attacked and we have faced hell in the Middle East . . . Israel has endured this reality since day one. I’m on their side so long as they are on ours.

What the hell besides stupidity and ignorance makes people believe otherwise?
PREJUDICE/BIGOTRY
God bless Israel and God bless the Israelis.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on December 31, 2005 01:33 PM

18. Amused by liberals. Support America. Let everything else flow from that.

That means if (and I am just talking hypothetically here) becomes in the best national interest of America to abandon Israel then you shouldn't support Israel.

And I mean that about any country. Not only Israel.

It is wrong for an American to accept a "friend of Israel" award. It would be wrong regardless of what country the "Friend of" Award is for.

An American's sole concern when it comes to foreign affairs should be what is in America's interests.

This is true for naturalized citizens with regards to whatever country they originally came from.

It is true for every American.

Posted by: Jeff on January 3, 2006 02:22 PM

19. I agree right now it is probably in the best interest of America to support Israel.

But understand the focus of my statement. It is about what is in AMERICA'S BEST INTEREST.

It if wasn't in America's best interests then I wouldn't support Israel.

I am no friend of Israel. I am no friend of Canada (expecially now). I am no friend of any foriegn country. I am an loyal American whose sole concern is what is BEST FOR AMERICA irregardless of the foreign interests of the foreign country.

Posted by: Jeff on January 3, 2006 02:26 PM

20. "Any country that is truly a representative democracy deserves and demands our respect and cooperation." - Jonathan Gardner,

The HELL THEY DO.

And at the moment I am not thinking of Israel who admittedly is probably in our best interest to support - at the moment.

I will respect only those countries who show respect America. I will only support cooperation with a country when it is in America's best interests to cooperate with that country.

I can't believe "amused by liberals" you would agree with such a statement.

When it comes to foriegn policy, the ONLY THING that should be the concern of any American is what is in OUR best interests. To take the interests of another country into account be it Israel, or be it any other country, is unpatriotic.

You see "naturalized" citizens do this all the time with the country they came from. I don't excuse them even though they might have grown up in that country. Why should I excuse it of Kirby?

Kirby should read George Washington's Farewell Address to the Nation. In it he warns of the danger of "passionate attachments for others" when it comes to foreign policy.

"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. "

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

Posted by: Jeff on January 3, 2006 02:43 PM