you're reading...
Pre-2008 Posts

The Israel Factor: Presidential Candidates on Israel and Palestine

If you go here you can see how the Israeli newspaper Haaretz rates the U.S. Presidential candidates.

Notice how indistinguishable the candidates’ views are from one another when you get right down to it.  (Not that that is anything unusual in American politics.)  Can anyone offer an opinion as to why Hillary Clinton would favor moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv  to Jerusalem and what significance that would have?  Would this be about the proposal to divide Jerusalem between Israel and Palestine (and Israel’s unwillingness to do so)?  Note John Kerry’s position!   Huckaby, of course, has been to Israel with great regularity, as is true of many affluent American fundamentalist Christians.  They will always defend the nation of Israel, no matter what, as a matter of their faith and commitment to their holy book.

McCain and Newt Gingrich are scary.  Actually, most of the candidates’ views are scary.   Barack Obama is, of course, the voice of inexperience. 

Bottom line, Israel favors Republican candidates.

Discussion

11 thoughts on “The Israel Factor: Presidential Candidates on Israel and Palestine

  1. http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/diplomacy/articles/dip_0140.htm

    Reading this article from 2001 in retrospect, it’s actually surprising (in a good way) that Bush didn’t move the embassy to Jerusalem. Maybe he just got so busy antagonizing the entire Middle East in more direct ways that he couldn’t find the time.

    I think it fits in with her general hawkishness and pro-Israel stance that Clinton would favor it. On matters of foreign policy, I think she’s a little more conservative than her husband, who was certainly hawkish enough (despite managing to come off like he wasn’t and like we weren’t fighting any wars). He seemed a little bit less pro-Israel, also, but then he wasn’t a NY senator post-911.

    Posted by funnie | January 26, 2008, 8:29 pm
  2. “Israel favors Republican candidates.”

    That might be true but it’s not necessarily represented by the numbers posted at the site you linked to. I think it’s only fair to point that out. I’m not at all sure what their numbers represent though.

    “as a matter of their faith and commitment to their holy book.”

    Well duh. American prosperity is the direct result of god blessing us for giving missiles to Israel.

    Just ask anyone in my extended family who also believes that the earth is barely 6,000 years old. Which is like all of them.😛

    Of course, in order for Jesus to come back, which is going to happen soon as 99.97% of people have had access to the bible (so spare no expense on getting the message out to those final “tribesmen” who haven’t had a chance at salvation yet) we need every Jewish person to be slaughtered. A river of their blood opens the portal to heaven. Well, not in so many words. Wouldn’t want to be honest about how fucked up the religion is.

    Posted by Rich | January 26, 2008, 8:47 pm
  3. Rich, how come you don’t think it’s true that Israel backs Republicans? Well, actually, that page there doesn’t say that, it says the Haaretz panel backs Republicans. If you look, Guliani and Newt Gingrich got higher than 8 out of 10 points. But one poor Republican only got three points, maybe because he thought peace between Israel and Palestine was critical to the Middle East! A jewish candidate, Democrat, also supported moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It looks to me, though, that the Republicans got higher scores.

    Americans are interesting re Israel. Fundies, of course, are all about Israel all of the time. But Jews in the U.S. are often liberal democrats but also support Israel, though maybe not so staunchly and definitely not so unthinkingly as fundies.

    So true about how bloody apocalyptic Christian fundamentalism is.

    Posted by womensspace | January 26, 2008, 9:20 pm
  4. “If you look, Guliani and Newt Gingrich got higher than 8 out of 10 points.”

    They did, but on the whole, they’re outliers, statistical anomalies: for the most part, dems and gops seem to be running dead even. So of your two points (all US politicians have the same opinion, Israel backs republicans), I think the first is represented much more by that site than the latter.

    The latter is certainly a more exciting opinion, especially for liberals (I mean, hell, look how quick I was to jump in on it), while the former is kind of boring or depressing, but maybe that makes it a more important one to be making. So “my bad” for that jumping.

    Posted by Rich | January 26, 2008, 10:20 pm
  5. Grab a cup of coffee and saddle up because this is going to be a wild election ride no matter what part of the world you live in or who you endorse for president.

    Posted by Ashley Burr | January 26, 2008, 10:22 pm
  6. Heart, the above post is corporate spam.

    Posted by Rich | January 27, 2008, 1:38 am
  7. You know, I thought it might be but didn’t investigate. Spammers are getting increasingly disgusting so far as trying to trick their way through. I spam hundreds of supposed election comments every day because they go to spam sites that appear to be real sites. This comment sort of looked legit.

    Jerks.

    I’ll leave it there so people understand this exchange.

    Posted by womensspace | January 27, 2008, 2:50 am
  8. Just general info:

    The text associated with the above link says the word “coffee.”

    Google goes from this page to their page, which is a link farm (a page that looks unaffiliated with any company since blogspot, which google owns, hosts it) that goes to a coffee sales place.

    So Google counts that link as a vote for the linkfarm. And since your page ALSO says “coffee” on it, thanks to THEM, Google thinks that your page is specifically reccommending them for good coffee, so it’s worth more than a link on a page that doesn’t say coffee.

    That drives up the relevance of their three sales sites when it comes to google searches of others, or at least that’s what they’re attempting. It’s hard to tell if it’s working out for them since they’re new / possibly incompetent. ( http://www. mbmaonline.com/ )

    The whole “tags” thing makes the whole situation worse. Their robots are able to find a certain subject, specifically, so the random noise they post in response sounds almost reasonable. They aren’t always robots, too, as there’s individuals who get notified whenever a blog out there posts on *their* subject.

    It’s surprising to find out what tags these people are stalking, too. For example, post something on Gardasil and within 20 minutes, you’ll have both pro and anti-gardasil messages posted by professional commentors. And if you think that anti-gardasil folks are just plain folks and not corporate, you’d be vastly mistaken.

    Posted by Rich | January 27, 2008, 3:14 am
  9. Thanks, Rich. Would it help to leave the comment but delink the name of the commentor from their website?

    Posted by profacero | January 27, 2008, 6:36 pm
  10. Good idea, profacero. 🙂

    And thanks, Rich. The ones that are most confusing to me are the ones that sound like a real person wrote them, so it’s interesting to hear, sometimes a real person did!

    I have to say though that some of them seem funny after a while: “I do not agree with you in 100 percent but you got good ideas,” in spam after spam post attached to all kinds of crap: porn, Viagra ads, foreclosures, drugs.

    Posted by womensspace | January 27, 2008, 7:36 pm
  11. I’ve kept one comment in my spam queue forever, it’s just too weird to delete.

    It’s posted with a “female” name, but leads to a registered domain (theSeedsOfNine-Eleven or something) that goes to a mac.com hosted site evidently written by a guy. It was posted to something I wrote about ward churchill being a turdhopper, and it starts out with:

    “The Duke lacrosse team fiasco shows that liberal educators have created a phony cultural paradigm that distorts reality. And, nobody exploits phony paradigms, obfuscates truth, or games the system like the Clintons.

    Shades of Ward Churchill”

    Then it launches into the opening chapter of a book about how Bill Clinton trained Al Quaeda pilots that doesn’t seem to be printed anywhere. And the website itself has all of its text, reams of text, posted as pictures as if to make it untraceable.

    Posted by Rich | January 27, 2008, 9:05 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog Stats

  • 2,558,239 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

The Farm at Huge Creek, Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, The Feminist Hullaballoo

206672_10150156355071024_736021023_6757674_7143952_n

59143_424598116023_736021023_5026689_8235073_n

Afia Walking Tree

More Photos