"The road to peace between Israelites and Palestinians is not through Baghdad, but ironically, the road to be able to negotiate real peace has to first settle the situation in Baghdad."
On the surface it appears harmless. Now it's time to have a think!
Here's what Susan Shelley has to say about this:
Senator Joe Biden, Democratic candidate for president, spoke at a synagogue in Des Moines Tuesday and said this:
"The road to peace between Israelites and Palestinians is not through Baghdad, but ironically, the road to be able to negotiate real peace has to first settle the situation in Baghdad."
Did you catch that shift in terminology? Senator Biden referred to the Israelis as "Israelites."
Why?
Probably because Senator Biden wants to appear even-handed and impartial in the conflict between Israel, which is a sovereign nation, and the Palestinians, who are a group of people seeking their own sovereign nation on land won by Israel in a war. The war, incidentally, was started by neighboring countries who were trying to destroy Israel.
If Senator Biden were to refer to the conflict between Israel and "Palestine," he might be accused of pre-judging the outcome of a negotiation that is far from concluded.
So he has come up with another way to appear even-handed in the dispute: he has called the Israelis "Israelites," a term that carries the connotation of an ancient historical people who live on the land, just as the Palestinians live on the land, although the Palestinians are not an ancient historical people unless you consider sixty years to be ancient history.
Do the Palestinians have the right to a state? Do the Kurds have a right to a state? How are these questions to be decided, and once decided, are they subject to eternal reargument whenever any group uses violence against the state that was created?
Is a sovereign state presumed to have the right to its own existence, or does every claim against that sovereignty have the presumption of validity when accompanied by violence?
Israel is a sovereign state.
The Palestinians are a group of people who freely elected a government dominated by members of Hamas, a terrorist organization that campaigned on a promise to destroy Israel.
Is it morally right to take a neutral stand in the conflict between them? Is it pragmatic? Or is it an endorsement of terror tactics as a means to a political end?
Senator Biden may have it exactly backwards. Instead of peace in Baghdad leading to peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it may be that terrorism against Israel has served as an instruction manual for terrorism against the U.S. and its allies in Iraq, not to mention New York.
It may be that even-handedness in a conflict between a sovereign government and rocket-firing terrorists is an American form of suicide bombing.
If so, Senator Biden's words might as well be a backpack full of dynamite and ball bearings. He verbally erased the sovereign state of Israel by calling the Israelis by a name that makes them sound like wandering Jews.
Is it possible that Senator Biden merely misspoke?
He's the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
It's likely he knew exactly what he was saying.
And now, so do you.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
4 comments:
You can believe he chose his words very carefully. And you are 100% correct as to the difference between a people and a nation. The pandering has already begun. He is attempting to establish a good relationship with the Palestinians (terrorists) and hoping to plant in the minds of those not so informed that he has acknowledged Israel. This is an attempt to trick the casual voter, the one who does not think critically, to appear neutral. When looking under the surface, it is obvious he is afraid of offending terrorists and their sympathizers.
Sneaky bastard.
D.O.M., Just to be clear about this post, it's from Susan Shelly which I copied and pasted here as well as gave her link. She might ask me to take it down but I wanted people to read her very wise words themselves.
Yes he is pandering and he is sadly one of the better ones on Israel, or should I say less offensive.
There can be no neutrality on these issues and I believe Susan's conclusion that Iraq and 9/11 were able to happen because of our stance of supposed neutrality.
Where do you think the number 57 comes from BTW?
Very insightful. And the fact that Obama is relying on Biden to shore up his lack of experience with international relations makes this all the more noteworthy. It does not bode well.
Chatty, Isn't it interesting?
Post a Comment