Why does the left insist on defending the world's bad guys?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

time and time again, it seems that the bad guys are defended by the left while the right backs up the other side.

Now, this is purely subjective on my part, don't get me wrong, but let's use the Israeli-Palestine situation.

In my eyes, Israel should have the right to exist. They were given a country and the arabs in the area tried to kill it. To this day, the jews in Israel have to worry about when the next attack will be. In my mind, they are the good guys, doing what they need to do to defend themselves. meanwhile, arab hate groups continuously strive to hurt the Israeli's and drive them out. In my mind, they are the bad guys in this conflict, yet every time I rurn around, the left seems to want to defend these groups and try to demonize Israel. I don't understand why that is.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,181 • Replies: 86

No top replies

Palestinians have the right to exist too, and Israel kills more innocent (not terrorists) Palestinians than the Palestinians kill Israelis.

So if this whole comparsion is based on "right to exist" you might want to tell the "good guys" to quit snuffin' out said right at a fester pace than the terrorists can.

The difference seems to be lacking acknowlegement of nuance or too nuanced. i.e. seeing the world in too simplistic terms vs seeing the world in too nuanced terms.

In your simplistic "Israelis are the good guys" scenario you seem to simplify and exclude Israeli wrongdoing for example.

On the other end of the spectrum some get so nuanced they have a hard time appreciating simplicities and end up with weird bedfellows because they are confused.

0 Replies

Quote:

They were given a country and the arabs in the area tried to kill it.

Yeah, I guess you could start the discussion by saying that there are a lot of people who feel that this very first action was greviously flawed.

As in another thread where I described my experiences there (before it got massively derailed).... I will say that the Israelis are not helping the situation in the slightest. The conditions they force the Palestinians to live in are deplorable, and have been for many years.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Palestinians have the right to exist too, and Israel kills more innocent (not terrorists) Palestinians than the Palestinians kill Israelis.

So if this whole comparsion is based on "right to exist" you might want to tell the "good guys" to quit snuffin' out said right at a fester pace than the terrorists can.

The difference seems to be lacking acknowlegement of nuance or too nuanced. i.e. seeing the world in too simplistic terms vs seeing the world in too nuanced terms.

In your simplistic "Israelis are the good guys" scenario you seem to simplify and exclude Israeli wrongdoing for example.

On the other end of the spectrum some get so nuanced they have a hard time appreciating simplicities and end up with weird bedfellows because they are confused.

Agreed

This "bad" guy, "good" guy "them" and "us" black and white world many live in is the very reason we find ourselves on the terrorist hit list.

I don't condone bad actions from either side. Wrong is wrong I don't give a damn who's doing it. Killing innocents is wrong. We need to stop
backing only one side and come to a compromise that helps both equally.

Quote:

time and time again, it seems that the bad guys are defended by the left while the right backs up the other side.

Where do you "see" this? in righty world? The "left" has been just as guilty as the "right" for giving so much support to one side. The Jewish voting block is HUGE and thus far they have voted primarily Democrat so please explain why they would keep voting with the "left" given your premise.

Rolling Eyes

Do you guys even TRY to think and give a rationale debate?

0 Replies

Craven, I consider you to be one of the A2K "experts" on the Israeli-Palestininian conflict.

Would you say that, more or less, Israeli attacks are retallitory and reactionary? Would you agree that if the Palestinians stopped attacking Israeli's that the IDF would stop attacking terrorists and causing so much strife?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
They were given a country and the arabs in the area tried to kill it.

Yeah, I guess you could start the discussion by saying that there are a lot of people who feel that this very first action was greviously flawed.

Please explain. I'll reserve my comments for later.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As in another thread where I described my experiences there (before it got massively derailed).... I will say that the Israelis are not helping the situation in the slightest.

Yes, the fact that the israelies won't simply lie down and die is quite annoying to you I am sure.

0 Replies

OMFG, It's either a stroke, or I'm agreeing with Karzak on some level...(incidentally, I'm no liberal, I'm apolitical, so call me a liberal again, I'll have to throw hot bacon at you.)

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Would you say that, more or less, Israeli attacks are retallitory and reactionary?

My position is that they are often aimed at inciting. Sometimes acarefully timed assasination will be used to remove pressure on Israel (for example, Sharon once demanded a period of "calm" before he went to the table to discuss peace. Arafat set a precedent by calling for an end to the attacks. The extremist groups accepted a cease fire. Israel's response after the period of calm started growing was an assasination that pissed off the Pals and ended the calm and the subsequent pressure on Israel to talk peace).

It is true that Israel often attacks subsequently to Palestinian attacks, but I do not think it is accurate to describe Israel's MO as always reactionary.

Israel has set definitive legal precedents in the realm of proaction and not reaction.

Quote:

Would you agree that if the Palestinians stopped attacking Israeli's that the IDF would stop attacking terrorists and causing so much strife?

Yes, but not because Israel is so good and care so much about the morals but rather because they have an inkling of how to do PR, something the Palestinians wouldn't know about if it bit them in the ass.

Israel, in the past, might have timed an assasination to stir up the pot if the bombings subsided.

This is because (IMO) an element of Israel opposes any and all peace (the religious right in Israel has rejected every single peace plan by any party and insists the conflict continue until greater Israel is realized).

For the Israelis who are willing to put up with the conflict as long as Israel can grow (and throughout the conflict it has grown) oppose peace and actively work to keep the conflict going.

Sharon, in his waning years wants a legacy (IMO) of solving this conflict.

He has stood down his zealots and told them that Palestine is a fait accompli.

The greater Israel zealots want the conflict to continue to keep the dream of greater Israel alive. They are a very vocal minority.

The Israeli majority is less interested in their Biblical dream and their penchant for being a millstone about the neck of Israel but because of the way the polictics are structured and the zeal they demonstrate they have frequently gotten their way.

So, to nuance your simple question:

Sometimes Israel acts with the sane majority, other times they succumb to their zealous settlers and their expantionist dreams.

Sometimes Israel's actions are about security, sometimes (many times) about simple revenge (though for psycological reasons many claim this is related to security).

Sometimes Israel's actions work toward the peace process, sometimes against it and toward greater Israel.

The conflict within Israel is almost as acute as between the Israelis and Palestinians.

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
They were given a country and the arabs in the area tried to kill it.

Yeah, I guess you could start the discussion by saying that there are a lot of people who feel that this very first action was greviously flawed.

Please explain. I'll reserve my comments for later.

What's to explain? Except for the zealous homeland folk few people would describe the creation of Israel as being well thought out, or fair to the local populace.

Do you assert that it was?

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

I'm apolitical

Then why are you on a political forum? Laughing

0 Replies

Well, if I may weigh in... I know very little about Israel, so I won't go into that (and wish that many others wouldn't, either).

But as to the question at the top of the thread, "Why does the left insist on defending the world's bad guys?"

There is often back-and-forth between folks about crime. One person might say, "Everybody should be held accountable for their own actions. Thus, enacting punitive measures is the best method for reducing crime."

Another person might respond, "The perpetrator of the crime is frequently raised in an environment when there are few viable options in life; many people in such environments turn to crime."

The first person then accuses the second person of excusing a criminals action, when in fact the second person is trying to look at a situation and trying to find a way to minimize the number of instances in the future when someone might have to decide between a very difficult legitimate life and a life of crime.

Acknowledging that there are likely to be Palestinian terrorists for as long as there is a wide gap between what Palestinians have and what Israelis have is not the same thing as siding with Palestinian terrorists. Claiming that divisive, militaristic solutions are only going to lead to more bloodshed is not the same as siding with the enemy, however much many people would like us to believe otherwise.

0 Replies

Karzak wrote:

cavfancier wrote:
I'm apolitical

Then why are you on a political forum?

'Apolitical' is still a political stance. Laughing

To address Craven, call me biased, I'm willing to admit it. The only thing I will 'assert' is that I feel that at the time Israel was established, it was necessary. What the Israeli government has decided to do with their power in recent times is another issue entirely. Which side of the 'fence' are you on today? In the original spirit of the thread, I'm being 'subjective.'

Interestingly, and 'subjectively' enough in my mind, to follow the natural logic of those who do not support Israel (their perogative) it seems that the common argument against establishing Israel as a country is guilt over the Holocaust, which led to rash and misguided decisions. That I think we can chalk up to 'liberal guilt.' So...the see-saw starts to swing the other way now? Are the third generation liberals now feeling guilty about their ancestors original guilt? Please note, this is entirely subjective, or in internet-speak, IMHO.

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

Karzak wrote:
cavfancier wrote:
I'm apolitical

Then why are you on a political forum?

'Apolitical' is still a political stance.

Main Entry: apo·lit·i·cal
Pronunciation: "A-p&-'li-ti-k&l
Function: adjective
1 : having no interest or involvement in political affairs; also : having an aversion to politics or political affairs
2 : having no political significance
- apo·lit·i·cal·ly /-k(&-)lE/ adverb

0 Replies

I believe Israel has the right to exist, that Israel has the right to defend itself and the Palestinians have certain rights that are being violated at the moment. McGentrix: you should first explain the term 'bad guys' before you simply start accusing 'the Left' of something. It is clearly subjective, as you stated. That's why I don't agree with you.

0 Replies

Karzak wrote:

cavfancier wrote:
Karzak wrote:
cavfancier wrote:
I'm apolitical

Then why are you on a political forum?

'Apolitical' is still a political stance.

Main Entry: apo·lit·i·cal
Pronunciation: "A-p&-'li-ti-k&l
Function: adjective
1 : having no interest or involvement in political affairs; also : having an aversion to politics or political affairs
2 : having no political significance
- apo·lit·i·cal·ly /-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Well, as it is a free continent, you are free to ignore me, as I am also free to involve myself in a discussion, whatever forum it might be, that I may have some interest in, and perhaps some relevent input that might even support some of the claims you make here. However, if you are so quick to dismiss me when I might actually have an inkling of support for your argument, then you really are just here to piss everyone off, and I have no use for you. Nice Googling, by the way. :wink:

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

Well, as it is a free continent, you are free to ignore me

Thank you for your permission! Very Happy

0 Replies

Wait a second....this is some neocon trap....you did not ignore me at all.

0 Replies

I should know better than to be sucked into any of McG's threads . . .

However, this is from the Right, who brought you Singman Rhee, Nguyen Cao Key, Ferdinand Marcos, Augusto Pinochet, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, "Papa Doc" Duvalier and "Baby Doc" Duvalier, Rafael Trujillo, General Castelo Branco, the Greek Colonels (take your pick, one s.o.b. is pretty much the same as the others), General Mohamed Suharto, Anastasio Somoza followed by Luis Somoza followed by Anastasio Somoza, Park Chunghee, Mobutu Sese Seko, Lon Nol, Hugo Banzer, Jonas Savimbi . . .

In case you're wondering, that covers a period from the 1930's to the present, and hits every continent except Australia . . .

However, the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Prime Minister Edward Whitlam was an offense to American sensibilities in the early 1970's. But Whitlam was dismissed by Governor General Kerr, a royal appointee, when Whitlam refused to call a new election. From an on-line biography of Whitlam:

Despite a hostile Senate and a sometimes cynical media, the shiny new Labor machine quickly roared into top gear. But after a while it was bombarded by rocketing oil prices and it began to run out of financial fuel. Some members of Whitlam's government, including Rex Connor and Jim Cairns, defied the Constitution in a secret attempt to raise a $2 billion overseas loan to keep Labor programs rolling. The two men gave misleading answers to challenges from a revamped Opposition, led by Malcolm Fraser, and Whitlam was forced to demote them. Cairns added fuel to media fires by taking on a pretty young woman, from outside the public service, as his personal secretary.

Whitlam, campaigning against a backdrop of rising unemployment and inflation, fought a battle of wits and stamina with Fraser. Fraser, determined to force a dissolution of Parliament so that a scandalised electorate might show its opinion of Labor, contrived a Senate blockage of Labor's 1975 budget.

Whitlam still thought he would ride out the storm and, on 11 November 1975, he tried to present a plan of action to Governor-General Sir John Kerr. But Kerr demanded: "Are you prepared to recommend a general election?" When Whitlam refused, Kerr said: "In that case, I have no alternative but to dismiss you."

Kerr commissioned Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister and the coalition won a resounding victory in the December elections.

The 'Loans Affair' and 'The Dismissal' comprise one of the most controversial periods in Australian politics and many believe the whole truth about them has not yet been told.

The most common assertion--not among conspiracy theorists, but students and watchers of the intelligence community--is that the CIA put the arm on Kerr, who had long been believed to be (even before 1975) a stooge for American governments and interests . . .

The acrid stench of hypocricy, never mind the flimsy "if ya ain't fer us, yer agin us" character of the allegations here, makes this thread particularly nauseating . . .

0 Replies

Why does the left insist on defending the world's bad guys?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know