Yesterday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel criticized the United States and President Obama for not setting clear “red lines” regarding Iran’s nuclear program, with the expectation that, if Iran were to cross our drawn boundary, we would undertake a military strike. Because we refuse to draw a line in the sand, Mr. Netanyahu believes that the U.S. has no “moral right” to stop Israel from taking military action on its own.
what eye thynk: And Israel has no “moral right” to expect us to jump to their summons if they decide to start a war on their own. We’ve had enough war. We’ve seen enough American lives wasted on nebulous causes promoted by gunslinger attitudes.
Mitt Romney has been quoted as saying that, if he were President, he would check with his buddy Bibi Netanyahu before taking a position on Israel and the Middle East. It appears that Bibi thinks he can force the same obsequious loyalty out of President Obama. Good luck with that.
Mr. Netanyahu may believe that his best buddy status with Mitt Romney and his unquestioning endorsement from Romney patron Sheldon Adelsen give him the right to dictate U.S. foreign policy; but Mitt isn’t running this country and Adelsen is still nothing but a rich casino owner. And if the voters in this country have any sense, that will still be the case on November 7.
In this era of shoot first, ask questions later, United States diplomacy needs to stand tall. Yes, Iran's nuclear program scares me. No sane person would want a loose cannon like Ahmadinejad to be one button away from a nuclear weapon; but starting a war to stop a war is not a rational course of action.
Talking may not get you all or exactly what you want, but it won’t squander another young soldier‘s life either.
Showing posts with label israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label israel. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Devalued by Romney
Much has been written about Mitt Romney’s overseas trip this past week. One of the most deconstructed exchanges has been his comparison of Israel and Palestine.
While in Israel, he spoke at length about the difference in Israeli and Palestinian economic situations, comparing the two countries' GDP, (gross domestic product) and pointing out that Israel's GDP is much higher than Palestine's. His interpretation of that was that Israel is populated by a higher class of people with a better developed “culture". "…and as I come here and look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things."
What eye thynk: “…a few other things”? Really, that’s the best his speech writers could do?
The difference in these two countries’ economic picture has very little to do with “culture” and much to do with economic sanctions forced upon the people of Palestine by the government of Israel. No country can develop a prosperous economy if its citizens are isolated, forbidden trade and restricted from regular, gainful employment.
All of that is obvious to anyone, (except, apparently, Mitt), and has been dissected by every media outlet over the past few days; but what struck me the most about Mr. Romney’s speech wasn’t the summary of his judgment, but the criteria that he used.
His determination of each country’s “accomplishments” was based solely on their monetary worth--not education, not customs, not religion, not art or music, not family unit, not morality--simply by how much money they have. Can anyone listen to his words and believe that he would judge the 99% in this country any differently?
The man has only one yardstick--money--and if you don’t have it, you are inferior. I may be holding onto the lower end of the middle class by my fingernails, but that doesn’t make me less worthy of notice as a person and citizen of this country.
The fact that the possibility exists that we could elect a man who would impugn my value based simply on the state of my bank account angers me. And if you’re one of the 99%, it should anger you too.
While in Israel, he spoke at length about the difference in Israeli and Palestinian economic situations, comparing the two countries' GDP, (gross domestic product) and pointing out that Israel's GDP is much higher than Palestine's. His interpretation of that was that Israel is populated by a higher class of people with a better developed “culture". "…and as I come here and look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things."
What eye thynk: “…a few other things”? Really, that’s the best his speech writers could do?
The difference in these two countries’ economic picture has very little to do with “culture” and much to do with economic sanctions forced upon the people of Palestine by the government of Israel. No country can develop a prosperous economy if its citizens are isolated, forbidden trade and restricted from regular, gainful employment.
All of that is obvious to anyone, (except, apparently, Mitt), and has been dissected by every media outlet over the past few days; but what struck me the most about Mr. Romney’s speech wasn’t the summary of his judgment, but the criteria that he used.
His determination of each country’s “accomplishments” was based solely on their monetary worth--not education, not customs, not religion, not art or music, not family unit, not morality--simply by how much money they have. Can anyone listen to his words and believe that he would judge the 99% in this country any differently?
The man has only one yardstick--money--and if you don’t have it, you are inferior. I may be holding onto the lower end of the middle class by my fingernails, but that doesn’t make me less worthy of notice as a person and citizen of this country.
The fact that the possibility exists that we could elect a man who would impugn my value based simply on the state of my bank account angers me. And if you’re one of the 99%, it should anger you too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)