For those of you who are interested in such things (if you're not, that's also fine): Andrew Sullivan is crossing over to the anti-Israel camp. He has made larger changes in the past, as he moved from supporting George Bush to drawing his information from Juan Cole, but when it came to Israel, he's been alright. No longer. He's wavering hard, and it's pretty clear which side he's going to fall to once he stops wavering.
Bye Andrew.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Andrew Sullivan has crossed over so much, it's no longer news. May those that have placed their faith in him and his word learn what a useless piece of camel dung he has become.
May GOD again protect Israel and its people, and bring prosperity in the aftermath of war.
FROM CAROL HERMAN
So what! You didn't know people are free to have opinions? And, Sullivan makes his living spouting his. So what!
I wouldn't give the media, now, the time of day. All they have left is the garbage ... and when the "run with it" they lose advertisers.
About the only thing I am sure of; is that Israel worked very hard on coming up with this time table.
And, the decision to move started on December 27th. Moon, of Korea, was the head guy at the UN. Among other things.
And, then there are the details. When Bush went to Irak, and the journalist tossed shoes at him; he overlooked the fact that Bush has a way of "getting even." Hamas has never been hit so hard by an American president! The days of "kissy-face" with arafat are gone.
Can Obama be less effective than Dubya? HE's awfully quiet. And, he can fail on the day he comes into office! It's not as if there aren't risks. Let alone what will be left of Hamas, ahead.
In other words? There never was a better time to take action!
And, the head of the UN is Czech.
Sullivan? Perhaps on par with Sarkozy. And, there, I could care less what the french think.
On New Years Day in france, their muzzies barbecued 425 cars. They haven't solved the problems they have.
Now, instead of letting Sullivan alone, you've given him mile-age. And, I have no idea why you're so generous.
I agree with Carol Herman above, except that the new head of the EU (not the UN) is Czech and he has said that he feels (at least up to now) that Israel's actions are defensive rather than offensive in nature. Seems like a smart guy who also isn't buying into catastrophic
Global Warming.
The shoes-on-Downing St. photo is a bit much. New Holocaust, anyone? Sullivan, get serious.
Wow, I haven't seen spew from "Carol Herman" in a long, long time. I didn't know he was still around.
Yes, "he." That's one of his many pseudonyms.
Sullivan used to be just a whiny little girl. Now he's an anti-Israel whiny little girl.
Your post reminds me of another recent post by Sullivan's colleague at the The Atlantic Monthly, Megan McArdle. She writes:
I've heard all the arguments about who's really to blame about a zillion times. And all I get out of it in the end is that the whole thing makes me sick and sad. I don't see any untainted victims. I see a bunch of people who have been stomped on by history beating up each other in revenge for past wrongs that can't be righted, lashing out whenever they think they can get away with it without losing the foreign funding that allows them to continue the fun. And I don't ever blog about it because one is not allowed to have an opinion on the matter--no matter what I say, I'll be excusing terrorism or, irrelevantly, the holocaust, or shilling for western imperialism.
Your post just reinforces McArdle's point and takes it further. It's not only verbotten for Sullivan to blog about the Israel/Palestine conflict in general terms, but he can't even critique Israel's most recent actions without "crossing over to the anti-Israel camp."
Sorry, but there's nothing in his recent posts indicating he's generally anti-Israel; just that he opposes the current military operations in Gaza. If you disagree, then defend Israel's recent operations on their own terms. By labeling Sullivan "anti-Israel" you only make yourself seem shrill and defensive.
You guys never cease to equate excluding people with defeating their ideas. Just a bit of friendly advice: pushing people out of the tent of what you consider respectable doesn't buttress your position. It leaves you in a lonelier intellectual alley, and makes it harder for you to draw broad coalitions dedicated to the prospects to which we all agree, like the need to defend Israel's security and prosperity. But if you keep excising people for disagreeing with you on how to so defend those things, I imagine you'll sooner or later be left with less people willing to defend them at all. So what's your priority? Defending Israel? Or excommunicating its critics?
Hamas has multiple objectives it would seem. One of them is to create a colossal disproportion between Israelis killed and Palestinians killed. With the ratio running 1 to 100 at present, tens of thousands are protesting around the world against the Israeli attacks, and regime. Nobody is protesting against the Palestinians.
Hamas also drives the issue back to the fundamental question: when did a colonialist confection carved out of Arab land so Europeans and Americans could live "free", at the expense of the indigenous people ever make sense? You can point to the US and Australia as examples, but that genocide took place largely in the 19th century, before the Native People were seen to be fully human. If you look at the cost versus the value of Israel, and conclude that the idea of Israel is just plain wrong-headed, you are reaching a completely rational conclusion. Why should Hamas give up when they are winning?
When I raise this point with my pro-Israeli acquaintances they immediately start yelling about anti-Antisemitism, or God. Obviously this has nothing to do with Antisemitism as 40% of the Jewish people who comment on Haaretz agree with me. As for "God", when you have to resort to Stone Age myth to defend your slaughter of women and children, either you are completely out of touch with reality, or morally bankrupt.
Why are the Israelis committing suicide by a thousand cuts? If they want to solve the problem for good, they should expel ALL the Arabs from "Greater Israel" and kill the ones that won't move. Killing a hundred thousand now, all at once, will cost less than killing then hundred thousand over the next 50 years. Then they can build a big wall wherever they want, and carry on in their bubble world as the Chosen People. That actually makes more sense than what they have been doing since 1948, a policy which will fail, because the Palestinians are not going anywhere.
Hi zbird and friends -
Unlike with our enemies, when we tag someone as unfriendly, that's the end of it. We don't go on violent vendettas, we don't burn their embassies nor publish fatwas against them. We note, perhaps with a tinge of sorrow, that a voice that used to be raised for us has become something else. It's a democratic world, and that's their right if they so wish.
Andrew, btw, hasn't yet. As I said, he's wavering: there's still hope. :~)
"And when I read Michael Goldfarb [on the Israel-Gaza conflict], I become more and more aware of just how disgusting the McCain campaign was; and how lucky we are to have removed these thugs from office."
Andrew "The Sarah Palin Vagina Monologues" Sullivan
This is what apparently set Sully off:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/01/a_supposed_serious_person.asp
What has happened to Sullivan? He just cannot let it go can he? Still going on and on about McCain and Palin. Still ignoring the fact that Hamas started this by lobbing missiles against Israel. McCain is evil now because he picked Sarah Palin and was dishonest in telling the truth about Obama's strange pals. When the One disappoints him, will Sully go completely insane? Nope, he will just create a double standard. This is not madness but dishonesty.
Not surprising. Everything with Sullivan centers around gay marriage.
You see, Bush opposed gay marriage, Bush supports israel. So Sullivan is perfectly fine with selling out the jewish state to barbaric killers.
He truly is disgusting.
Danny,
so Sullivan is "selling out" the Jewish state to barbaric killers? what is this nonsense? The party "selling out" (whatever that might mean) Israel is it's leaders. Neither the US nor it's citizens owes Israel or it's citizens anything. One comment one doesn't like to hear, and the whole world is "selling out" or aligning with the "anti-Israel" (read antisemitic) crowd. where's the critical thinking here? If Israeli policy is good enough to be debated on Dizengoff St., it's good enough to be debated by folks in it's patron country-
I disagree with Sullivan's recent posts about Gaza, but I wouldn't describe him as anti-Israel. He is sensitive to the suffering in any war, and I think he hasn't yet thought through the question of where does Palestinian suffering come from in the first place. He is trying to be fair, and I think he's outsmarted himself with some clever and complex posts about "proportionality" and "Israel's strategy". But I believe his posts are totally without malice.
Andrew Sullivan is anti-Israel, you say? This is the same type of reasoning that says Americans who oppose war, torture and rolling back civil liberties are "anti-American." Wrong. I support America. Sullivan supports Israel. We just disagree with the polices they have respectively embarked on. A country is not the sum of its policies at a given point in history.
What I find interesting about people like Sullivan and opponents of Jewish self-determination in general is that it is not just an Israel government or leader that he "lost him" but Israeli legitimacy. No one ever denies PakistaniLegitimacy because of the Kashmir dispute or a Pakistani leaders action or inaction. Likewise any other country. What is it that is different about Israel and Jews in which because of one governments policy or another Jews are suddenly denied the right of self-determination? Israel doesn't need fickle friends who judge her by different standards than every other country.
Post a Comment