« Imagine there's no telecoms | Main | IV, Mearsheimer and Walt, and moving on. »

December 18, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200e54fbbea868834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference III Religion and Politics - The Double Irony:

Comments

Thank you Sara for an interesting diary. I have not read "The Israel Lobby" but your article makes me likely to do so.

Hagee, at the head of a Flock of Millions of End-of-Times Rapturists, can prostrate himself before Talking-to-God Bush, and lick his boots with the best of them!

Why? Because Hagee is a True Believer in His Own Literal Truth - the Triumphant Return of Christ on a Cloud to the Jews in Jerusalem (for one last chance to convert!) and the Vanquishing of all (Non-Christian Heretical) Evil from the World!

He 'sees' Bush as his Never-Makes-A-Mistake Idol of Most Strict Daddy-ness on High, and the Redeemer of God's Infallible Word:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."

---

Ironies will abound when reconciling (static) Literal Truths to our (dynamic) Felt-Sense Reality, and that's the problem with being a Sheep - you're fucked when the Shepherd is an Hallucinating Fruitcake Ideologue.

Didn't Our Forefathers say the same thing about Mad King George?

...only, maybe, a little less colorfully?

I apologize if I offended anyone's sensibilities.

My response just went through ten to twelve versions of type what you see, and I am, apparently spam. What gives???

The point of M&W's book is that we should focus on how the Lobby impacts the structuring of America
Foreign Policy.

Can we really believe Bush intends a fully independent Palestinian State? Something that really represents sovereignity in the normal sense of that term? I have grave doubts on this.

As M and W point out, the Arab states have never been interested in an independent Palestine State -- never. The Annapolis meeting was about their blessing something like that, without defination. I think it is more about letting Bush look as if he tried, but the Palestinans would not agree to his deal. This lets him off the hook -- tried, but little co-operation. Abu Mazen is as ineffectual as Arafat.

Bush, If I understand him, he is constrained by American Christian Zionist positions that totally oppose any division of what they view as Biblical Israel, a position that eliminates a sovereign Palestian State, with the normal notions of sovereignty. In which case, I gather the idea is something of an Indian Reservation that is under consideraton. We should have learned.

I went to an event in Berkeley when Mearsheimer and Walt were touring for the book and gave the flavor of it here. It seemed pretty clear to me listening to them that the complete screw up that is Iraq leaves "realists" of their sort (I might label them simply "imperialists") reaching for answers to what could set US policy off on what they see as an ill-designed fiasco.

Numerous polls indicate that the Lobby's expansionist Zionism is NOT the position of most US Jews who tend to be conventional liberal Democrats. Certainly adding the Christianist troops to the conservative Jewish organizations is what gives the Lobby much of its contemporary muscle. Sensible Jewish anti-Zionists have been working diligently and painfully for many years to try to make mainstream Jews aware that the Lobby actually poses a threat to Israel's survival by endorsing and underwriting bellicosity.

Thanks for highlighting an important point of the book.

There is division in the core fundamentalist, evangelical movement. The Hagee segment is increasingly being marginalized. I would expect this marginalization to accelerate as the G.W. Bush Administration comes to a close.

Thanks for highlighting an important point of the book.

There is division in the core fundamentalist, evangelical movement. The Hagee segment is increasingly being marginalized. I would expect this marginalization to accelerate as the G.W. Bush Administration comes to a close.

Everyone sounds very erudite and mature here, yet, this Evangelical connection is the single most dangerous force we've unleasehed in the Middle East. The tabooness (sorry) of the End-Times topic, the unceasing defensiveness and willingness to be angry when asked about it told me long ago all I ever wanted to know about the Christian religion (apart as that has become from christian philosophy).

ANY organized group where the stated fulfillment of their existence, their entire raison d'etre, requires a World War in the Middle East where everyone dies except them should be enough to be forever banned from politics or serious intellectual consideration. And no one 'respectable' (Olbermann can't do everything) can point out that Christians do not want peace in the Middle East, that peace is anathema to their apotheosis...they look to "War and Rumors of War" as signs of their coming reward.

Laughter, ridicule and contempt is all they deserve.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad