Cohen: "...Why is it ok for a Jew to say we should all go to Israel but not for a gentile?..."
Question:
What is the definition of a Zionist?
Answer:
One Jew, who extorts money from a second Jew, in order to send a third Jew to Israel.
As regards Senator McCain's pointed response to Congressman Paul, saying that it was a "non-interventionist" policy which once enabled Hitler to rise to power and launch a World War, this point is well taken.
Historically speaking, the greater portion of the American citizenry wanted to stay out of "Europe's Wars" both in WWI as well as in WWII.
A strong case can also be made for the historical fact that many, but not all, who supported the "interventionist" line prior to both wars, did so out of anticipation for the profits to be earned in a war time economy.
It stands as common sense, not to mention fiscal sense, that a nation can not long sustain a worldwide "empire" which is financed with money which is borrowed from foreign nations, many of whom are itself no friends of ours.
It also stands to reason as common sense, that once any nation is planted firmly across the globe as is the U.S. today, some among its leadership inevitably will "cross the line" between 'maintaining peace and stability' vs outright 'direct intervention in the affairs of others'.
Clearly, the U.S. leadership today is unable to distinguish one from the other and is caught on the horns of a dilemma.
Freedom and liberty can not be maintained at home whilst simultaneously using force abroad intervening in the affairs of other sovereign states which in themself do not and never have posed a threat to our own national security.
The question which I myself am unable to answer satisfactorily is "Where on the planet, and at which point, must the U.S. draw a line between 'protecting freedom and promoting self-rule by other nations' vs 'becoming so entangled with states who despise freedom and actively work against U.S. interests, that we no longer have any friends or allies?
On the Republican side, Congressman Paul is the only candidate offering any alternative to the 'status quo' of "business as usual once the elections are over".
The foreign as well as domestic policies of the U.S.A. in 2007 mirror all too closely the policies enacted by our one-time sworn enemy the U.S.S.R.
After the 1967 Israeli Victory over her Arab enemy states, the Communist Party of the USSR funded all of Israel's enemies, trained all of Israel's enemies in terrorism and warfare, and supplied all of Israel's enemies with advanced military weaponry and technology, all the while demanding that Israel retreat to the indefensible 1948 borders from which she had been attacked daily by her enemies.
During that period of time, from 1967 up until the fall of the Soviet Union, America stood by Israel, supported her financially, diplomatically, and militarily, and supported her claims to the Land of Israel on moral grounds, historical grounds, and on grounds of national defensive needs.
Statement after statement was issued by Washington which clearly refuted the claims of the phony PLO terror groups and refuted the need for there to be another state carved out of the former British Mandated Middle East.
Beginning with President Carter, and now gaining full momentum from the Bush "conservatives", U.S. policy towards Israel is identical to that of its former Soviet enemy.
Is "business as usual" what the Jewish State needs to survive today, or perhaps is a more "non-interventionist" policy one that would more enable Israel's physical survival?
