|
Buchanan calls Israel our friend
Aditya B. writes:
Pat Buchanan has called Israelis “our friends.”
Signs & wonders!
He writes:
Before we endorse the right of all peoples to have what they want, perhaps we should know what they want. For in the Mideast, it appears that most would like to throw us out and throw our Israeli friends into the sea.
LA replies:
I don’t know what to make of it.
This one statement, after a decade of mild hostility toward Israel, followed by another decade of intense, inveterate hostility to Israel and advocacy of its destruction via the “one state solution,” may be suggestive of a positive shift of direction in his thought, but that is all.
One thing that could have triggered this change of thought, if that is what it is, is the emerging reality of the real difference between the neocons and Israel. The central thought of the paleocons and anti-Israelites for all these years has been that the neocons are bad actors, and since the neocons support Israel, let’s punish the neocons by being hostile to Israel. But now that the democracy-mad neocons are plainly at odds with Israel’s security interests, the foundation of the anti-Israelite position has broken down. Now, perhaps, Buchanan sees Israel as another Western country which is threatened by the spread of Islamic democracy championed by the neocons. However, that’s just speculation on my part.
Also, he starts the article with an incredible historical error. It is one of the truisms of American history that Thomas Jefferson was not a delegate at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, because he was ambassador to France a the time. Every school child used to know this, at least until the last 20 years. Buchanan, unbelievably (especially as he’s always putting himself forth as some kind of historian), puts Jefferson at the Constitutional Convention.
Aditya B. writes:
Do you think in addition to Buchanan’s realization of the very real differences between Israelis and neocons, he has now appreciated the differences between Israelis and Muslims?
Buchanan, for all his faults, is a well traveled, intelligent, and observant man. However, he is a Western man and cannot see the world any other way. He may have observed instances of Muslim rage and savagery, but always saw such deeds through Western lenses. Like the liberals he despises, he had his own “root causes” theory which is “blowback” and Israel.
However, modern technology has exposed Arab “culture.” Buchanan, like everyone else, is able to see the grisly dance of death and destruction that is being performed all over the Muslim Middle East. Maybe Buchanan now understands that the “root causes” of Arab Muslim rage are, simply put, Arab Muslims. [LA replies: I think that’s way too big a leap to make on the basis of one comment of Buchanan’s. Let’s see if he says more along these lines before we reach any conclusions.]
Maybe Buchanan now appreciates that the Israeli public, unlike the Arab public, never has, and never will, attack the embassy of any foreign power. Maybe he realizes that no Israeli mob has ever turned on a white woman and gang-raped her. Maybe he understands that no Israeli “youths” have ever attacked nuns or padres, or burned down churches.
As you said, maybe Buchanan has at long last understood that the Israelis are more like him than the people he has been championing.
I hope he has come to these realizations. And if he is the good Catholic I believe him to be, he will confess, and perform an Act of Contrition. Perhaps by utilizing his formidable talents to defend the Jewish State?:)
G-d willing and Amen!
PS: I didn’t catch Buchanan’s error. In my defense, I never went to school in the U.S.!
LA replies:
While I agree that Buchanan’s statement is, given his history, striking and remarkable, I think you’re building too much on it. Most human beings do not construct their thoughts systematically. He may have said that about Israel being our “friend” for some particular momentary reason and may never say anything like it again. Instead of reaching for big conclusions, let’s wait and see what happens next.
- end of initial entry -
Paul K. writes:
My reading of Pat Buchanan’s opening does not suggest that he thinks Jefferson was at the Constitutional Convention. He writes:
“Your people, sir, is … a great beast.”
So Alexander Hamilton reputedly said in an argument with Thomas Jefferson. [Full stop.] At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Hamilton explained [he amplified this view, not necessarily to Jefferson]:
“Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship.”
“Your people, sir, is … a great beast” is generally cited as having been said by Hamilton in 1792, so it would have been well after the Convention. However, there is an article suggesting that there is little evidence that Hamilton ever said it at all.
Jillian J. writes:
I didn’t read Buchanan’s article the same way you did. I took it to mean that at some point in an argument Hamilton said to Jefferson “Your people, sir, is … a great beast.” Then on a different occasion Hamilton talked about the extremes of democracy at the Convention.
LA replies:
Here again is what Buchanan wrote:
“Your people, sir, is … a great beast.”
So Alexander Hamilton reputedly said in an argument with Thomas Jefferson. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Hamilton explained:
“Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship.”
Now, once people see that somebody, namely me, is reading this to mean that Hamilton spoke to Jefferson at the 1787 Convention, they can look at it and tease out of it that Buchanan is not literally saying that. However, the phrase, “Hamilton said in an argument with Thomas Jefferson,” immediately followed by the phrase, “At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Hamilton explained … ” would certainly tend to make the average reader think that Buchanan is saying that there was a conversation between Hamilton and Jefferson at the Convention. So let’s happily declare that Buchanan is innocent of the gross error of believing that Jefferson was at the 1787 Convention, but guilty of lazy and confusing writing.
Timothy A. writes:
Maybe Pat is going back to his roots. I heard him speak at a community forum sponsored by the local Jewish congregation in our small town in the late 1970s, and he was at that time advocating a fairly standard conservative (Nixon/Kissinger variety) pro-Israel anti-Soviet foreign policy.
I think that his anti-Israel/Amen-Corner phase only started after the break up of the Soviet Union.
LA replies:
A “phase”? A “phase” that has lasted over twenty years of Buchanan’s life, from age 51 to age 72?
Further, as I said, the first and by far better known decade of this “phase” consisted of mild anti-Israelism; the second and not so well known decade of this phase (starting in 2002) consists of deep-seated, rationalizing-terrorists anti-Israelism, the kind of anti-Israelism which says that the Jewish state is a country founded in terrible injustice and a continual major cause of ills in the world and therefore shouldn’t exist.
Paul K. writes: I agree that Buchanan’s use of the word “explained” is confusing, as it implies that Hamilton explained to Jefferson what he meant by his provocative statement. Buchanan could have more clearly said, “At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Hamilton declared…”
LA replies:
Changing “explained” to “declared” doesn’t fix the problem. Here is your amended text:
“Your people, sir, is … a great beast.”
So Alexander Hamilton reputedly said in an argument with Thomas Jefferson. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Hamilton declared…
The confusion doesn’t come from the word “explained,” but from the appearance that the argument with Jefferson occurred at the 1787 Convention. What is needed to avoid the confusing impression is something like this:
“Your people, sir, is … a great beast.”
So Alexander Hamilton reputedly said in an argument with Thomas Jefferson when they were serving as George Washington’s top cabinet officers and advisors in 1792. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Hamilton had declared…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 21, 2011 01:38 PM | Send
|