Sunday, April 25, 2010

PA's Non-Proliferation Treaty Poll

A week ago, I posted a poll about Israel and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Four nuclear nations aren't members - India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan. Of the four, Pakistan was assisted by Americans who transferred necessary switches and instrumentation to the Pakistanis. This happened during the last part of the Reagan and first part of the elder Bush's administrations. It took them a few more years to explode a device. Israel was greatly helped by France in its efforts to set up a plutonium production facility beneath the Dimona reactor complex. India and North Korea got most of their important engineering help from their own engineering populations. Other nations not regarded as nuclear could probably construct several devices within days if they had to - Japan, Brazil, Germany, for instance.

Why would Iran, surrounded by Americans who invade countries on false pretenses, by Israelis who constantly ask for help in destroying Iran's sophisticated engineering infrastructure (and who actually do bomb their neighbors quite often), and in range of the regional Pakistani, Indian, Russian and Israeli nuclear forces, not want a nuclear deterrent? Hirohito had none. Look what happened to his regime.

If the USA were surrounded by countries involved in all this aggressive behavior, and we felt that having the bomb might keep us from being bombed, would we want the bomb? I think so.

My poll was an over-reaction to frustration that Sen. Begich appears to be signing on to the Israeli-controlled meme that President Obama is being unfair to all Jews by putting a modest amount of pressure on the current government of Israel. Begich should have taken a pass. Maybe he even asked staffers if he could, and was told that passing would be a bad idea, especially for a freshman senator.

The poll indicates that not as many PA readers are interested in this as in many other issues polled here. It also indicates that 88% (131 out of 148 poll participants) felt that the Alaska Democratic Party should support the President, should he choose to ask Israel to join the treaty.

The reality, looking back upon the worldwide nuclear conference that was winding down as I posted the poll, is that Obama is not going to ask Israel to join the treaty more than he already has. And Alaska Democrats have more pressing in-state issues to deal with.

Meanwhile, lets see how the Na'vi the Palestinian Gandhis and their chroniclers are doing in thwarting the settlement expansion efforts in parts of the West Bank outside of East Jerusalem:


freeper said...

I've a couple of observations Phil.

One, you ask in the poll if Alaska 'Democrats' should support Obama's effort to have Israel join the treaty.

Pretty clearly one question, fairly concise, without much in the way of easily assured inferences beyond what the question asks.

In your 'analysis' of the poll, you perform a kind of rhetorical switcheroo of sorts and report that the answer obtained by your poll confirms something not really asked in the poll.

I for one, think individual Alaska Democrats should support the president's efforts, and I believe that's literally what your polling question asked.

I voted to agree, hell, I think more pressure should be applied by Obama and I think individual Democrats should support that too.

But you didn't ask that.

You also didn't ask if the state Democratic Party should support the president's efforts.

I don't agree with your summation, your poll question didn't touch on the 'Democratic Party of Alaska', your post didn't mention the party except to say you may take the results of the poll to the convention and I'm not sure you made it clear what it was you intended to do with it there.

One may wish to believe I'm just splitting hairs, but when I answered the question I didn't think I was being asked whether the Alaska state party should support the president's efforts, I looked at the poll as asking if I thought, individually, state Democrats in general should support Obama's efforts and I see that distinction being two very different questions.

I think the Alaska Democratic Party shouldn't have to be asked to support the president's efforts.

I view their role, not in being incuriously or slavishly subservient to the Democratic president, his aims and policies, and the aims of the national party, but at least unnecessary of being given my permission to do so. I don't expect blind loyalty, but I also didn't think the poll question had anything to do with whether I thought the state party needed to be requested to support it's own highest elected official's stances on policy.

To the contrary, I think the state party doesn't do near enough to support either the president, his policies or the policies of the national party.

I don't think they work hard enough, comprehensively enough, or effectively enough, on even the state level.

If the question has to do with whether we ought to rely on the state Democratic party organization and it's present leaders, I would have grave doubts as to their effectiveness.

I'm of a mind that they aren't nearly as pro-active as they need to be, and unless we get some more committed people to put in the work, I don't see that it's getting any better at what it is they should be doing.

In short, I don't trust that they'll actually do much, or be effective at it, if they're requested to do something, given this task or any other.

I think if they did a better job on the state level, became more effective on the state level, any 'opinion' coming out of Alaska would be taken more seriously and given more credibility than I think it would be given now.


My second observation has to do with your stating as fact, something that you cannot know.

You state that Obama won't apply any more pressure or do anything more than he already has.

You simply can't make that a reality just because you declare it to be so.

Obama might very well surprise you, AIPAC, and the Israeli government.

You can say you are of the opinion Obama may do this or that in the future, but as to the reality, you'll have to wait along with the rest of us to see what the future brings.



jim said...


I strongly believe the U.S. is a more than adequate deterrent agent for Israel. We've got the strongest military in the world by far. For example, if Iran nuked Israel, we wouldn't even need nuclear weapons in order to bomb them into the stone age. Israel just doesn't need nuclear weapons.

When I was a kid I was gazing at my grandmother's old globe that she probably acquired in the 1930s, and I was astonished-- there was a place on it named Palestine, where Israel is now. Looked just like Israel. I thought it must have been a mistake, but my parents explained Israel came into existence after World War 2.

Suddenly my elementary school intellect gained a new perspective. I wondered, where did these Palestinians go after Palestine got renamed?

Your poll question was fine. Two more questions I wish an organization like Zogby would ask of a broader group of adult Americans; 1: Has Israel always been called Israel? 2: (if the respondent answered "no" to 1) What was this area previously named?

My guess is an astonishing number of Americans may not be aware that this place was ever formally called Palestine.

We cannot and should not try to undo Israel. It couldn't be done and it shouldn't be done. But when I was a kid and it sank into my head that this place had been called Palestine, I began to understand the systemic problem.

Neither nuclear proliferation nor settlement hegemony resolves that problem.

jim said...

Also, I think Palestinians and indigenous Alaskans have a lot in common. Palestinians helped me understand indigenous Alaskan issues from an outsider perspective.

freeper said...

Elementary school intellect.

You got that part right...

It's pretty well documented that around 1,000 BC the Israelite kingdom was founded around Jerusalem.

The Romans eventually succeeded in taking over that part of the world, and it was the Romans who named Palestine, they called it Palaestina, later becoming Palestine in English.

The Byzantines then took over, then Arabian Muslims, followed by the Turks, who were routed by the Fatimid Egyptians, the Egyptians allied with the Crusaders, then the Crusaders double crossed the Egyptians, only to be driven out by the Saladin muslims.

Then the Egyptians took the area back, only to be run off by the Turks again, the Ottoman Empire invited Jews back, fought with the native Palestinian Arabs, and eventually Napoleon entered the picture.

Jewish settlements began to establish themselves again in the 1880s, only to have the Ottomans clamp down again.

The Ottomans lost the area in the First World War to Britain and Britain began it's official sponsorship of returning the Jewish homeland to the Zionist Jews.

Following Britain's Balfour declaration, which was the official document describing Britain's sponsorship of a "national home" for the Jews in Palestine, Britain was given a League of Nations Mandate to develop Palestine as a Jewish National home.

World War II was a long way off yet.

The Arabs of Palestine were appalled at the prospect of living in a country dominated by a Jewish majority and feared that they would be dispossessed. Anti-Jewish rioting and violence broke out in 1920 and 1921.

All of which happened long before World War II.

Israel was in existence long before World War I, before the British Mandate, before World War II, before the UN Partitioning of Palestine, and long before a declaration of independence from joint UN and colonial rule.

Indigenous Alaskans had established their homeland through ancient migration patterns and remain fairly genetically homogeneous, Palestinians are an amalgam of peoples, genetically and racially diverse, some few remaining, no doubt indigenous, but most either brought to Palestine, or arrived there as members of the various tribes and races which conquered Palestine through the ages.

Commonality between indigenous Alaskans and Palestinians is something jim will have to articulate, as there appears to be quite a difference between the two.


Anonymous said...

I think this guy is probably Zog the Troll (one who may have purely malicious intent towards this blog and people who comment here) because of his repetitive (and now predictable) m.o. He reads comments, then he looks stuff up on line, then he tries to make it sound like he's always known what he just looked up (whether it is time zones or Palestine), then he launches into these long winded abrasive personal attacks denouncing another's point of view. Although he tries to sound like a liberal or a progressive, his chosen blog identity sticks out like a sore thumb. He conveniently denies the obvious like what indigenous Alaskans and Palestinians have in common-- other people showed up and often either pressured or forced the established inhabitants away from their lifestyles and homes.

Makabit Bat Guriel said...

The Na'vi are fictitious beings in movie Phil and you compare them to the Palestinians? Good thinking on your part Phil!
By the way, love the film and it's typical propaganda. I could put a hole in my leg that size with a pencil and I believe the broad in the film would actually do something like that for the Jew hating drama of it all.
Too bad she hasn't ridden on an Egged bus in the past. Then she would know what pain is really about.
Have you ever visited a victim of a bus bombing in Israel, Phil?

freeper said...

anon@8:05 believes he can ignore the reality that most Palestinians aren't indigenous.

Most of today's Palestinians are the people he describes as those "other people (that) showed up and often either pressured or forced the established inhabitants away from their lifestyles and homes.

He's evidently as uncomprehending as jim has shown himself to be.

And if anon@8:05 thinks holding a reality based view of the world, and having the intelligence to recognize myth, fantasy and lies is a negative trait, then anon@8:05 is a perfect example of the pattern of success won by those who wage the campaign to dumb down the public.

He's not only accepted dumb as a positive character trait for himself, he's hoping others will agree to be as willfully dumb. He's actually making the argument that stupidity and a general lack of education is preferable to being capable of ascertaining the difference between myth and reality.

He's got the makings of a true leader, a leader of the moronic sort for the moronic, but still, in his deficient debilitated mind, he's a take charge sort of idiot.


Anonymous said...

Anon 8:05:

Good points about this guy. Spot on. You forgot one thing-- he sure needs to have the last say (or more accurately rambling babble). If he didn't have the the last say he'd probably have a melt down or throw a temper tantrum and cook his Chihuahua in his microwave or something.

freeper said...

anon@2:47 says 'good points'.

anon@2:47 hasn't shown or demonstrated that the other anon's claims about Palistinians have any validity.

anon at 8:05 didn't provide any evidence to substantiate the nonsense jim provided, aka anon@8:05.

Whiners and moaners who can't address context but are only interested in their own insecurity haven't contributed beyond their self-interest in their own preening.


Just more of the mindless who stand at the altar of their idiocy and celebrate their irrelevance.


Ever have anything to offer but your own insecurity?

I hadn't thought so....


Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 2:47:

You were right- he came back for the last word. Seems very insecure.

Anonymous said...

little jimmy hasn't the comprehension to see that he makes an accusation about someone needing to have the last word,

...whilst having his own last words.

His over-worked personal fantasy about his own exceptionalism suspends him from any reality he may find troublesome were he ever to comprehend his own paradoxes.

Anonymous said...

In any case, his last words had nothing to do with the context of the thread,

...nothing to offer. Nothing but his need for attention.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2:47:

This guy's a trip. Not only did he come back for the last word, but also the last, last word. He just can't quit.

Anonymous said...

Oh cripes. What do you mean that guy. What about you? It looks to me like it is you two anonymous kids who can't quit. All you do is say look - last words - last words - and as the freeper guy said, that is all you do. He is right. That is all you do. I look at the comments to see what people say about the subjects. I agree with the freeper guy, He said if you don't have anything to offer that is about the subject of the post, you aren't contributing anything. He is right again. At least the freeper guy can talk about the subjects. You two sound like little kids who are full of yourselves.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:47: you are so, so, so, SO right! You just keep getting righter and righter and righter. And all you have to do is sit back and watch the spectacle slowly, pathetically unfold.

Above; last, last, last word. For last, last, last, last word, see below. It will inevitably arrive. Sooner or later.