A Love Affair Of Convenience

Everytime I hear anyone within the fringe conservative movement claim that they are "the greatest supporter of Israel" I want to ask them to prove it.



Considering that there are two very distinct classes of "support" for the Jews and the Israeli state, it's getting to the point where people like Malkin and Beck need to be called on their empty rhetoric.

Firstly, there's the near-masterbatory school of thought ( a la John Hagee ) that if you round up all the Jews in America and ship them back to Israel that your wet-dream of making the "Left Behind" series a reality will happen.

Secondly, there's those that are "friends" of the Jews and Israel only for strategic value in the Mid-East. This is the more prominent and widely accepted form of "friendship" seen throughout the conservative movement.

So, where do Beck and Malkin fall? That's not so easy to determine.

Considering that both are pretty much bat-shit crazy, I think it's a fair assumption to say that both have their own individual reasons for saying they are "supporters" of the Jews and of Israel.

Here's what I can't figure out - why would Glenn Beck have Michelle Malkin on as a guest when he says things like this:

You know the anchor baby thing has already really hacked me off. You know the anchor baby, you know what that is. That’s when somebody — a child that is born here — becomes a citizen. And they help the illegal parents here become citizens. Remember empathy, oh empathy — no one wants to separate that family. Oh that baby is a child — it’s an anchor — it’s an anchor to stay here.

Malkin certainly fits that catagory, but don't expect her to discuss it. Her hypocrisy normally knows no bounds, but I think that she might spontaneously combust if she started to decry that which kept her parents in America.

The reason that Beck is willing to have her on as a guest is that she's willing to bow to his whim because he has a massive audience now. This is also going to work to Malkin's advantage as well. The more exposure she can have for her nonsensical blathering, the better.

The larger question is this - are they telling the truth?

To the extent that it makes them feel better about themselves, then yes. The reason that they are often taken at their word is because they have a large audience. Once you convince a few people to agree with you, the rest will easily fall into place. Also, if you keep repeating it, then you're likely to be believed. But the question that should be put to them is what have they actually done.

It's exceptionally easy to say one thing, but it becomes more like actual "work" when you back up your words with action.

There's another, more interesting, side to the "neoconservative" movement in America and how it "supports" Israel:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

More on that from Racheal Weiner.

Essentially, Maklin and Beck's statements fall sqaurely into the catagory of "it sounds good so I'll say it". Standard fare for conservative pundits. It creates the illusion that you are telling the truth.