Originally posted by BuddyBear
-
Buddy this is the game they play. The anti semi card or saying a person hates jews. It stifles debate and it turns it ugly. I say something and all the sudden my words are spun like im attacking the Jewish people. This game they use is old and tired but you have to defend yourself someway.Comment -
Unfortunately this has become the way many Jews react to serious discussions about Israel. Rather than lively debate, the anti-semite card gets pulled out or the let's talk about other coutries card. Why should we talk about Syria??? Everyone knows that Syria is a garbage country and does not pretend to be a democracy. Why should we talk about China? Everyone knows it commits human rights violations. If Israel wants to be a democracy, it should be held to much higher standards than other countries. The goal for Israeli supporters is to get people to shut up. They know that based on facts alone they could never persuade anyone to their particular point of view...rather than debate, knowing they would lose any sensible and fair debate, the alternative is to use intimidation tactics and bribe people. At the same time, they enlist the support of dim-witted groups like the religius right to contine their charade.
I'd be willing to bet anything Kerfuffle is probalby a liberal guy or holds some progressive views, but defending Israel has forced him to become conservative over the years and hold opinions he probably normally would never hold. The reality is, if the American people actually knew what was going on they would do a complete 180. Sadly, the corporate news media withholds criticism of Israel and we all know the current state of the American Congress right now as it has become indentured to the Israel Lobby.
Unfortunately for supporters of Israel, this isn't a friendly forum of "American Congress members."
One of the funniest quotes I've ever come accross in my life was when Bill Clinton, who is a well-known draft dodger said this:
Bill Clinton - who avoided serving in Vietnam - says he would take up arms and "fight and die" for Israel if Iraq attacks the Jewish state.
"If Iraq came across the Jordan River, I would grab a rifle and get in the trench and fight and die," the ex-president said to wild applause at a Jewish fund-raiser in Toronto.
Imagine, anyone believing such nonsense.....Comment -
Originally posted by Thor4140
Whom are you suggesting should get off who's land? Sir, instead of getting all of your misinformation from the BBC, I suggest you do a little reading about the origins of the middle east conflict, and maybe you'll understand the origins and history of the conflict.
Under the original British mandate of Palestine (following the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WWI) the Jews were promised all of the land west of the Jordan River as a homeland. Jews have lived in the area continuously for 3700 years, and as the Zionist movement gained support in the late 1800s and early 1900s, Jews began legally purchasing land and moving to the area. The British reneged on the orignial deal (something I'm sure you'll never hear on the BBC), and in 1921 created the Hashemite-run kingdom of "Transjordan" out of 80% of the original mandate. ALL of this territory was closed to Jewish settlement. There was never any call for a Palestinian state, even though Palestinians far outnumbered - and continue to far outnumber - Hashemites.
After WWII and the holocaust, the UN further partitioned the remaining 20% of the original mandate. The Jews were given three disconnected pieces of land along the Meditteranean and the Sinai desert - 10% of what they were promised in the original mandate. They were given access to Jerusalem, which was supposed to remain an international city under international control. Nevertheless, they accepted the partition, but the Arabs did not, and immediately invaded the newly formed country of Israel. Even after their defeat, the Arabs made no attempt to establish a Palestinian homeland. Instead, Jordan annexed the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza strip.
The Arabs have been at war with Israel since - attacking them (or preparing to attack them) in 1967 and again in 1973, each time defeated, and each time losing land in the process, and expecting the Israelis to relinquish it without any quid pro quo whatsoever. (In fact, the Israelis offered to give back all territories captured in the 1967 war in return for a peace agreement from the Arab states. This offer was unanimously rejected by the Arab summit at Khartoum.)
I have no idea - and I expect you don't either - what you mean by "giving back the land but owning the streets"???? I do know that the concessions the Israelis were willing to make were far greater than anything that was being asked of the Palestinians.Comment -
I realize it is well beyond your realm of understanding to believe that anyone could actually look at the facts on the ground and conclude that the Israelis, while not perfect, have the overwhelming moral high ground.Originally posted by BuddyBear
Your insistence on looking at this issue from a simplistic "liberal" vs. "conservative" perspective underscores your biases.Comment -
Good try coldhardfacts.
Unfortunately, you are writing it in a forum that Bill Dozer has allowed to become one of the most ferocious anti-Israel, anti-Jewish havens you will find on the net.
You are writing your words to some of the thickest anti-semitic drips you will ever encounter here at this forum.Comment -
Originally posted by Kerfuffle
It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any criticism of Israel is met with a swift designation of anti-semitic. Doesn't this get old? How many times have I critcized the Arab countries? Show me one instance in which I have attacked Jews as a group, Jewish life, Jewish culture, Jewish history etc...
Enough of your nonsense, let the big boys debate ths one.....Comment -
There should be no thread on this subject, YET AGAIN.
It is not Jewish supporters who are starting Jewish related threads, YET AGAIN.
It is the people who are obsessed to the nth degree with this topic who are regurgitating it YET AGAIN.
But you will not be allowed to run amuck and spew out nonsense.
All right buddybear, I will back off on you and say the jury is still out on whether you are virulently anti-semitic and just playing it up to appear neutral, or truly are neutral.Comment -
I will say, it is rather curious how BuddyBear, Thor, and others have no problems with Jews, or others for that matter, AS LONG AS THEY AGREE WITH THEM on the subject of the middle east.Originally posted by Kerfuffle
But if one dares to have a different (i.e., politically incorrect) opinion that concedes that the Israelis somehow have a justifiable case, LOOK OUT. You are labeled as being racist, unpatriotic, ignorant, bought and paid for by "the Jews", a religious fanatic, a warmonger, or some other derogatory denotation.Comment -
that's funny you should mention that, while Kerfuffle is accusing everybody who dares to have a different (i.e., politically incorrect) opinion that concedes that the Palestinians somehow have a justifiable case, of being a racist (and a lot of other things).Originally posted by coldhardfactsComment -
Funny how one sees what they want to see. No question there is some name calling on both sides, regrettably. But read all of the posts, from the original on down, and see which side is trying to discuss the facts, and which is basing their argument almost ENTIRELY on the old tried and true canards..i.e., "Jewish interests" controlling an "indentured and subservient congress", "media control", dual loyalty "neocons", "controlling Jews", "zionist crazies advocating genocide", "corporate controlled media", and perhaps the most disgusting, actually comparing Israel to the Soviet Union during the cold war, and wishing upon them the same fate as the Soviets. Virtually nothing, as is almost always the case, concerning the actual history of the conflict and the reasons the region is the mess that is.Originally posted by noyb
If this thread goes on a bit longer I half expect to see some kind of reference to "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Which, by the way, is a best seller in the Arab world.Comment -
There you go again. Another pathetic attempt to gag people. Is this you Frankie Johnson?Originally posted by KerfuffleComment -
i entered this thread not so much because i have an opinion about the israeli-issue, the truth is problably in the middle like always. i do not have a problem with you voicing your opinion, and i do not have a problem with other posters voicing theirs. you both have your good points, altough some a bit more persuasive than others.Originally posted by coldhardfacts
i do have a problem with people accusing others of being racists, anti-semitic, or whatever, because they criticize the state of israel. it kills every possible form of debate about the role of israel, if everyone who dares to voice his opinion is immediately called a jew-hater.
likewise, people calling critics of the palestine people racists and muslim-haters is just as bad, but i did not read anything like that in this thread, while whats-his-name seems to be going out of his way time after time to ask for the thread being removed, not to respond to the arguments being made (like you did do) to start using terms which are not suitable at all and were completely uncalled for.
i do feel the pro-israel group (especially in the media, at least in the country i live in) seems to have a lot of these guys, whose unfounded name-calling is doing more bad than good to the israeli cause, and really creates a lot of hostility among the majority of people who do not have a clear "black-or-white good-or-bad" -view on the israeli-problem.Comment -
Originally posted by noyb
Not sure what country you live in, but it's obviously not the USA. I watch the news, cable and regular broadcast, fairly regularly, and I can't remember a single instance when anyone ever called someone anti-semitic solely because they disagreed with Israel's policies.
I have, on the other hand, seen alot of defensiveness on the part of those who are critical, misinterpreting (intentionally or otherwise) the arguments of others as charges of anti-semitism - when no such charge or even insinuation was ever made.Comment -
I started this thread -- about a very pro-Israel gent, one Jeremy Ben-Ami, who was so disgusted over the tactics of the Israeli Lobby (known to Capitol Hill mavens as the second most potent lobby in Wash DC - top one is AARP, but they're not fomenting war or getting billions of tax dollars each year) that he formed a counter-PAC, called J Street.
It was a rational post, and, except for the emotional responses of francis something and kerfluffle, rational discussion.
What made it irrational and emotional was kerfluflle, issuing personal insults (I thought for a while he was going to call his opponents "phuckers," and threaten to meet them with bazookas at the Bash.)
Like I was quoting a page from Mien Kampf, or a similar tract. Instead of discussing a revolutionary idea from a man with very close ties and great affection for Israel
Unable to restrain himself, he then asked Bill Dozer to censor such rational posts, re a story that had been reported not only in the NY Times, in the online mag Salon (owned by Microsoft), and in the Jewish Daily Forward.
Censorship! On a site that is dedicated to allowing adults the personal freedom to do what they wish with their money and lives . . .
So far, as I have not received a PM from Mr Dozer, or any mod, I assume his plea fell on deaf ears. Interesting that he would make it.
I made no personal attack upon ker, at least up until the time he started to get potty mouth. Even then, my response I think was measured.
And then, this from ker the kop:
Yuu, xxxx, are the initiator and instigator here.
You are the one stirring up the pot. Remember that xxxx.
As for Juan Cole, what a surprise he would be doing some song and dance routine before he gets a fatwa placed on him like Salman Rushdie. I'll take my news from the Internation Herald Tribune, thanks.
What is your fukking point of all this xxxx?
You want jews in America to go to the polls wearing yellow stars placed on their clothes?
You want jewish votes to count as half votes? No votes at all?
What the fukk are you striving for here other than your own personal racist agenda, you and the Goebbels in training buddybear?
What the fukk do you want from American jews, xxxx?
What .....What.... What?
Shame on you Bill Dozer and you other puss mods for leaving this drivel up from the riteprick.
The very angry and hateful tone of this post is quite revealing. I have little doubt that the poster was rending his garments and tearing his hair while typing. But plain and simple, he wants to be a censor, becuase he didn't like the thread.
It is clearly a matter of censorship, of shutting people up. It has worked quite well for these speech suppresors for years.
Game isn't up, yet, folks, but in the fourth quarter the underdog got an inspiring speech for the coach, W.W. Webb, about freedom, about the First Amendment, about other great things about the US of A.
And they're starting to push back against the super-bullies. Still outgunned and outnumbered, but their spine has visibly stiffened, and their in sight of the goal line for the first time in decades.
When the old and "respected" Atlantic Journal first accepted and then rejected the orignal Walt/Mearsheimer, under pressure from the speech suppressors, it looked for a moment like the Lobby and the ADL had won yet another round.
But then, the even more prestigious London Reveiw of Books published it. (It may still be on the Net, titled The Israeli Lobby.) The actual book hit the NY Times Best Seller list for a few weeks last summer. (Coronary for the Thought Police.)
And now, Mr Bel-Ami's counter Lobby. Why in the name of g-d should a story like that enrage francis and especially kerluffle?
Ben-Ami told of how he became aware of the enormous clout of The Lobby. He was working on Howard Dean's presidential primary campaign. Dean in one speech said the US had to be more even-handed in the middle-east.
As Ben-Ami describes it, the Lobby went ballistic. The pressure and the threats agaisnt Dean were unreal. Yet, as Ben-Ami stated, Dean is married to a Jewish women and raising his children in her faith. But, in the end, he caved.
ker tried to use the same tactic against me, to shut me up, even tho I did not say anything inflammatory, just pointed up a news story, and gave my calm input. And incidentally, responded negatively to one poster's emotional and vulgar condemnaton of "the jews."
The tactics used by ker, the vile name-calling (tho sticks and stones, etc - I've been thru it with an expert named curious) are - in microcosm - the same tactics that The Lobby uses on America's politicians.
Were SBR in America the Fearful, the tactics may have worked. But that kind of ranting likely won't work with a site located in Central America, where the agents of the Lobby do not likely have a large presence. Besides, I have no poliitcal power, and am not going to run for President any time soon.
But ker did checkmate me on one issue. I was going to, after Memorial Day, take a vacation from posting on this board (other than the Ebay Discussion board the only place I do post on the net). And - barring war on Iran or some other horrendous event, stay off until preseason NFL was under way.
Damn, ker. I can't do that now! Cause if I did, you'd be crowing to your buds over bagels and lox how you got rid of me. So chalk one up for your side. You cheated me out of some quality time on the beach.
Ready for Round Two? Take your valium, first.Comment -
Actually, it would be wrong, immoral, to prod an emotionally distubed gentleman like ker.
So, I will refrain from baiting him. I don't mock folks in wheelchairs, those missing limbs, not even those who mutter to themselves on the street. And i will avoid ker - tho of course I can't keep him from any thread I may make.
For his sake, tho, I think it best to ignore him. Which, since he cannot debate, only shout obscenities, is what I'll do.
Perhaps he could appoint a proxy to speak for him.
How about you, coldhardfacts?Comment -
I am curious as to whether the powers that be at SBR ever considered banning me?
That would be amusing.
I think I may take the issue to the "community" here, re-posting choice replies in the thread, and asking if I should be banned.
Only, tho, counting the votes from those with at around 400 prior posts. Don't want ol' ker to gather friends to stuff the ballot box . . .
Shoot, there I go again, baiting the guy. jeez, maybe i am the sob he says I am.Comment -
Too clever by half, cold.Originally posted by coldhardfacts
While you graciously (LOL) acknowledge that "both sides" have engaged in "name calling," you go on only to quote those from me (hardly any real name-calling) and the few others who chimed in here in either an open-minded way, or mostly in agreement with the OP.
Thus, you make a - umm - moral equivalency between the debate phraseology that you quote, and the sad and deranged ranting that your ally, ker, did in post number 29?
So, in which comedy club are you appearing this weekend?
Doubt it you'l ever make it to the master class of someone like the great Jackie Mason.Comment -
Originally posted by ritehook
The whole point, Mr. Hook, is that this thread, like so many concerning Israel, has nothing to do with the facts surrounding middle east conflict. It's about this Benami guy's PERCEPTION of the influence of the pro-Israel lobby in exercising their constitutionally protected right to support whatever cause they choose. His (and your) premises are the politically correct (though factually faulty) views that:
a) Israel has no inherent right to exist and is the major obstacle to peace in the region;
b) The US policy is not evenhanded because we support the basic right of Israel to exist;
c) The only reason that the US supports Israel is because Jews basically control all facets of the US Government and the media,
d) Anyone critical of Israel is somehow blackballed or otherwise silenced,
e) It is impossible to be a supporter of Israel if you're not Jewish unless you're a tool of Jewish interests. And if any Jewish person supports Israel - or at least disagrees with Benami's viewpoint - it's because their primary loyalty lies with Israel, and not America. For example, Jewish people who supported the Iraq war were viewed as doing so only because it would somehow benefit Israel (never mind that Iran is a far greater threat), while no such charge was made against non-Jewish people who supported the war.
There is no question that you folks hold Israel to a different standard than any other country, and that you hold its supporters to a different standard than any other interest group. Perhaps that is why people like Kerfuffle interpret this double standard as anti-semitism.Comment -
No time for much today.
In solidarity with my jewish / Israeli friends, who are observing their Memorial Day tomorrow, in memory of those who died for their country in the 1948 war of independence, 1956 Sinai war, 1967 six-day war, 1973 Yom Kippur War, 1982 war against the PLO, 2006 war against Hizballah, and the thousands who have died as a result of terrorist activities in Israel and around the world. It is not a day for barbecues and fun outings, it is a day filled with a lot of tears.
The next day is Israel's celebration of 60 years since its declaration of independence. Much joy and happiness to them on their special day.
Good day to you all.Comment -
Didn't see your riposte until just now.Originally posted by coldhardfacts
(a) You are saying that Mr Ben-Ami is saying the "Israel has no inherent right to exist"?
If you are going to deal in cold hard facts you must first look at the evidence. Which clearly you did not do. Please first read the story on him in Salon, and then his own article in the Daily Forward.
If anything, he's saying that the high pressure tactics of the Lobby could ultimately have negative blowback for Israel.
Non-sequiturs like your (1) statement do not encourage one to have much confidence in your reading comprehension.
(b) Please point out where I or any other poster on this thread states that Israel has no right to exist. What those of us - an increasing number, likely - are saying that we cannot and shold not actualize Israel's foreign policy with our blood and treasure. The Lobby, we have concluded, feels otherwise.
(c) Control or ownership of major American media has significant Jewish over-representation, in relation to their 3% persence in the population. Which is fine, if they have the talent and ability to gain such control.
To the extent that such control (certainly not total, ie "all facets,") is significant is ok but they would fail in the original concept of the American press, an envisaged by Jefferson and others of the Founders. Except on the Net, perhaps the last baston of the 1st amendment --- for all its obvious flaws.
No major news media has done, to my knowledge, an investigation of the power of the Lobby. Yes, some years ago 20-20 did a tiptoe story on it, sort of like 19th century boys discussing sex.
Never saw it on 60 Minutes.
How many people know,for instance, that two worker bees at AIPAC will soon go on trial for obtaining and passing secrets to Israel? Down the old Memory Hole.
(d) No, but you have to be an ex-president to get critical books published by major houses. I knew people, up close in personal, in the news industry. Stories like Ben-Ami's will sometimes creep through,but usually buried below the fold, on page 50. Ditto the spy scandal at AIPAC.
And,how many people know that Wolf Blitzer is an official at AIPAC? I doubt that he could possibly handle stories re Isreal and the Middle East in a totally unbiased way. I'm suprised that CNN would even let one of their reporters be a member of a political lobby.
Come to think of it, I'm not really surprised.
(e) I'm not sure what the point is of the last comment. In fact, I rather think that the number of ethnic American Jews who supported the invasion of Iraq were a much smaller number than the percentage of non-Jews who supported it.
I was in a large anti-war demonstration in NYC on the eve of the war, and many, a significant minority, I would guess to be ethnic Jews.
This was one of the points made by Ben-Ami, that the Lobby does not represent all, or even perhaps a majority of US Jews. And why he is trying to set up a counter force to them.
Other interest groups,as I pointed out, do not have the clout of The Lobby. At least, not in the matter of war or peace for the US. (I would include under the rubric of The Lobby, the neocons, tho they are not obviously so part of a pressure group. But key figures among them - Richard Perle, Doug Feith, the Wurmsers - are or were member of the Likud, the rightist and militaristic party in Israel. And in '96 authored a report (A Clean Break) advocating the removal of Saddam as a first step to "secure the realm" of Israel. These people later became key officials in the Bush war regime.
I don't mind if anyone has a different perspective than I on these matters. But ker tried to be a "little Lobby" and have me muzzled or banned from this forum. (Like I was talking on a balcony to millions, LOL)
That seems very un-American. I'm sure there are people of Islamic heritage who see infuriating things every day in the US media, print, electronic and online. In fact, some in Europe did get pissed because of representions of Mohammed in some newspapers.
Folks lke ker and the Lobbyists- censors in their hearts - may differ from them on almost everything --- except their right to control the information stream enjoyed by people of the countries who fought hard to win that right. Including,btw, Israel, where US subservience and the power of The Lobby is openly discussed in the media.
Too bad we're not a free in our press as they are in theirs.Comment -
All righty then, I'll try and be more civil, as I believe I was when this subject was brought up last month, when curious was saying his peace.
Also Mr. ritehook, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that until proven otherwise, you are neither pro or anti Arab, or pro or anti Israel/jews. I will assume you are only bringing these matters up because you are a concerned American.
Now then, in the first link I posted in post #11 of this thread, it showed that the U.S. was providing aid to the tune of about $5 billion to the middle east region ($2.6b to Israel, $1.8b Egypt, $460m Jordan, $150m west bank/Gaza)
1) How much would you like Congress to approve going to the region, 2) how would you like to see it distributed amongst the countries involved, and 3) what do you think the result would be if the U.S. cut aid to all parties drastically, and thus had a much reduced influence in the region?Comment -
I'll go with option (3) ker. I've seen recently (in Iraq) what happens when we impose our "influence" in the Mideast.Originally posted by Kerfuffle
I believe it was John Quincy Adams (who I'd rate a - uh - bit
higher as a prez than either Bushes or B Clinton) who said something to the effect that we (the USA) "should not go abroad looking for dragons to slay." Washington,in his farewell address, advised the same thing.
BTW, and English-language Palestinian magazine just called Ben-Ami's new lobby group (J Street) "just another pro-Israel lobby," -- or words to that effect. And there you thought that Ben-Ami was anti-Isreal!!Comment -
If U.S. aid to the region is slashed, here are some things I think will happen.
Jews around the world, and friends of Israel, will come together and help make up a good chunk, if not all, of the shortfall created by this "new" U.S. foreign aid policy. I don't know how the Arab countries will cope with the new shortfall of U.S. aid.
When Condi Rice comes a callin' in the future, she will be treated with respect, but when she says the U.S.'s position is that we would like to see Israel stop settlement buliding, Israel will politely say that Israel's internal business is not the U.S.'s business any longer. The true Zionists in Israel will be drooling at the possibilities
Any restraints Israel shows towards Palestinian excess behavior, or Hizbollahs for that matter, will be lifted. And don't kid yourself, as ugly as it may seem Israel's behavior is at times, without the U.S. restaining them, it would be much much worse. I wouldn't want to be a Palestinian living anywhere in the occupied territories in a post U.S. influenced era. I'm not sure if Israel would have the balls to escort every Palestinian to the border, move the border fence back a mile, and tell them they are on their own....but I wouldn't put it past them.
Israel's military would be free to persue any project it deemed fit, without big brother U.S. butting in. Military aircraft like the Lavi, which the U.S. does NOT want in competition with their defense aircraft industries, would now be fully developed and produced.
Also, most aid to Israel is geared towards defense purposes, which are in turn weapons purchases, which must be bought from the U.S., and chances are that there will be job losses in the U.S. at defense contractors such as Rockwell, McDonnell Douglas, Raytheon, Boeing, and many other on Israel military projects.
My thoughts, anyway.Comment -
OK, I’ll take back what I said about Benami not thinking Israel has a right to exist. But you, Mr. WrongHook, couldn’t have made a stronger case for me than if I had written it myself.Originally posted by ritehook
My point, which I obviously didn’t make clear enough, is that the underlying premise of everything you are saying: a) that Congress supports Israel because of the Jewish lobby; b) that we went to war with Iraq solely for the benefit of Israel, and c) that Jews overwhelmingly supported the war because their loyalties lie with Israel and not with America, etc., etc,. underscores your narrow view that there can be no other explanation for these occurrences. (a and b are complete non sequiturs – Congress supports Israel because Israel has the overwhelming moral high ground, and we went to war with Iraq for a number of reasons, their threat to Israel among the least of them. As I pointed out earlier, if Israel was the primary concern we would have attacked Iran, which, from their point of view, is much more dangerous. Point C’s premise is ridiculous. How do you know what the majority of Jewish Americans views were on the war? Most of the Jewish senators voted against the resolution authorizing the President to go to war, I believe.)
Actually, you defended the former Iranian president’s view that Israel should go the way of the Soviet Union – be destroyed, albeit peacefully. (YOUR interpretation of his words.) It is telling that you quoted Khameni and not the even more bellicose Achmadinijaad, who is now in power and has made no secret of his desire to eliminate the Jewish state. As I previously pointed out, most non-Jewish Americans supported the war with Iraq because they felt it was in AMERICA’S best interest. To attribute different motives to individuals solely because they happen to be Jewish is your right, but it certainly opens you up to the kind of charges that Kerfuffle made.
Your assertion that the American media is pro-Israel is ridiculous. Major watchdog organizations, including Accuracy In Media, have documented proof that just the opposite is the case. Again, you are attributing views to people solely because of their ethnic background. One need only have watched the sickening obeisance to Jimmy Carter by Tim Russert, George Stephanopolous, Larry King and others when they were interviewing him about his latest tome on the conflict to realize that they had no interest in refuting anything he was saying.
You have a real problem with the Israeli lobby, and I also disagree with them on many issues. But rather than advancing the debate by attempting to refute their positions, you resort to the vilest and most objectionable stereotypes about its members. Tell me, if they’re so all-powerful, why do we supply Saudi Arabia, which is still technically at war with Israel, with massive arms shipments? Why do we support the “road map” for peace, which requires far greater concessions from Israel than the Arabs? Why do provide the Palestinian Authority with hundreds of millions of dollars in economic aid? As for the alleged spies, you yourself refer to them as “worker bees”, operating, if in fact the charges are true, without the knowledge or consent of those in charge.
Question – Is Pat Buchanan an ex-President? Are your heroes Walt and Mersheimer? The fact that you aren’t aware of any of the thousands of books that have been published which are critical of Israel speaks volumes about how well-read you are.
I had never heard that Wolf Blitzer is an official at AIPAC, so I did a web search. It turns out he at one time was a lobbyist for AIPAC, but no longer is. Besides disseminating half-truths, you again aren’t criticizing anything specific about his reporting, just an association he once had. By your standards, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, George Stephanopolous, Joe Scarborough and others should be fired from their jobs, since they all once worked for office holders or actually served.
Your next point about the anti-war demonstration is so outrageous that I’m surprised you even bring it up – although I can’t say I’m surprised that it’s true. You actually go to events and try to identify who’s Jewish and who’s not??? How, I wonder, do you reach your conclusions? Perhaps it would make your job a bit easier if, as Kerfuffle suggested, they were forced to wear gold stars and yamulkas.
You mention individuals of Jewish ethnicity who happened to support the war. But, as I said earlier, you don’t mention Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and the thousands of others who supported the war because it was, in their opinion, in America’s best interest. People like yourself can’t even fathom that Jews might actually put their country’s interest first (unless, of course, they agree with you). As for the 1996 report, it is possible, you realize, that countries can have aligning interests. Just because they might have believed the Iraq war would make Israel safer, they also could have believed it was going to make us safer. Regrettably, as it’s turned out, neither appears to be the case.
You certainly have a right to your opinion, and to express it. But it seems to me that YOU are the one trying to muzzle those who don’t agree with YOU on the subject, by impugning their motives and their patriotism, rather than addressing the basic issues.Comment -
I agree that any shortfall will likely be made up by Jews worldwide. There is a solidarity by this people that make others envious. There is a power in myth . . .Originally posted by KerfuffleIf U.S. aid to the region is slashed, here are some things I think will happen.
Jews around the world, and friends of Israel, will come together and help make up a good chunk, if not all, of the shortfall created by this "new" U.S. foreign aid policy. I don't know how the Arab countries will cope with the new shortfall of U.S. aid.
When Condi Rice comes a callin' in the future, she will be treated with respect, but when she says the U.S.'s position is that we would like to see Israel stop settlement buliding, Israel will politely say that Israel's internal business is not the U.S.'s business any longer. The true Zionists in Israel will be drooling at the possibilities
Any restraints Israel shows towards Palestinian excess behavior, or Hizbollahs for that matter, will be lifted. And don't kid yourself, as ugly as it may seem Israel's behavior is at times, without the U.S. restaining them, it would be much much worse. I wouldn't want to be a Palestinian living anywhere in the occupied territories in a post U.S. influenced era. I'm not sure if Israel would have the balls to escort every Palestinian to the border, move the border fence back a mile, and tell them they are on their own....but I wouldn't put it past them.
Israel's military would be free to persue any project it deemed fit, without big brother U.S. butting in. Military aircraft like the Lavi, which the U.S. does NOT want in competition with their defense aircraft industries, would now be fully developed and produced.
Also, most aid to Israel is geared towards defense purposes, which are in turn weapons purchases, which must be bought from the U.S., and chances are that there will be job losses in the U.S. at defense contractors such as Rockwell, McDonnell Douglas, Raytheon, Boeing, and many other on Israel military projects.
My thoughts, anyway.
As far as Arab countries - gee, most of them are sitting on a lot of oil, at $120 a barrel and no top in sight. Non-oil Arab countries like Egypt can get their handouts from the weathy oil sheikdoms. It doesn't matter if the Muslem Brotherhood takes power in Egypt. Can't be worse than corrupt dictatorsip there now.
No doubt that Israeli nationalists would prefer to see the US aid stopped. In fact, the American Likudniks known as neocons (some of the prominent ones were leading warhawks whispering in the ear of BushCheney in the runup to the war, and through the AEI still do) have advocated declining the US aid.
(Now if they would just give up their US citizenship and take advantage of the Right of Return . . .)
The relatively small amount of jobs that are directly traced to fulfulling Israel's arms appetite would likely be made up by increased sales to Arab countries.
I have heard before the kind of views you express here, from other hardline Israeli nationalists. And, like yours, they emit a faint (or not so faint) whiff of genocide.
The most dedicated nationalism in the First World exists in Israel. Unlike cowardly Americans, there is open discussion there of the situation facing almost all First World lands. The demographic one . . .
(Tho, as you know, there is a strong counter-current in Israel to hyper-religionism and supra-nationalism. There are many Israelis who would gladly trade land for peace, and go back to the '67 borders to get some degree of normalcy. This conflicts with the torah-inspired view of the expansionists.)
South Africa had the same demographic problem, and the bantustans didn't work. So S.Africa lost its struggle to keep a "separate identity." And of course, not having potent lobbies in the US and other powerful lands, they had to cave.
But a bantustan type solution is what Israel (the more militantt Likudniks, anyway) wants to do with the Palestinians - cut up their remaining terrritoy, with settlements and big fences, to make any future "two state solution" a laboratory for even more serious problems down the way.
Others, I believe, have other solutions in the closet - "final solutions" . . . Like the still active followers of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane.
But, the US should maintain a strict neutrality on this issue. I don't think the Islamists would be disappointed with this action. It is in our national interest to maintain friendly relatins with all Islamic lands - they have oil, Israel does not.
"A nation has no friends - only interests." This is an old political dictum that Israel has practiced since its founding. And, in fact, which the Diaspora "nation" has practiced for several millenia. Would that the USA- this absurdly childlike nation - would do likewise.
I personally think you overestimate the fighting prowess of the IDF. I'm not inclined to conspiratorial theories, but I think there is some evidence the American-based Israeli nationalists egged Israel on to attack Lebanon. To their regret . . .
Problem with the IDF is that all the young male religious students are exempt from naional service, and they are the ones who would tend to be the most dedicated to militarism.
The young secular Jewish men there would naturally be less committed to the apocalytic and fundamenalist view about Isreali's "historic destiny," to reclaim the land that "God gave to us." There general performance against a band of irregualrs - motivated irregulars, to be sure, but nowhere near as well-trained as the regulars of the IDF - was hardly sterling. A stalemate for a professional army fighting irregulars is in fact a loss. (Nor did Hezbullah have any air power, which compounds the shame.)
This got a little longer than I'd thought. But I actually do enjoy intelligent discourse with a true-blue Israeli nationalist. None of this bullsh-t about how Israel is helping the Palestinaians etc
BTW, do you believe tht G-d gvae that land to the Jews? Not asking to mock, all people who believe in themselves have supportive myths. And if so, could you roughly map out the area of the land that the Jews were promised by this deity?
Tomorrow I'll reply to your cohort, CHF. He doesn't seem to be able to read what I wrote tho, and misquotes. Cripes, who'd of thought a few days ago that you would be the rational one here .......Comment -
By the way, k, if you are observant and kosher, what in hell is a pig - even a celebrity hog like Porky - doing as your avatar?Comment -
The most bizarre thing about this thread is that Curious has not made an appearance.Comment -
curious has retired.Originally posted by Panic
He ran out of ways to phonetize "fu-k".Comment -
Plus, he's devoting 100% of his time to getting in shape to destroy his detractors at the BashComment -
Think your clever enough to do the moderators thinking for them, Kerfuffle.
I agree that racist views should be deleted/moved.
But ritehook posted from Microsoft's high-end online Vanity-Fair clone, Salon.
Care to take the free $500 USS Liberty challenge, Kerfuffle?
Also, Kerfuffle....don't you agree the MODS should deal as SEVERELY with those who dishonestly toss around the appellation, "racist" against other SBR members AS THEY SHOULD actual racists themselves??
You're NOT ATTEMPTING to stifle "legitimate debate" in a Politics Forum by screaming "racist" & attempting to outsmart/mainpulate the MODS are you, Kerfuffle?
"Come on Carlo...you don't think tricks like that would fool a Correleone, do you?...Nahhhh!"
Originally posted by KerfuffleComment -
More correctly....we would not want to confuse a criminal political movement known as "Zionism" with the religion of "Judaism"....
...no more than we would want to confuse the criminal racketeering movement, "The Mafia" with "Italian Catholicism".
It will be the Zionists PRETENDING TO BE "antisemites" who attempt to get this thread closed... if past history/conduct means anything
Delete the racist comments made by both GENUINE & FAKE "antisemites" & preserve the legitimate discussion...
US SecDef, Donald Rumsfeld spoke of the US Military-Industrial Complex murdering millions of more Americans in the next false-flag terror attack... It is important that free debate in a politics forum be preserved...
...millions of American lives may be saved by us ....here & in other political forums.....pre-empting the bad guys in the US Military-Industrial Complex from doing their evil deed as they did on 9/11/2001
Originally posted by BuddyBearComment -
What would make you say the thread has nothing to do with the Middle East conflict?
It has EVERYTHING to do with it.
AIPAC has bragged that they control the American political scene.... CrossFire & CNN analyst, Michael Kinsley pooh-poohed the AIPAC statement as something to the effect of a "fundraising ploy" or perhaps "membership drive"
The AIPAC statement of "controlling American politics" affects Middle East policy, if true.
9/11 WTC Attacks by Israeli MOSSAD agents & the USS Liberty murder of 34 US Sailors show that it is true AND FURTHERMORE that Zionist ownership of the media/entertainment outlets is not "harmless"...
I mean BOTH the USS Liberty & 9/11 stories stunk to high heaven right from the get-go...
Neither of these stunts could have been successfully pulled off without the help of the news media
Originally posted by coldhardfactsComment -
I realize I'm responding to certifiable lunatic here - something I generally make it a point not to do. But maybe you're not so far gone that you can't understand this obvious inconsistency in your "logic":Originally posted by rory borealis
If the Zionists control our congress, our media, our entertainment industry, etc., etc, etc., why would they purposefully attack us - uh, I mean themselves???Comment -
Originally posted by coldhardfacts
...and you're MAKING AN APPEAL TO LOGIC as opposed to dealing with what exists in the way of "concrete evidence"...sort of "humorous" for a chap who calls himself "coldhardfacts"....
I certainly don't mind appeals to logic AS LONG AS what exists in the way of "concrete evidence" has first been disposed of.
..and you're attempting to CONFIGURE the thinking of others by stating that you realize you're dealing with a "certifiable lunatic"
...and if I'm telling the TRUTH would that mean that YOU, coldhardfacts,....as a pro-Zionist... were a "certifiable traitor" to the US Flag?
We could start a thread for the benefit of the sbr readership
a) certifiable lunatic(me)-------- if what I say is "untrue"
orrrr...
b)ceritifable sbr zionist traitors(Propoganda regarding an act of war ala Nazi propoganda minister, Josef Goebbels' conviction at Nuremburg)---for attempting to mislead the readership BECAUSE YOU KNOW i speak the truth
MODS
I don't mind having the "certifiable lunatic" litmus test applied...but it is propoganda treason if the person/people who would promote such an idea KNEW THAT i was telling the truth
Can I start such a thread?Comment -
I rest my case.Originally posted by rory borealisComment
