Here's what I'm talking about. Government incitement to hatred. Why can't this kind of thing be the greatest threat to peace—if anything—instead of the government of Israel?
Ok. 1941 is a bad analogy. Then consider Germany in 1933. Germans hadn't conquered anyone and yet Hitler's threats to invade the USSR were still there. But why quibble so much? Why don't you just explain why you say they're all talk, which was the whole point of your post?
Of course I never said that Israel was giving Palestinians a chance when they abandoned Gaza. They did that for their own reasons. But Palestinians could still have tried to make a go of it instead of whatever they have today, which is nothing but rejection. You're really sinking to new lows here.
While we're on the subject, why don't you explain why dismantling the settlements will have such a magical effect on the peace process? If I were Israeli, I'd say the effect would be just the opposite, given the experiences of withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza. Palestinians would take it as sign of weakness and increase their attacks.
These attacks could include some sort of nuclear weapon supplied by Iran, which is the whole point.
You still haven't explained why you think Iran is all talk, after all this. What's the matter there?
In 1941 there had been no war made by Germany on the USSR. But if someone said that they took Hitler's threats seriously, then would you have said that he was all talk just because there hadn't been a war to that point? You're really sinking to new lows here.
Israel does not deny by force the right of a Palestinian state to exist since the Oslo process began years ago. So I don't see any irony there at all, although I did see it back in the '70s and '80s. In fact, they abandoned Gaza completely and therefore made it possible. They were planning to abandon the West Bank as well until the rocket attacks from Lebanon and Gaza made that impossible.
It's just unreasonable for you to insist that Israel dismantle the settlements in the absence of a general peace agreement. They're committed to doing so, without your so-call ironic quotes.
You ask me, Why are Iran's leaders not all talk? And then you accuse me of sinking to some kind of "new low." Isn't there some rule in logic about negative proof? In other words, isn't the burden on you to show why they are all talk? You're saying that your proposition is true only because I haven't shown it to be false.
I can explain why I take Iran's leaders seriously when they proclaim their intention to destroy Israel: "Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region,"—Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
There are "Death the Israel" rallies every week in Iran. Iran uses proxies like Hizbollah and Hamas to attack Israel. Both these organizations have proclaimed their genocidal intentions with respect to Israel.
Declarations by Iran's president, former president, Supreme Leader, former Supreme Leader;
Public hate-fests against Israel;
Official indoctrination of antisemitism;
Support for Hamas and Hezbollah.
Therefore, I say that Iran is serious about wanting to destroy Israel.
I'm looking forward to your explanation as to why they are all talk, like you say they are.
Of course I never said that you were implying that all Jews are suddenly threats to the world. You're really sinking to new lows here. Israel is Jewish state. You consider them more dangerous than Iran. Yet Israel has never sworn to destroy anyone, like Iran has.
Of course, to reverse your statement, Arabs and Muslims have lots and lots of reasons to be worried about how they are perceived. All the more reason not to support bad policies, like calling for the extermination of Israel.
What "bad policies" have Jews supported that would be equivalent to this? Settlements? This would justify all the hate called down on them by Arab and Muslims according to you? Besides, Israel is committed to dismantling the settlements as part of a peace agreement.
If the point is that Tehran is all talk, then I'd love to see some evidence of that. But that can't be the point, because you admit that Israelis cannot simply dismiss the Iranian leaders as all talk like you do. If there was evidence, then Israelis would be expected to do so, wouldn't they? The point is that Iran is a threat, not Israel. Israel is in the position of having to defend itself against a genocidal regime.
If your goal was to avert war, why are you not harping on the threat that Iran poses, since it just doesn't matter that you think—or better said, that you have faith—that Iran "will never, ever risk war with Israel" because the Israelis cannot make this unfounded assumption themselves—as you admit.
Instead, you harp on the danger that Netanyahu poses. He is a Jew as are the people who voted for him. I'm sure you have some pretzel logic that shows that this is not the same as portraying Jews as a threat to the world. Whatever. Iranians don't use such logic themselves, nor do Muslims in general.
All I'm asking is for you to have a little empathy with Jews: If you were Jewish, would you be concerned that, once again, Jews are being represented as a threat to the world?
<blockquote>And I’m not sure how “Jews are being represented as a threat to the world” at all….how this [i.e., stupid policies in regards to settlements] transfers to a global threat is beyond me."</blockquote>
You must be playing dumb. This can't be reduced to whatever opinions you have about the settlements. I assume you see the global threat involved in a possible Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear capacity.
The whole reason why Goldberg reproduced the list you excerpted was to show that Netanyahu had a rational concern about Iran's acquiring nuclear power so as to expand upon his interview with him, which carried the headline, "
"Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran—Or I Will."
On his blog, Goldberg quotes an advisor to Netanyahu saying, " if we have to act, we will act, even if America won't." Then, he quotes Netanyahu saying, <blockquote>"'Iran has threatened to annihilate a state or to have a state wiped off the map of the world. In historical terms, this is an astounding thing. It's a monumental outrage that goes effectively unchallenged in the court of public opinion. Sure, there are perfunctory condemnations, but there's no j'accuse - there's no shock and there's a resigned acceptance that this is acceptable practice. Bad things tend to get worse if they're not challenged early. Iranian leaders talk about Israel's destruction or disappearance while simultaneously creating weapons to ensure its disappearance.'
I followed this statement with a question: Is there any chance that Iran could be stopped through non-military means? Netanyahu responded: 'Yes I do, but only if the military option is left on the table.'"</blockquote>
You say that Netanyahu and Lieberman are "both much more dangerous" than Iran's leaders yet they have never threatened to exterminate any state.
So—I repeat my question once again: If you were Jewish, would you be concerned that, once again, Jews are being represented as a threat to the world?
Infamous means "well known for some bad quality or deed : an infamous war criminal.
• wicked; abominable : the medical council disqualified him for infamous misconduct."
How does this apply to Maimonides?
You simply assume, without any evidence whatsoever, that Ahmadinejad is "all talk." Netanyahu doesn't have the luxury of sitting safe in Flagstaff, Arizona, and making safe assumptions about Iran.
I'm repeating my last question: If you were Jewish, would you be concerned that, once again, Jews are being represented as a threat to the world?
If you were prime minister of Israel and responsible for the lives of millions of people, would you be dismissing Ahmadinejad as "bluster"? Would you ever win election with this kind of "policy?" Would the constant genocidal declarations, plus the power to realize them with nuclear weapons, along with the potential to put these weapons in the hands of Hizbollah and Hamas concern you at all?
How is it possible that Netanyahu is "much more dangerous" than Ahmadinejad? If Ahmadinejad has been threatening global catastrophe, what danger does Netanyahu pose? If you were Jewish, would you be concerned that, once again, Jews are being represented as a threat to the world?
Freddie: I don't think we disagree on anything all that substantial. Possibly there's just a misunderstanding here. What bothers me is that Churchill's and your (¿?) explanation ignores bin Laden's (1998) own explanation/justification/motivation. Churchill (and you?) omits all reference to Islam. I would modify your statement, so that it read, "his position that the 9/11 attacks were in part a result of American foreign policy seems to me to distort history so as to shift the blame because it omits Islam from all consideration."
I honestly can't find where I've misrepresented you. I don't want you to think I'm a troll, though. This discussion may be result of a simple misunderstanding. Maybe not:
You agree with Churchill that our foreign policy caused the 9/11 attacks or that the attacks were the result of our foreign policy, i.e., that it's "simply unarguable that part of the motivation of 9/11 was American foreign policy".
The foreign policy specifically mentioned in the Churchill screed is having a "global financial empire" that "translates" into "starved and rotting flesh of infants." Is this the kind of foreign policy you're referring to?
Bin Laden himself (1998)refers to our "occupying" the Arabian peninsula, attacking Iraq (the strongest Arab nation), serving the "Jews' petty state," and generally leading the crusade to destroy Islam. These events can only be understood as causus beli by adopting an Islamic world-view. The bin Laden (1998) document is otherwise permeated with religion and religious motivation and/or justification. This is why I say that the reference to our foreign policy errors is a mistake.
[There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .
Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it. ]
expresses his idea that "the 9/11 attacks were in part a result of American foreign policy," with which you agree "in part."
I can't see how the following is related to my comment at all:
the idea that that’s not why they “really” did it, the idea of a terrorist lying about his aims– when achieving his aims is absolutely dependent on the public knowing what they are– is absurd.
I was not talking about their "aims" at all. I was talking about the causes of 9/11, which is what your original statement was about.
I disagree that the causes are not to be found in our foreign policy—like you say.
3. His position that the 9/11 attacks were in part a result of American foreign policy seems to me indubitable.
Unless you're putting all the weight of this on the hedge words ("in part"; "seems to me").
"Indubitibale" would be correct only if "in part" is read so as to take all the ordinary meaning off "American foreign policy." That is, we wouldn't have been attacked if we hadn't had preponderant power in geopolitics. That's a trivial conclusion to make.
The more weighty idea is that we have meddled in the internal affairs of Arab/Muslim countries and so created a "backlash"--the chickens coming home to roost of Churchill's famous screed.
This is true--in part--but it doesn't explain anything. For example, we have meddled more and longer and with more distastrous consequences in Latin America and still are not subject to such attacks or to such animosity from them.
The missing element is of course Islam. So, yes, "in part" we caused the attacks just by being there and by leading the West. But the other "part" of the explanation lies in the history of Islam itself.
I was just being sarcastic and trying for a reductio ad absurdum against the Superjudge. I do not impute any opinions on the death of Jesus Christ to you at all. Relax. I doubt that Jesus Christ even existed in the first place, so I don't think he was killed by anyone.
I'd like to add my voice here to condemn torture and to express my important righteous wrath/moral outrage.
I imagine I'll be accused of apologizing for torture and stooping to the level of the Islamist torturers and beheaders, but Superjudge "That dude doesn't mess around" (Sullivan dixit)Garzón is nothing more than a publicity hound and a partisan hack. He has more than enough human rights abuses to investigate right there in Spain, if it weren't for the fact that it's governed by the Socialists. I'd be inclined to change my opinion of him if were wasting his own taxpayers' money by bringing suit against Castro's Cuba and Hamas, for example. Next, he'll be revising the judgment against Jesus Christ and calling down the righteous wrath of people like ED Kain against the Christ-killers.
I may as well put the following in here. It's a report from the NYT that refutes much of the atrocity stories like the ones you link to here. If you read this, at least you must admit that there are two sides to the story of "what really went on." The problem with your post is that you only tell the Palestinian side. Note that the "killing of a woman and her two children" that comes in the following quote is the same story that Hitchens referred to in the piece you quoted a few days ago.
JERUSALEM — Israel is pushing back against accusations of civilian abuse in its Gaza war, asserting that an overwhelming majority of its soldiers acted honorably and that the account of a killing of a woman and her two children appears to be an urban myth spread by troops who did not witness it.NYT
"Who's giving Arab leaders a free pass?" Well… the journalist quoted in the above article, for one. And others like him, which is just about everyone. Here's the point: instead of constantly demanding "painful concessions" from Israel like unilateral dismantling of the settlements, people could demand that Arab and Muslim leaders recognize Israel and quit producing the most vile anti Semitic propaganda imaginable. People could recognize that Arab and Muslim rejectionism is the cause of the conflict, not Israel. Then maybe the peace process could move forward.
It isn't about "inflating stuff" by using propaganda. It's about fabricating stuff. I'm surprised you adhere to the "underlying truth" doctrine of media veracity. I don't. I want the stuff on the surface, not just representing some "underlying truth." Let the analysts uncover the "underlying truth." If it's so "true" that the IDF is so brutal, then why do they have to fabricate stuff constantly? The Mohammed al-Durah affair really disgusted me since this lie/fabrication was the cause of so much death and destruction in itself. I'm surprised you'd make yourself a party to disseminating it here.
Good post! Are you afraid this gets you "blacklisted?" Or is that your goal, since you say "blacklisting" gains on a "bigger pedestal?"
The fabrications by Palestinians, with the complicity of Western media like the Guardian, like the Jenin "massacre" and the Mohammed al-Durah affair are so well-known by now that I'm surprised you give them any credence whatsoever. Do you suspend disbelief when it's time to write about "the plight of the Palestinians?"
Of course, use of human shields is the preferred tactic of Hamas, not the IDF. As part of such tactics, Hamas uses hospitals as fire bases and weapons caches. Etc. Etc.
I'm sorry I gave you the impression that I thought the settlement issue was simple. I've tried to make the opposite point every time I've mentioned it. My main point about the settlements is that they are not the main obstacle to peace. The main obstacle to peace is Arab and Palestinian rejectionism. I can support this by referring to the situation 1947-1967, when there was a state of war between Arab and Muslim states and Israel and there were no settlements.
Above, I was speaking of official state policy, like Bob realizes. There are certain laws that regulate the settlements and I really don't know anything about them so as to be able to judge which settlements are illegal and which are not. I realize it's a complex situation.
It's interesting that ED Kain accuses me of over simplifying the settlement question and then over simplifies it with his analogy. Bob has come up with an example of settlement expansion—which is only reported by the BBC and not proven—and ED Kain takes this as a complete betrayal of Israel's commitments. One would have to show that unbridled settlement construction is taking place throughout the West Bank for his analogy to ring true. As it is, it's more accurate to say that
the idea that Israel is “committed” to the dismantling of the settlements is akin to someone claiming to be committed to losing weight while having a Coke once in a while and missing a gym workout on Saturday to go on a picnic.
I repeat: my point is not to defend any settlement construction at all or to minimize it. I quite agree that they're illegal and that they must be dismantled as part of a final peace agreement. But they are not the main obstacle to peace. The main obstacle to peace is Arab and Palestinian rejection of the state of Israel.
Plus, Bob's comment also shows why it's false to say that the US gives its unrestricted support to any Israeli policy.
So: I'm glad you cleared up your "blacklisting" comment. Like I said, it was just an unfortunate word choice: you're confusing simple criticism with "blacklisting," which is shown by your saying, "Blacklisting can be a good thing, though. It can give you an even better pedestal…." If this were true, then everyone would want to be blacklisted. A "Blacklist" is a list of people to be boycotted somehow. Just because someone is "widely derided" doesn't mean that they're on any "blacklist." Calling simple criticism "blacklisting" is typical of leftist discourse.
As for Sullivan, he's widely derided because he's just risible. I quit reading him long ago, even to deride him. He brings holier-than-thou to a whole new level. Therefore I have no idea what his opinions about the Israel/Palestine conflict are. I assume he's "shocked to the core" about it, though.
The following is from the Haaretz report about Danny Zamir that Hitchens refers to [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072475.html]:
Yossi: "I am a platoon sergeant in an operations company of the Paratroops Brigade. We were in a house and discovered a family inside that wasn't supposed to be there. We assembled them all in the basement, posted two guards at all times and made sure they didn't make any trouble. Gradually, the emotional distance between us broke down - we had cigarettes with them, we drank coffee with them, we talked about the meaning of life and the fighting in Gaza. After very many conversations the owner of the house, a man of 70-plus, was saying it's good we are in Gaza and it's good that the IDF is doing what it is doing.
"The next day we sent the owner of the house and his son, a man of 40 or 50, for questioning. The day after that, we received an answer: We found out that both are political activists in Hamas. That was a little annoying - that they tell you how fine it is that you're here and good for you and blah-blah-blah, and then you find out that they were lying to your face the whole time.
The report goes on to say that the soldiers were ordered to clean up the house upon leaving.
So: the Israeli atrocities are more "nuanced" than people want to realize. Can anyone honestly imagine that the situation would have been the same if the roles were reversed?
Thanks for calling my name, even if it's so sarcastic. I don't see much to argue about here though. Did you think I supported the settler movement for some reason? My only point about the settlements is that they are not the main obstacle to a peace agreement. That would be the Arab refusal to recognize the Jewish state. That's why there has been war since the founding of the state of Israel when there were no settlements at all. Once again, there could have been a Palestinian state in 1948 or in 2000 but for this.
I think you're exaggerating when you say, "this sort of essay could blacklist him fairly quickly." You think that writing about "the plight of the Palestinians" or criticizing the settlers is somehow taboo and will get a writer "blacklisted." I have to at least give you the benefit of the doubt here, because if you believe that the Israel Lobby can "blacklist" writers, then you're more paranoid than I am. I'm assuming that this was just an unhappy choice of words and you really don't mean it. I personally don't care who writes about the "plight of the Palestinians" or who criticizes the settlers, but I do care who weaves conspiracy theories involving Jews and blacklists.
The US government is opposed to the settlements as the article you link to makes clear:
For this reason, the United States has strongly opposed this sort of Israeli construction for more than a decade. Israeli governments have avoided construction in this area, mostly because of U.S. pressure.
I can't see much to argue about insofar as your "policy" suggestion:
What needs to happen is this: Israel needs to commit to dismantling the settlements, and the sooner the better because the settlers and their cohorts in the IDF are getting stronger and more radical. Meanwhile, Arab states - not the Palestinians - need to come up with a unified security deal for Israel to guarantee their security in the event of an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. In good faith, Israel needs to come to some sort of renewed ceasefire and drawdown of sanctions over Gaza. Likewise, Arab governments need to publicly voice support of a lasting peace with Israel.
If only it were so easy. For example, Israel is already committed to dismantling the settlements and has been since the '90s. Ariel Sharon's plan was to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank like they did in Gaza in 2005. I find it hard to imagine a "unified security deal" that would satisfy Israelis in the absence of peace treaties. How could Arab states possibly guarantee Israel's security? Do you seriously want us to believe that Israelis would trust Arab states to guarantee their security? If you were Israeli, would you trust them rather than your own army?
There are three issues with respect to our relationship with Iran, according to Stratfor:
To [Iran], Obama has not addressed the core issues between the two countries[i.e., the nuclear problem and support for Hizbollah and Hamas]. In fact, apart from videos, Obama’s position on Iran does not appear different from the Bush position. The Iranian leadership does not see why it should respond more favorably to the Obama administration than it did to the Bush administration. Tehran wants to be very sure that Obama understands that the willingness alone to talk is insufficient; some indications of what is to be discussed and what might be offered are necessary....
Moreover, Tehran dislikes the Obama-Petraeus strategy in Afghanistan. That strategy involves talking with the Taliban, a group that Iran has been hostile toward historically. The chance that the United States might install a Taliban-linked government in Afghanistan represents a threat to Iran second only to the threat posed to it by Iraq.
What Walt says makes sense: Iran has legitimate security concerns that must be addressed if there is to be any agreement with us; satisfactory solutions for Iran's legitimate security concerns will be the most effective way to stop Iran's support for Hamas and Hizbollah and its nuclear program.
The problem is how to achieve this. Walt doesn't even try to provide an answer and the article he links to doesn't either. All it does is assume that Iran gives up its nuclear program and support for Hamas and Hizbollah in return for normalized relations with us and investment opportunities for our corporations in Iran.
It's obvious that the present strategy is not working but what would you propose in its place? Do you really believe that Iran will give up its goal to lead the world Islamic revolution, and thus give up its nuclear program and its support for Hizbollah and Hamas, for international recognition and the opportunities that US investment in their economy provides? I just don't see how this is possible because if it were, it would have been done decades ago. Iran will not give up its whole reason for being, which is the world Islamic revolution, for our recognition and investment.
Radical Islamists declared war on us and have attacked us. You can see the al Qaeda statements/fatwahs/declarations of war from 1996/1998. Many other instances.
I say that Israel is fighting radical Islamists, like we are.
I have never called anyone anti Semitic or anti American for disagreeing with the "IDF's means toward this end." You can disagree with the IDF to your heart's content and I'll never call you anti Semitic. This is how ED Kain wants to frame my opinions, in spite of my multiple denials. He wants us to believe that people want to silence him and others for bravely criticizing Israeli policy, etc. This is absurd. Nobody does such a thing. Nobody is trying to stop anyone from dissenting as ED Kain imagines. His repeated invocations of the Israel Lobby's nefarious power is what I call anti Semitic. This is the topic of my comments here, not dissenting from IDF policy.
This "Israel Lobby" theory of politics is unsubstantiated and belongs to the realm of conspiracy theory. For historical reasons, I call a conspiracy theory involving Jews "anti Semitic." These theories have played important roles in persecuting Jews since the Middle Ages. My whole point is to get people like ED Kain to recognize this and thereby understand the "Commentary crowd."
I think that if ED Kain were Jewish, the same alarm bells would go off in his own mind when confronted with "Israel Lobby"-type conspiracy theories.
Note that I do not attribute any Jew hatred to ED Kain personally. I say that he's just trying to be politically correct and has accepted the Israel Lobby theory as part of his ideology because it sounds "critical" to him.
I didn't bring in the term "War on Terror." It was from the Congressional Budget Office report that I quoted.
I don't accept the term either, but I can see that we're in a war with radical Islam, which uses terror as a legitimate tactic in their view. This is why I say Israel's fight is our fight. This is why Israel is in an analogous position to GB back in the 30s-40s. Why is this so absurd in your mind?
How can you possibly "support Israel" apart from the war against radical Islam? It doesn't make any sense.
Every time I challenge you, you shift ground. Before, you were saying that Israel and its infamous Lobby were exercising undue influence on the US government, somehow. I showed you that the simple application of Occam's Razor tends to refute this. You now shift ground and say that Israel is some kind of cat's paw for the US in protecting its oil interests, [i.e., Israel is "both part and parcel of a larger US military/economic expansion into the ME."]
You can't have it both ways unless you're advocating a conspiracy theory. See. That's why I can't really take you seriously.
What kind of “proof” do you want? Are you asking for quantifiable data that shows the “power” level of each foreign lobby on the US government? Really? You never once have supplied anything near that precise for any of your arguments.
I want any kind of proof you can come up with. I never said anything about "quantifiable data." You make an empirical claim, after all. There must be some evidence. I certainly do provide proof for my arguments. I never just say "everybody knows" like you do.
My arguments against you are based on Occam's Razor. This is also considered "proof," even if it is not "quantifiable data."
You seem to take the intelligence cooperation and military aid between Israel and the US as some sort of evidence for the "power" or "disproportionate" power of the Israel Lobby, which is detrimental to our own interests. This is the main point, not the limits you see in "military solutions." Anyone can criticize Israel's policies but attributing "disproportionate" power to Israel's advocates in the US, when none exists, in opposition to our own "true interests" is what I call an updated Elders theory.
Do you know of any other nation with as many deep, deep ties to the politicians and intelligence community?
How about Saudi Arabia? Or China? Especially now that Freeman has been in the news for having such "deep, deep ties" to these nations. Don't we have "deep, deep ties" with other allies as well? Why would such ties with Israel be so suspect in your mind?
I suppose that in your mind we have been caught "kowtowing to Israeli interests" in the bipartisan support the Congress gave to Israel's recent Gaza operation. You can't imagine that Senators would have written such a resolution without undue pressure from the Zionists. Or is the "kowtowing to Israeli interests" shown in the rejection of Chas Freeman's appointment? In your mind, this couldn't be a matter of his incompetence and his own financial ties to China and Saudi Arabia. It is prima facie evidence of the "disproportionate power" of the Israel Lobby.
This is where I say that Occam's Razor is applicable.
The Administration requests $4.54 billion for Foreign Military Financing (FMF) in FY 2008 to provide articles and services to support coalition partners and states critical to the Global War on Terror. This program serves to strengthen the security of the United States and to promote peace in general. FMF is allocated strategically within regions with the largest proportion (54%) directed to our sustaining partners and a significant proportion (41%) to developing countries to support their advancement to the transforming category. FMF funding snapshot
$3.9 billion for the Near East region, to include $2.4 billion for Israel; $1.3 billion for Egypt to foster a modern, well-trained Egyptian military; and $200 million to support Jordan’s force modernization, border surveillance and counterterrorism efforts. $300.0 million to support the armed forces of Pakistan, to include equipment and training to enhance its counterterrorism capabilities and provide for its defense needs. $129.3 million for ongoing efforts to incorporate the most recent NATO members into the Alliance, support prospective NATO members and coalition partners, and assist critical coalition partners in Iraq and Afghanistan. < $78.0 million for operational support and specialized equipment to the Colombian armed forces, focusing on specialized and mobile units of the Colombian Army. $43.5 million for FMF administrative costs. $27.2 million for Poland to maximize Poland's capability to deploy and sustain professional forces in close support of U.S. security operations. $18.4 million for Romania to assistance in the continued integration into NATO, expand its capabilities, and support continued contributions to NATO and coalition operations, including in Iraq and Afghanistan.
$15.7 million for Indonesia to promote defense reform and to improve maritime
security, counterterrorism, mobility, and disaster relief capabilities.including in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's true that Israel gets far more military aid than other nations, although Egypt and Jordan are right up there too. But you take this as evidence of the "disproportionate power" of the Israel Lobby. I don't see the logic there. I can see that Israel is a longstanding ally and that they are "critical to the Global War on Terror." I say we're doing the right thing in supporting Israel because their fight is our fight. We're allies.
I hope you're bearing with me here. Israel's position today with respect to the fight against radical Islam is analogous to GB's position with respect to the fight against Nazism in the late '30s-early '40s. GB was receiving a disproportionate amount of US aid then. The Elders theory was that "International Jewry" was manipulating Roosevelt's government since such aid to GB was not in our "true interests."
See what I mean about the updated Elders theory? See what I mean about Occam's Razor?
By the way, I'm not accusing you of Jew-hatred. I just think that you're trying to achieve political correctness. I don't believe that you have any special animus against Israel or Jews.
So now they're not the most powerful, but the "most disproportionate." You should get your story straight.
I'm not denying anything; I'm just asking you to support what you say in the interests of “advancing debate and understanding of any number of issues,” etc. etc.
Yes, Israel has a lobby. But so do other countries and other industries in the US. You say Israel's lobby is the most powerful or the most "disproportionate," depending... Do you have any reason for saying this besides your own prejudice? I doubt it. If I'm wrong, then show me.
You do have a problem debating me on this subject and it's not because I'm "partisan" and you're not. I don't get which "party" I'm a "partisan" of. You must mean only mean that I have my mind made up in this matter and you use the word, "partisan" because it sounds more intellectual to you. But, if you think you don't have "entrenched ideas and beliefs on this matter" that your beliefs are the result of open minded inquiry and mine are simply "partisan" hackery then you're more deluded than I thought.
You can hardly support your opinions apart from saying that "everybody knows," like you do here. When challenged, you just say that you can't debate me because I'm wrong.
Your "boredom" comes off like a cop-out to me.
Let's see if you can answer a simple question: What evidence do you have to support such statements about the Israel Lobby?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Madman of Tehran”
Here's what I'm talking about. Government incitement to hatred. Why can't this kind of thing be the greatest threat to peace—if anything—instead of the government of Israel?
Ok. 1941 is a bad analogy. Then consider Germany in 1933. Germans hadn't conquered anyone and yet Hitler's threats to invade the USSR were still there. But why quibble so much? Why don't you just explain why you say they're all talk, which was the whole point of your post?
Of course I never said that Israel was giving Palestinians a chance when they abandoned Gaza. They did that for their own reasons. But Palestinians could still have tried to make a go of it instead of whatever they have today, which is nothing but rejection. You're really sinking to new lows here.
While we're on the subject, why don't you explain why dismantling the settlements will have such a magical effect on the peace process? If I were Israeli, I'd say the effect would be just the opposite, given the experiences of withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza. Palestinians would take it as sign of weakness and increase their attacks.
These attacks could include some sort of nuclear weapon supplied by Iran, which is the whole point.
"
You still haven't explained why you think Iran is all talk, after all this. What's the matter there?
In 1941 there had been no war made by Germany on the USSR. But if someone said that they took Hitler's threats seriously, then would you have said that he was all talk just because there hadn't been a war to that point? You're really sinking to new lows here.
Israel does not deny by force the right of a Palestinian state to exist since the Oslo process began years ago. So I don't see any irony there at all, although I did see it back in the '70s and '80s. In fact, they abandoned Gaza completely and therefore made it possible. They were planning to abandon the West Bank as well until the rocket attacks from Lebanon and Gaza made that impossible.
It's just unreasonable for you to insist that Israel dismantle the settlements in the absence of a general peace agreement. They're committed to doing so, without your so-call ironic quotes.
"
You ask me, Why are Iran's leaders not all talk? And then you accuse me of sinking to some kind of "new low." Isn't there some rule in logic about negative proof? In other words, isn't the burden on you to show why they are all talk? You're saying that your proposition is true only because I haven't shown it to be false.
I can explain why I take Iran's leaders seriously when they proclaim their intention to destroy Israel: "Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region,"—Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
There are "Death the Israel" rallies every week in Iran. Iran uses proxies like Hizbollah and Hamas to attack Israel. Both these organizations have proclaimed their genocidal intentions with respect to Israel.
Declarations by Iran's president, former president, Supreme Leader, former Supreme Leader;
Public hate-fests against Israel;
Official indoctrination of antisemitism;
Support for Hamas and Hezbollah.
Therefore, I say that Iran is serious about wanting to destroy Israel.
I'm looking forward to your explanation as to why they are all talk, like you say they are.
Of course I never said that you were implying that all Jews are suddenly threats to the world. You're really sinking to new lows here. Israel is Jewish state. You consider them more dangerous than Iran. Yet Israel has never sworn to destroy anyone, like Iran has.
Of course, to reverse your statement, Arabs and Muslims have lots and lots of reasons to be worried about how they are perceived. All the more reason not to support bad policies, like calling for the extermination of Israel.
What "bad policies" have Jews supported that would be equivalent to this? Settlements? This would justify all the hate called down on them by Arab and Muslims according to you? Besides, Israel is committed to dismantling the settlements as part of a peace agreement.
"
If the point is that Tehran is all talk, then I'd love to see some evidence of that. But that can't be the point, because you admit that Israelis cannot simply dismiss the Iranian leaders as all talk like you do. If there was evidence, then Israelis would be expected to do so, wouldn't they? The point is that Iran is a threat, not Israel. Israel is in the position of having to defend itself against a genocidal regime.
If your goal was to avert war, why are you not harping on the threat that Iran poses, since it just doesn't matter that you think—or better said, that you have faith—that Iran "will never, ever risk war with Israel" because the Israelis cannot make this unfounded assumption themselves—as you admit.
Instead, you harp on the danger that Netanyahu poses. He is a Jew as are the people who voted for him. I'm sure you have some pretzel logic that shows that this is not the same as portraying Jews as a threat to the world. Whatever. Iranians don't use such logic themselves, nor do Muslims in general.
All I'm asking is for you to have a little empathy with Jews: If you were Jewish, would you be concerned that, once again, Jews are being represented as a threat to the world?
"
<blockquote>And I’m not sure how “Jews are being represented as a threat to the world” at all….how this [i.e., stupid policies in regards to settlements] transfers to a global threat is beyond me."</blockquote>
You must be playing dumb. This can't be reduced to whatever opinions you have about the settlements. I assume you see the global threat involved in a possible Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear capacity.
The whole reason why Goldberg reproduced the list you excerpted was to show that Netanyahu had a rational concern about Iran's acquiring nuclear power so as to expand upon his interview with him, which carried the headline, "
"Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran—Or I Will."
On his blog, Goldberg quotes an advisor to Netanyahu saying, " if we have to act, we will act, even if America won't." Then, he quotes Netanyahu saying, <blockquote>"'Iran has threatened to annihilate a state or to have a state wiped off the map of the world. In historical terms, this is an astounding thing. It's a monumental outrage that goes effectively unchallenged in the court of public opinion. Sure, there are perfunctory condemnations, but there's no j'accuse - there's no shock and there's a resigned acceptance that this is acceptable practice. Bad things tend to get worse if they're not challenged early. Iranian leaders talk about Israel's destruction or disappearance while simultaneously creating weapons to ensure its disappearance.'
I followed this statement with a question: Is there any chance that Iran could be stopped through non-military means? Netanyahu responded: 'Yes I do, but only if the military option is left on the table.'"</blockquote>
You say that Netanyahu and Lieberman are "both much more dangerous" than Iran's leaders yet they have never threatened to exterminate any state.
So—I repeat my question once again: If you were Jewish, would you be concerned that, once again, Jews are being represented as a threat to the world?
"
Infamous means "well known for some bad quality or deed : an infamous war criminal.
• wicked; abominable : the medical council disqualified him for infamous misconduct."
How does this apply to Maimonides?
You simply assume, without any evidence whatsoever, that Ahmadinejad is "all talk." Netanyahu doesn't have the luxury of sitting safe in Flagstaff, Arizona, and making safe assumptions about Iran.
I'm repeating my last question: If you were Jewish, would you be concerned that, once again, Jews are being represented as a threat to the world?
"
Why is Maimonides "infamous" in your world?
If you were prime minister of Israel and responsible for the lives of millions of people, would you be dismissing Ahmadinejad as "bluster"? Would you ever win election with this kind of "policy?" Would the constant genocidal declarations, plus the power to realize them with nuclear weapons, along with the potential to put these weapons in the hands of Hizbollah and Hamas concern you at all?
How is it possible that Netanyahu is "much more dangerous" than Ahmadinejad? If Ahmadinejad has been threatening global catastrophe, what danger does Netanyahu pose? If you were Jewish, would you be concerned that, once again, Jews are being represented as a threat to the world?
On “Ward Churchill”
Freddie: I don't think we disagree on anything all that substantial. Possibly there's just a misunderstanding here. What bothers me is that Churchill's and your (¿?) explanation ignores bin Laden's (1998) own explanation/justification/motivation. Churchill (and you?) omits all reference to Islam. I would modify your statement, so that it read, "his position that the 9/11 attacks were in part a result of American foreign policy seems to me to distort history so as to shift the blame because it omits Islam from all consideration."
I honestly can't find where I've misrepresented you. I don't want you to think I'm a troll, though. This discussion may be result of a simple misunderstanding. Maybe not:
You agree with Churchill that our foreign policy caused the 9/11 attacks or that the attacks were the result of our foreign policy, i.e., that it's "simply unarguable that part of the motivation of 9/11 was American foreign policy".
The foreign policy specifically mentioned in the Churchill screed is having a "global financial empire" that "translates" into "starved and rotting flesh of infants." Is this the kind of foreign policy you're referring to?
Bin Laden himself (1998)refers to our "occupying" the Arabian peninsula, attacking Iraq (the strongest Arab nation), serving the "Jews' petty state," and generally leading the crusade to destroy Islam. These events can only be understood as causus beli by adopting an Islamic world-view. The bin Laden (1998) document is otherwise permeated with religion and religious motivation and/or justification. This is why I say that the reference to our foreign policy errors is a mistake.
"
Let's review:
Churchill's "little Eichmanns" remark
expresses his idea that "the 9/11 attacks were in part a result of American foreign policy," with which you agree "in part."
I can't see how the following is related to my comment at all:
I was not talking about their "aims" at all. I was talking about the causes of 9/11, which is what your original statement was about.
I disagree that the causes are not to be found in our foreign policy—like you say.
"
Churchill puts the blame on us for the 9/11 attacks; you support him "in part."
The "part" that makes us culpable is trivial; the "part" that really explains why we were attacked is found in the history of Islam.
Therefore, it is very "dubitable" that the 9/11 attacks are the result of our foreign policy. The clearest explanation has nothing to do with that.
If not, then what, exactly, have we done that would logically result in 9/11? I can't find anything myself.
"
Ridiculous:
Unless you're putting all the weight of this on the hedge words ("in part"; "seems to me").
"Indubitibale" would be correct only if "in part" is read so as to take all the ordinary meaning off "American foreign policy." That is, we wouldn't have been attacked if we hadn't had preponderant power in geopolitics. That's a trivial conclusion to make.
The more weighty idea is that we have meddled in the internal affairs of Arab/Muslim countries and so created a "backlash"--the chickens coming home to roost of Churchill's famous screed.
This is true--in part--but it doesn't explain anything. For example, we have meddled more and longer and with more distastrous consequences in Latin America and still are not subject to such attacks or to such animosity from them.
The missing element is of course Islam. So, yes, "in part" we caused the attacks just by being there and by leading the West. But the other "part" of the explanation lies in the history of Islam itself.
On “ad hoc justice”
I was just being sarcastic and trying for a reductio ad absurdum against the Superjudge. I do not impute any opinions on the death of Jesus Christ to you at all. Relax. I doubt that Jesus Christ even existed in the first place, so I don't think he was killed by anyone.
"
I'd like to add my voice here to condemn torture and to express my important righteous wrath/moral outrage.
I imagine I'll be accused of apologizing for torture and stooping to the level of the Islamist torturers and beheaders, but Superjudge "That dude doesn't mess around" (Sullivan dixit)Garzón is nothing more than a publicity hound and a partisan hack. He has more than enough human rights abuses to investigate right there in Spain, if it weren't for the fact that it's governed by the Socialists. I'd be inclined to change my opinion of him if were wasting his own taxpayers' money by bringing suit against Castro's Cuba and Hamas, for example. Next, he'll be revising the judgment against Jesus Christ and calling down the righteous wrath of people like ED Kain against the Christ-killers.
On “War Crimes in Gaza”
I may as well put the following in here. It's a report from the NYT that refutes much of the atrocity stories like the ones you link to here. If you read this, at least you must admit that there are two sides to the story of "what really went on." The problem with your post is that you only tell the Palestinian side. Note that the "killing of a woman and her two children" that comes in the following quote is the same story that Hitchens referred to in the piece you quoted a few days ago.
"
"Who's giving Arab leaders a free pass?" Well… the journalist quoted in the above article, for one. And others like him, which is just about everyone. Here's the point: instead of constantly demanding "painful concessions" from Israel like unilateral dismantling of the settlements, people could demand that Arab and Muslim leaders recognize Israel and quit producing the most vile anti Semitic propaganda imaginable. People could recognize that Arab and Muslim rejectionism is the cause of the conflict, not Israel. Then maybe the peace process could move forward.
It isn't about "inflating stuff" by using propaganda. It's about fabricating stuff. I'm surprised you adhere to the "underlying truth" doctrine of media veracity. I don't. I want the stuff on the surface, not just representing some "underlying truth." Let the analysts uncover the "underlying truth." If it's so "true" that the IDF is so brutal, then why do they have to fabricate stuff constantly? The Mohammed al-Durah affair really disgusted me since this lie/fabrication was the cause of so much death and destruction in itself. I'm surprised you'd make yourself a party to disseminating it here.
"
Why don't you read this and tell me if the shoe fits?
"
Good post! Are you afraid this gets you "blacklisted?" Or is that your goal, since you say "blacklisting" gains on a "bigger pedestal?"
The fabrications by Palestinians, with the complicity of Western media like the Guardian, like the Jenin "massacre" and the Mohammed al-Durah affair are so well-known by now that I'm surprised you give them any credence whatsoever. Do you suspend disbelief when it's time to write about "the plight of the Palestinians?"
Of course, use of human shields is the preferred tactic of Hamas, not the IDF. As part of such tactics, Hamas uses hospitals as fire bases and weapons caches. Etc. Etc.
On “Trapped”
@Bob & ED Kain:
I'm sorry I gave you the impression that I thought the settlement issue was simple. I've tried to make the opposite point every time I've mentioned it. My main point about the settlements is that they are not the main obstacle to peace. The main obstacle to peace is Arab and Palestinian rejectionism. I can support this by referring to the situation 1947-1967, when there was a state of war between Arab and Muslim states and Israel and there were no settlements.
Above, I was speaking of official state policy, like Bob realizes. There are certain laws that regulate the settlements and I really don't know anything about them so as to be able to judge which settlements are illegal and which are not. I realize it's a complex situation.
It's interesting that ED Kain accuses me of over simplifying the settlement question and then over simplifies it with his analogy. Bob has come up with an example of settlement expansion—which is only reported by the BBC and not proven—and ED Kain takes this as a complete betrayal of Israel's commitments. One would have to show that unbridled settlement construction is taking place throughout the West Bank for his analogy to ring true. As it is, it's more accurate to say that
I repeat: my point is not to defend any settlement construction at all or to minimize it. I quite agree that they're illegal and that they must be dismantled as part of a final peace agreement. But they are not the main obstacle to peace. The main obstacle to peace is Arab and Palestinian rejection of the state of Israel.
Plus, Bob's comment also shows why it's false to say that the US gives its unrestricted support to any Israeli policy.
"
So: I'm glad you cleared up your "blacklisting" comment. Like I said, it was just an unfortunate word choice: you're confusing simple criticism with "blacklisting," which is shown by your saying, "Blacklisting can be a good thing, though. It can give you an even better pedestal…." If this were true, then everyone would want to be blacklisted. A "Blacklist" is a list of people to be boycotted somehow. Just because someone is "widely derided" doesn't mean that they're on any "blacklist." Calling simple criticism "blacklisting" is typical of leftist discourse.
As for Sullivan, he's widely derided because he's just risible. I quit reading him long ago, even to deride him. He brings holier-than-thou to a whole new level. Therefore I have no idea what his opinions about the Israel/Palestine conflict are. I assume he's "shocked to the core" about it, though.
The following is from the Haaretz report about Danny Zamir that Hitchens refers to [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072475.html]:
The report goes on to say that the soldiers were ordered to clean up the house upon leaving.
So: the Israeli atrocities are more "nuanced" than people want to realize. Can anyone honestly imagine that the situation would have been the same if the roles were reversed?
"
Thanks for calling my name, even if it's so sarcastic. I don't see much to argue about here though. Did you think I supported the settler movement for some reason? My only point about the settlements is that they are not the main obstacle to a peace agreement. That would be the Arab refusal to recognize the Jewish state. That's why there has been war since the founding of the state of Israel when there were no settlements at all. Once again, there could have been a Palestinian state in 1948 or in 2000 but for this.
I think you're exaggerating when you say, "this sort of essay could blacklist him fairly quickly." You think that writing about "the plight of the Palestinians" or criticizing the settlers is somehow taboo and will get a writer "blacklisted." I have to at least give you the benefit of the doubt here, because if you believe that the Israel Lobby can "blacklist" writers, then you're more paranoid than I am. I'm assuming that this was just an unhappy choice of words and you really don't mean it. I personally don't care who writes about the "plight of the Palestinians" or who criticizes the settlers, but I do care who weaves conspiracy theories involving Jews and blacklists.
The US government is opposed to the settlements as the article you link to makes clear:
I can't see much to argue about insofar as your "policy" suggestion:
If only it were so easy. For example, Israel is already committed to dismantling the settlements and has been since the '90s. Ariel Sharon's plan was to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank like they did in Gaza in 2005. I find it hard to imagine a "unified security deal" that would satisfy Israelis in the absence of peace treaties. How could Arab states possibly guarantee Israel's security? Do you seriously want us to believe that Israelis would trust Arab states to guarantee their security? If you were Israeli, would you trust them rather than your own army?
On “The Japan Option”
There are three issues with respect to our relationship with Iran, according to Stratfor:
What Walt says makes sense: Iran has legitimate security concerns that must be addressed if there is to be any agreement with us; satisfactory solutions for Iran's legitimate security concerns will be the most effective way to stop Iran's support for Hamas and Hizbollah and its nuclear program.
The problem is how to achieve this. Walt doesn't even try to provide an answer and the article he links to doesn't either. All it does is assume that Iran gives up its nuclear program and support for Hamas and Hizbollah in return for normalized relations with us and investment opportunities for our corporations in Iran.
It's obvious that the present strategy is not working but what would you propose in its place? Do you really believe that Iran will give up its goal to lead the world Islamic revolution, and thus give up its nuclear program and its support for Hizbollah and Hamas, for international recognition and the opportunities that US investment in their economy provides? I just don't see how this is possible because if it were, it would have been done decades ago. Iran will not give up its whole reason for being, which is the world Islamic revolution, for our recognition and investment.
On “The Un-American Conservative”
@Cam:
Radical Islamists declared war on us and have attacked us. You can see the al Qaeda statements/fatwahs/declarations of war from 1996/1998. Many other instances.
I say that Israel is fighting radical Islamists, like we are.
I have never called anyone anti Semitic or anti American for disagreeing with the "IDF's means toward this end." You can disagree with the IDF to your heart's content and I'll never call you anti Semitic. This is how ED Kain wants to frame my opinions, in spite of my multiple denials. He wants us to believe that people want to silence him and others for bravely criticizing Israeli policy, etc. This is absurd. Nobody does such a thing. Nobody is trying to stop anyone from dissenting as ED Kain imagines. His repeated invocations of the Israel Lobby's nefarious power is what I call anti Semitic. This is the topic of my comments here, not dissenting from IDF policy.
This "Israel Lobby" theory of politics is unsubstantiated and belongs to the realm of conspiracy theory. For historical reasons, I call a conspiracy theory involving Jews "anti Semitic." These theories have played important roles in persecuting Jews since the Middle Ages. My whole point is to get people like ED Kain to recognize this and thereby understand the "Commentary crowd."
I think that if ED Kain were Jewish, the same alarm bells would go off in his own mind when confronted with "Israel Lobby"-type conspiracy theories.
Note that I do not attribute any Jew hatred to ED Kain personally. I say that he's just trying to be politically correct and has accepted the Israel Lobby theory as part of his ideology because it sounds "critical" to him.
"
I didn't bring in the term "War on Terror." It was from the Congressional Budget Office report that I quoted.
I don't accept the term either, but I can see that we're in a war with radical Islam, which uses terror as a legitimate tactic in their view. This is why I say Israel's fight is our fight. This is why Israel is in an analogous position to GB back in the 30s-40s. Why is this so absurd in your mind?
How can you possibly "support Israel" apart from the war against radical Islam? It doesn't make any sense.
Every time I challenge you, you shift ground. Before, you were saying that Israel and its infamous Lobby were exercising undue influence on the US government, somehow. I showed you that the simple application of Occam's Razor tends to refute this. You now shift ground and say that Israel is some kind of cat's paw for the US in protecting its oil interests, [i.e., Israel is "both part and parcel of a larger US military/economic expansion into the ME."]
You can't have it both ways unless you're advocating a conspiracy theory. See. That's why I can't really take you seriously.
"
Ugh. ED Kain.
I want any kind of proof you can come up with. I never said anything about "quantifiable data." You make an empirical claim, after all. There must be some evidence. I certainly do provide proof for my arguments. I never just say "everybody knows" like you do.
My arguments against you are based on Occam's Razor. This is also considered "proof," even if it is not "quantifiable data."
You seem to take the intelligence cooperation and military aid between Israel and the US as some sort of evidence for the "power" or "disproportionate" power of the Israel Lobby, which is detrimental to our own interests. This is the main point, not the limits you see in "military solutions." Anyone can criticize Israel's policies but attributing "disproportionate" power to Israel's advocates in the US, when none exists, in opposition to our own "true interests" is what I call an updated Elders theory.
How about Saudi Arabia? Or China? Especially now that Freeman has been in the news for having such "deep, deep ties" to these nations. Don't we have "deep, deep ties" with other allies as well? Why would such ties with Israel be so suspect in your mind?
I suppose that in your mind we have been caught "kowtowing to Israeli interests" in the bipartisan support the Congress gave to Israel's recent Gaza operation. You can't imagine that Senators would have written such a resolution without undue pressure from the Zionists. Or is the "kowtowing to Israeli interests" shown in the rejection of Chas Freeman's appointment? In your mind, this couldn't be a matter of his incompetence and his own financial ties to China and Saudi Arabia. It is prima facie evidence of the "disproportionate power" of the Israel Lobby.
This is where I say that Occam's Razor is applicable.
Here's some information about US military aid [Congressional Budget Justification FOREIGN OPERATIONS Fiscal Year 2008]:
It's true that Israel gets far more military aid than other nations, although Egypt and Jordan are right up there too. But you take this as evidence of the "disproportionate power" of the Israel Lobby. I don't see the logic there. I can see that Israel is a longstanding ally and that they are "critical to the Global War on Terror." I say we're doing the right thing in supporting Israel because their fight is our fight. We're allies.
I hope you're bearing with me here. Israel's position today with respect to the fight against radical Islam is analogous to GB's position with respect to the fight against Nazism in the late '30s-early '40s. GB was receiving a disproportionate amount of US aid then. The Elders theory was that "International Jewry" was manipulating Roosevelt's government since such aid to GB was not in our "true interests."
See what I mean about the updated Elders theory? See what I mean about Occam's Razor?
By the way, I'm not accusing you of Jew-hatred. I just think that you're trying to achieve political correctness. I don't believe that you have any special animus against Israel or Jews.
"
So now they're not the most powerful, but the "most disproportionate." You should get your story straight.
I'm not denying anything; I'm just asking you to support what you say in the interests of “advancing debate and understanding of any number of issues,” etc. etc.
Yes, Israel has a lobby. But so do other countries and other industries in the US. You say Israel's lobby is the most powerful or the most "disproportionate," depending... Do you have any reason for saying this besides your own prejudice? I doubt it. If I'm wrong, then show me.
You do have a problem debating me on this subject and it's not because I'm "partisan" and you're not. I don't get which "party" I'm a "partisan" of. You must mean only mean that I have my mind made up in this matter and you use the word, "partisan" because it sounds more intellectual to you. But, if you think you don't have "entrenched ideas and beliefs on this matter" that your beliefs are the result of open minded inquiry and mine are simply "partisan" hackery then you're more deluded than I thought.
You can hardly support your opinions apart from saying that "everybody knows," like you do here. When challenged, you just say that you can't debate me because I'm wrong.
Your "boredom" comes off like a cop-out to me.
Let's see if you can answer a simple question: What evidence do you have to support such statements about the Israel Lobby?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.