[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You are an idiot if you thinkthis is remotely true.
You’re an idiot if you believe the Israelis didn’t start evicting Palestinians from their homes by force when they starting arriving en masse to that region.[/quote]
I understand that. What I don’t understand is how you can compare forced relocation to the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis.
Only a twisted mind could come up with your analogy. You show your true colors.
There is a large Muslim population in Israel because EVERYONE within its borders got citizenship when the nation was created.
Israel is the only nation in the region that allows close to 1,000,000 Muslim people per day in and out of its borders (maybe not in the last several months) for work, education, and peaceful social interaction with a potential opportunity for citizenship… Egypt, Syria, and Iran could give two shits and simply provide weapons and bad television.
There are Christians AND Muslims in the Israeli military.
It is routine for Israeli special forces to lose one man for every terrorist cought in certain operations that require extra care in protecting Muslim women and children.
People of all religions can travel to Israel and voice their outrage without fear of being kidnapped, killed, or having families targeted…
Scapegoating.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Only a twisted mind could come up with your analogy. You show your true colors.[/quote]
Give me a fucking break, Zap. Just because I dare criticize “sacred” Israel shows my true colors?? Dork.
This editorial is good:
In Dark Times, Blame the Jews
March 24, 2006
On the face of it, there’s little that’s new in the provocative research paper “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” published online last week by two leading political scientists, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. Their underlying thesis, that Israel’s advocates have pressured America into an unjustified and damaging alliance with Israel, has been around for decades, flogged with little success by generations of Israel’s detractors.
Their more immediate argument, that Israel and its allies manipulated America into war with Iraq, has been simmering at the edges of the debate since before the invasion. By now it’s part of our national background noise.
What is new and startling is the document’s provenance. Its authors are not fringe gadflies but two of America’s most respected foreign-affairs theorists. One, Mearsheimer, is a distinguished professor at the University of Chicago. The other, Walt, is academic dean of the nation’s most prestigious center of political studies, the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Though it’s tempting, they can’t be dismissed as cranks outside the mainstream. They are the mainstream.
Even more startling, given who they are, is the flimsiness of their work. Countless facts are simply wrong. Long stretches of argument are implausible, at times almost comically so. Much of their research is oddly amateurish, drawn not from credible documents or primary source interviews but from newspaper clippings, including dozens from this newspaper, seemingly dug up in quick Internet word searches aimed at proving a point, not exploring the truth.
Some are wildly misquoted. An undergraduate submitting work like this would be laughed out of class. A dean apparently gets to see it posted on Harvard’s Web site.
Considering the authors’ credentials, the paper calls for substantive rebuttal by those who disagree. But that, as we’ll see, is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. The larger, more urgent question is how things came to this pass. What could possibly have led two of the best and brightest foreign policy mandarins to compose and publish such an embarrassment?
Some of Israel’s more overheated defenders were trying this week to diagnose the problem as a character flaw in the authors. Their solution is to counterattack. That’s a mistake. Leaving aside the folly of trying to answer a claim that Israel is a bully by bullying the messenger, the response misses the point. Mearsheimer and Walt are products of their time.
These are dark, poisonous days we live in, and the poison is spreading. In Iraq, America has stumbled into a quagmire of historic proportions, with global consequences that are proving nothing short of catastrophic. If that weren’t enough, our nation is nearly bankrupt, with a national debt nearly equal to our Gross Domestic Product. And the Arctic is melting. The miscalculations seem inexplicable. There must be someone to blame.
We shouldn’t be surprised, then, at the sight of respected professors, and not only professors, coming unhinged.
The Mearsheimer-Walt paper shows how far the notion that Israel is to blame for the Iraq War has moved from the crackpot fringe to the center. Three years ago it was heard mainly from campus radicals. Two years ago it started getting picked up by a handful of Washington insiders, memorably including Senator Ernest Hollings and General Anthony Zinni. Now it’s reached the heart of the academic establishment.
And the notion has grown with the telling. Compared with the professors, Hollings and Zinni now seem modest in their claims. They argued merely that the Iraq War had been fought for Israel’s benefit. In this they were echoing the widespread theory that the war was foisted on the Bush administration by a cabal of mostly Jewish neoconservatives such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith.
That was a shaky enough argument back in 2004. It was already clear by then, from the disclosures of former Treasury secretary Paul O’Neill and others, that President Bush had Saddam Hussein in his sights from the moment he entered office. It was also clear, or should have been, that Bush and Cheney had assembled an administration of known quantities, including Wolfowitz and Feith, who served their purposes.
The notion that a group of Pentagon underlings could bamboozle the White House into an unintended war was ludicrous on its face. Whatever else might be said of George Bush, he knows his mind and is not easily manipulated.
Mearsheimer and Walt, however, have constructed a far more ambitious theory. They mean to indict the entire U.S.-Israel relationship, going back to the point in 1973 when American aid rose into the billions and America became the essential broker in Middle East diplomacy. Since then, they write, “the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security.” Indeed, “the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel.”
But if America’s ties to Israel were the main cause of America’s current troubles in the Muslim world, as Mearsheimer and Walt argue, then Muslim hostility would have been rising steadily since 1973. It has not. There have been periods of conflict and periods of good will. Things were bad during the early 1980s, around the time of the Lebanon War. They picked up in the late 1980s, when America was working actively to broker Israeli-Palestinian dialogue, and improved even more in the 1990s, when Israel was working toward reconciliation with the Palestinians.
Throughout, groups of terrorists sought to attack American targets, including Hezbollah in the 1980s, Al Qaeda beginning in the 1990s. But they did not represent a groundswell of mass rage. No, the groundswell began in 2000 with the outbreak of the televised intifada. It became a firestorm after the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
If America’s support for Israel has been steady since 1973, as the authors say, then it cannot explain a crisis that erupted in 2000 or 2003.
What’s different, of course, is the “effort to spread democracy throughout the region.” Mearsheimer and Walt present it as a natural corollary of American support for Israel, but it’s nothing of the sort. Support for Israel is a broadly popular aspect of American policy that goes back decades. Spreading democracy in the Middle East ? or, more precisely, imposing it ? is an eccentric doctrine taken up, amid intense controversy, by the current administration.
Some of its key advocates see democratization as a way of protecting Israel; others, conversely, support Israel as an outgrowth of their vision of democracy. Some elements of the pro-Israel advocacy community back this crusade enthusiastically; most do not.
Mearsheimer and Walt have no time for such subtleties. For them, the cause of Israel is inseparable from the ideological crusade of the past three years. The Israel they depict, in a relentless, selective marshaling of facts, half-truths and occasional untruths, is a moral burden and a strategic liability.
It was conceived in racism and founded in “explicit acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres, and rapes by Jews.” It has been bent since 1948 on expansionism and ethnic purification, and since 1967 on tightening its brutal grip on the West Bank and Gaza. The authors claim repeatedly that they do not question Israel’s right to exist, but they spend page after page doing just that, with barely a hint of a counter-argument.
Then, having dismissed the case for Israel, they ask: “[I]f neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America’s support for Israel, how are we to explain it?” Their answer is “the Israel Lobby.”
Their lobby is a sprawling alliance of Jewish organizations, major newspapers, Democratic and Republican politicians, liberal and conservative think tanks and more Jewish organizations, all single-mindedly determined to help Israel achieve its goals at the expense of American interests. “The core of the Lobby,” they write, “is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests.”
To be sure, they hasten to add, “not all Jewish-Americans are part of the Lobby.” One 2004 survey found that “roughly 36 percent of Jewish-Americans said they were either ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ emotionally attached to Israel.” Good news: No more than 64% of American Jews are out to undermine America.
Here, again, they protest: They do not mean to impugn. There is, they say, “nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway U.S. policy towards Israel.” They don’t mean to suggest “the sort of conspiracy depicted in anti-Semitic tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”
It’s just that the Lobby has, well, “a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress,” controls key access to the executive branch and suppresses dissent throughout society. Its “not surprising” goal, they write, is to weaken Israel’s enemies to the point that “Israel gets a free hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying.” Nothing “improper” there.
At times their narrative is surprisingly ill-informed. They state, incorrectly, that Israel did not allow Palestinian refugees to return after 1948. They claim, incorrectly, that Israel’s citizenship laws are based on something they call “blood kinship.”
They state, incredibly and without substantiation, that Israel’s counter-terrorism raids in the 1950s were aimed at territorial expansion. They claim that Yitzhak Rabin, who first endorsed Palestinian statehood in a Yediot Aharonot interview in 1974, was opposed to Palestinian statehood.
At a more basic level, they ignore or gloss over critical distinctions in their effort to portray “the Lobby” as a monolith. Supporters of Israel’s cause are depicted as unanimous in backing territorial expansion and opposing concessions to the Palestinians; when the authors happen to notice advocates of compromise, such as Edgar Bronfman and Seymour Reich, they are presented as lonely voices of dissent rather than as leaders of major factions within the organized Jewish community.
The very term “pro-Israel” becomes, in their hands, elastic to the point of deceptiveness. One minute it describes those who are sympathetic to Israel; the next minute it denotes those whose main motivation is loyalty to Israel. By switching back and forth, they manage to make the casual sympathizers melt in among the diehards to create the appearance of a vast, terrifying octopus.
The deception is helped along by the cherry-picking of quotes. In one egregious case, they attempt to prove how deeply Paul Wolfowitz is “committed to Israel” by quoting the Forward, which “once described him as ‘the most hawkishly pro-Israel voice in the Administration.’” A check of the endnotes shows that the words did appear in the Forward, but they were describing the conventional wisdom, not the Forward’s view. The article was about a pro-Israel rally where Wolfowitz was booed for defending Palestinian rights. The point was that the conventional wisdom was wrong.
Some facts need repeating, though they shouldn’t. Israel was founded by majority vote of the United Nations General Assembly. It has faced and continues to face powerful enemies intent on its destruction. Its citizenship is open to all races and creeds, from European Jews to South American Indians and Vietnamese boat people. Tens of thousands of Israelis are West Bank and Gaza Palestinians who gained their citizenship by marrying Israelis.
Most important, Israel has had the support of successive American administrations in large part because it enjoys the sympathy of much of the American people. In part this flows from Christian religious convictions. In part it reflects admiration for Israeli spunk. In part it stems from a perception of shared values. Israel has not always lived up to its own best ideals. But, unlike much of the world, it tries.
Mearsheimer and Walt join a long line of critics who dislike Israel so deeply that they cannot fathom the support it enjoys in America, and so they search for some malign power capable of perverting America’s good sense. They find it, as others have before, in the Jews.
True, about 15% of Israel’s population is Arab. However, there is mainstream talk of expelling all Arab-Israeli’s. Furthermore, as an Arab-Israeli, you can have your house demolished without any warning or compensation simply because the government wants the land.
The State Department’s Annual Human Rights report revealed “institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country’s Arab citizens in Israel” last year.
Yes, Israel is a democracy, if you’re Jewish. Otherwise you’re nothing more than a piece of shit to them. This very interesting type of racism can also be experienced in NYC…I’ll leave it at that.
[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Only a twisted mind could come up with your analogy. You show your true colors.
Give me a fucking break, Zap. Just because I dare criticize “sacred” Israel shows my true colors?? Dork.[/quote]
Give me a fucking break. You didn’t simply criticize Israel, you equated their treatmenmt of the Palestinians with Hitler’s treatment of the Jews.
That is not criticism, that is complete and utter horseshit.
I have read enough of your posts to know that you are not stupid enough to actually believe it but you certainly dislike the Jews enough to claim it anyway.
You bust on Jews that you see in NYC.
You claim the media is “controlled” by the Jews.
You are clearly anti-semitic. Your criticism of Israel is as valid as David Duke’s criticism of black people.
[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Once again–and this is the last time I’m going to ask nicely without saying unbelievably rude things about your hayseed ass–please provide FACTS to back up your statement.
Back up your ludicrous, Jew-hatin’ statements with facts or fuck off and don’t come back.
NBC, ABC and CBS are all owned by Jewish dudes. The executive producer of those networks’ nightly news are all Jewish. The boss at CNN, Rick Kaplan, is jewish. Do you really expect objective reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when the decision-makers at these news networks are Jewish? I sure don’t. Again, the BBC is a much more better source of news reporting on this conflict.
The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, the most influential papers, are all Jewish-owned and operated. Then you have 26 more major city papers that are Jewish owned and operated, like the Boston Globe, Cleveland Plain Dealer, and Newark Star-Ledger.
Does this bother me? No, I really could care less. But again, I’m smart enough not to rely on the major media for objective reporting on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. [/quote]
Here we go, dumbass. I gave you a
chance:
NBC is owned by General Electric, which is a publicly held corporation. Not owned “by some Jewish dude.”
Retard.
CBS is owned by Viacom, which is publicly held. Controlling shareholder is Sumner Redstone, who is Jewish, but he is bound by the board and other stockholders.
Shithead.
ABC is owned by The Walt Disney Company, which is–wait for it–publicly held. The president of the WDC is former Senator George Mitchell. He is not a Jew.
Lackwit.
CNN is owned by Time Warner, which is–this is getting boring–publicly owned. Time Warner’s CEO is Richard Parsons, who (unless they are making black Jews who aren’t names Sammy Davis, Jr.) is not a Jew.
Foxnews is owned by News Corporation, a public company. The major shareholder is Rupert Murdoch, who is so not a Jew it’s not funny.
I found this info in less than five minutes, wheras you spouted nonsense out of your ass, which I would actualy expect from someone with a cow-college eucation such as yourself.
You mentioned you live in New York. Is your Jew-conspiracy thinking fueled by the fact that all around you, Jews with actual educations are doing better than you?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You bust on Jews that you see in NYC.
You claim the media is “controlled” by the Jews.
You are clearly anti-semitic. Your criticism of Israel is as valid as David Duke’s criticism of black people.[/quote]
No Zac, I don’t simply “bust on Jews.” I do bust on Jews (who hold American citizenship) who would fuck us over for the sake of Israel. If I knew any Irish-Americans who wouldn’t have any problems screwing us over for the sake of Ireland my reaction would be the same. But its funny, all the Irish people I know who live here put America #1, not some other country. A lot of Jewish people in NYC could learn a lot from the Irish on this matter.
The major media is clearly controlled by Jewish people. Again, for the 3rd freaking time, there’s nothing wrong with that, except that we shouldn’t expect unbiased coverage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
No Zap, I am not anti-Semitic. Anti-Zionist?? Yes. But not anti-Semitic. But of course, according to Steve, there’s no difference between the two.
Bottom line- I could really give a rat’s ass about the Israeli’s or Palestinians- but it really bothers me to know that my tax dollars are being used so some crazy, deranged rabbis/settlers can terrorize Palestinians in the West Bank- instead of, for example, improving our hideous inner-city schools.
[quote]PantyPeePunch wrote:
There is a large Muslim population in Israel because EVERYONE within its borders got citizenship when the nation was created.
[/quote]
Of course, the huge numbers of Arabs who were driven out (some fled, true, but often because of atrocities by groups like Irgun) when independence was declared weren’t within its borders anymore.
Fair enough, the Arab states cynically use the Palestinians. But if you think Israel offers the Palestinians “peaceful social interaction with a potential opportunity for citizenship” you’re kidding yourself. And the Israelis use the Palestinians as cheap labor; this isn’t altruism.
The IDF is an incredible military, and I’m sure they take some pains to limit civilian casualties, but take a look at the number of Palestinian dead vs. Israeli sometime. That tells a pretty convincing story.
I decided to address a few points without addressing anyone directly, since I think it will be better for my blood pressure that way.
There are many factual errors within these posts as well as remarks that really do smack of good “old fashioned” anti-semitism.
(1) When people talk about the “Jews having too much power,” they are “in control of the media,” etc. a red flag does go up.
(2) If all the Jews owned the mainstream media, why does the mainstream media love the Palestinians? The bias, I am afraid, is on the Arab side, not on the side of Israel.
(3) Someone said that Israel “took someone else’s land.” This is simply not true. Might I remind everyone that the Romans drove the Jewish people out of the land when they destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in the year 70 A.D.? The Jews were thrown forcibly out of Jewish land to be scattered throughout the four corners of the earth.
(4) The Jewish dream and hope (as shown every year at the Passover Seder when we say “next year in Jerusalem”) never ever died. It was always a priority for our people to return to our land.
(5) The fact that there were “squatters” in the land doesn’t mean that the Jewish people have any less right to it. Imagine if your family was thrown forcibly off your farm, and then others moved in. It wouldn’t matter if it was 10 years later or 1000 years later, the people on the farm simply don’t own it. It still belongs to the original owners who never sold it and never left on their own free will.
(6) The fact that Israel is a “Jewish State” shouldn’t surprise anyone. If it is a homeland for the Jewish people, who else are you going to find there? I mean in France you find the French; in Japan you find the Japanese; in China you find the Chinese – get it?
(7) Since the word “anti-semetic” as it is used currently, means “anti-Jew” – i.e. against the Jews – and since the Jewish hope has always been a return to our land, it is very easy to see the equality between being “anti-zionist” and “anti-semetic,” for if you are against the Jewish hope of return, you are against the Jew as well.
Fortunately, Israel is militarily strong and firmly established. We “ain’t going away” so tough on those who don’t like it, and as all of her enemies have found out, it doesn’t pay to go up against her either.
(8) With all of the people quoted, I am surpirsed nobody has quoted Henry Ford or Charles Lindburgh – two “great” and notorious anti-semites.
(9)Finally, I would like to address Boston Barrister – listen, I wasn’t saying that we should squash the report or it shouldn’t be discussed. What I am outraged about is the blatant anti-semitism this sort of thread invites on the part of those who simply don’t like the Jews and as much as they try to hide it, it oozes out of their very words. I would like for you to address that as well as address some of the hateful comments being made.
I think some Hawaiian and Native Indians would like to speak to you about getting their land back.
Your follow republicans have argued against your stance of permanent debt and ownership on these forums many times.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
I decided to address a few points without addressing anyone directly, since I think it will be better for my blood pressure that way.
There are many factual errors within these posts as well as remarks that really do smack of good “old fashioned” anti-semitism.
(3) Someone said that Israel “took someone else’s land.” This is simply not true. Might I remind everyone that the Romans drove the Jewish people out of the land when they destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in the year 70 A.D.? The Jews were thrown forcibly out of Jewish land to be scattered throughout the four corners of the earth.
[/quote]
OK, but if I remember my Old Testament the Jews took the land from the Canaanites now didn’t they? So isn’t it their land then, by your amazing logic?
Most rational people probably wouldn’t use a term like “squatter” to refer to a people that had made a land their home for over a millenium.
Except for the fact that Zionism is a 19th century creation. Theodor Herzl, etc. You’re a teacher, right? Not a history teacher I take it?
Um, yeah, good call, those of us with legitimate questions about America’s relationship with Israel were just about to quote Hitler too, you caught us, well done.
[quote]vroom wrote:
(5)… Imagine if your family was thrown forcibly off your farm, and then others moved in. It wouldn’t matter if it was 10 years later or 1000 years later, the people on the farm simply don’t own it. It still belongs to the original owners who never sold it and never left on their own free will.
I think some Hawaiian and Native Indians would like to speak to you about getting their land back.
Your follow republicans have argued against your stance of permanent debt and ownership on these forums many times.
[/quote]
I don’t know about the natives in Hawaii, but the Indians agreed to the reservation deals and being a separate nation.
Hey with all the casino money that they rake in – that haven’t done that bad in the deal!
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
I decided to address a few points without addressing anyone directly, since I think it will be better for my blood pressure that way.
There are many factual errors within these posts as well as remarks that really do smack of good “old fashioned” anti-semitism.
(3) Someone said that Israel “took someone else’s land.” This is simply not true. Might I remind everyone that the Romans drove the Jewish people out of the land when they destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in the year 70 A.D.? The Jews were thrown forcibly out of Jewish land to be scattered throughout the four corners of the earth.
OK, but if I remember my Old Testament the Jews took the land from the Canaanites now didn’t they? So isn’t it their land then, by your amazing logic?
[/quote]
Well, if you want to go Biblical, then fine. God told the Jews to go into the land of Cannan and to drive out the inhabitants, because clearly God gave the Jewish people the land.
Now, if you can find any of the Canninites, and all of the other “ites,” well good luck – because none of them exist today. So I guess by your implied logic – the last people standing win – we win!
Right – Hertzl propelled this hope into an organized movement, but that doesn’t deter from the fact that it was ingrained in the Jewish mind for almost 2 millenia.
[quote]
(8) With all of the people quoted, I am surpirsed nobody has quoted Henry Ford or Charles Lindburgh – two “great” and notorious anti-semites.
Um, yeah, good call, those of us with legitimate questions about America’s relationship with Israel were just about to quote Hitler too, you caught us, well done.[/quote]
Yes, I believe someone actually equated Israel’s treatment of the so-called Palestinians to that of Nazi Germany, so I am not that far off.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
Um, yeah, good call, those of us with legitimate questions about America’s relationship with Israel were just about to quote Hitler too, you caught us, well done.
Yes, I believe someone actually equated Israel’s treatment of the so-called Palestinians to that of Nazi Germany, so I am not that far off.
[/quote]
This is correct OKState actually compare equated these two.
Israels treatment of the Palestinians has not been perfect. This is not a cut and dried issue. Intelligent discussion is necessary. Comparing Israel to the Nazis is not intelligent discussion. You could compare it to the US treatment of the American Indian, but I think think Israel has acted more humanely than that.
Unfortunately guys like OKState and JTF do not engage in intelligent balanced debate, they are clearly anti-semites and post only one sided drivel.
They make discussion of the issues almost impossible when they rant about jewish controlled media and deny the extent of the holocaust by posting deceptive information.
Back to the original subject it is poorly thought out. The war is mostly about securing a vital resource. The same reason we liberated Kuwait. It is not about Israel.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
(5)… Imagine if your family was thrown forcibly off your farm, and then others moved in. It wouldn’t matter if it was 10 years later or 1000 years later, the people on the farm simply don’t own it. It still belongs to the original owners who never sold it and never left on their own free will.
I think some Hawaiian and Native Indians would like to speak to you about getting their land back.
Your follow republicans have argued against your stance of permanent debt and ownership on these forums many times.
I don’t know about the natives in Hawaii, but the Indians agreed to the reservation deals and being a separate nation.
Hey with all the casino money that they rake in – that haven’t done that bad in the deal!
[/quote]
You’re either really ignorant (my suspicion) or making a lame attempt at a joke. I don’t believe in reparations or anything stupid like that, but if you honestly believe American Indians “haven’t done that bad in the deal” by virtue of casino money, you know nothing about the history of your own country.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
I decided to address a few points without addressing anyone directly, since I think it will be better for my blood pressure that way.
There are many factual errors within these posts as well as remarks that really do smack of good “old fashioned” anti-semitism.
(3) Someone said that Israel “took someone else’s land.” This is simply not true. Might I remind everyone that the Romans drove the Jewish people out of the land when they destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in the year 70 A.D.? The Jews were thrown forcibly out of Jewish land to be scattered throughout the four corners of the earth.
OK, but if I remember my Old Testament the Jews took the land from the Canaanites now didn’t they? So isn’t it their land then, by your amazing logic?
Well, if you want to go Biblical, then fine. God told the Jews to go into the land of Cannan and to drive out the inhabitants, because clearly God gave the Jewish people the land.
Now, if you can find any of the Canninites, and all of the other “ites,” well good luck – because none of them exist today. So I guess by your implied logic – the last people standing win – we win!
[/quote]
I think you’d have as easy a time finding Canaanites and Jebusites as you would figuring out those Jews who are descendants of those dispossessed in 70 AD and those whose ancestors left long before for Alexandria, Tarsus, or any of the many other heavily Jewish cities of the Mediterranean at that time. And it should be pretty clear that the people living in a land for the last thousand and some years are “the last people standing.”
Your lack of knowledge about the history of this country you lionize is pretty staggering. Zionism is a modern, secular, nationalist movement. It was started to find a land for Jews so that they would be safe from persecution, as exemplified by the Dreyfus Affair and much else in late 19th century Europe. It was not about religious claims on Jerusalem (or the Greater Israel that some Zionists now envision), but about finding a sanctuary for Jews in a hostile world. At one point, Uganda was seriously considered by Zionist leaders as the future Jewish homeland, and could well have been adopted had the Balfour Declaration not been announced. Why don’t you go do a little reading and then rejoin the debate when you know what you’re talking about? Maybe start with Chaim Potok’s The Chosen, a great little novel that spends some time on Orthodox Jews’ anger at the secular nature of the Zionists and the new Israeli state.
The “so-called Palestinians” huh? What other name would there be for the inhabitants of the British mandate of Palestine? Squatters?
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
I decided to address a few points without addressing anyone directly, since I think it will be better for my blood pressure that way.
There are many factual errors within these posts as well as remarks that really do smack of good “old fashioned” anti-semitism.
(1) When people talk about the “Jews having too much power,” they are “in control of the media,” etc. a red flag does go up.
(2) If all the Jews owned the mainstream media, why does the mainstream media love the Palestinians? The bias, I am afraid, is on the Arab side, not on the side of Israel.
(3) Someone said that Israel “took someone else’s land.” This is simply not true. Might I remind everyone that the Romans drove the Jewish people out of the land when they destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in the year 70 A.D.? The Jews were thrown forcibly out of Jewish land to be scattered throughout the four corners of the earth.
(4) The Jewish dream and hope (as shown every year at the Passover Seder when we say “next year in Jerusalem”) never ever died. It was always a priority for our people to return to our land.
(5) The fact that there were “squatters” in the land doesn’t mean that the Jewish people have any less right to it. Imagine if your family was thrown forcibly off your farm, and then others moved in. It wouldn’t matter if it was 10 years later or 1000 years later, the people on the farm simply don’t own it. It still belongs to the original owners who never sold it and never left on their own free will.
(6) The fact that Israel is a “Jewish State” shouldn’t surprise anyone. If it is a homeland for the Jewish people, who else are you going to find there? I mean in France you find the French; in Japan you find the Japanese; in China you find the Chinese – get it?
(7) Since the word “anti-semetic” as it is used currently, means “anti-Jew” – i.e. against the Jews – and since the Jewish hope has always been a return to our land, it is very easy to see the equality between being “anti-zionist” and “anti-semetic,” for if you are against the Jewish hope of return, you are against the Jew as well.
Fortunately, Israel is militarily strong and firmly established. We “ain’t going away” so tough on those who don’t like it, and as all of her enemies have found out, it doesn’t pay to go up against her either.
(8) With all of the people quoted, I am surpirsed nobody has quoted Henry Ford or Charles Lindburgh – two “great” and notorious anti-semites.
(9)Finally, I would like to address Boston Barrister – listen, I wasn’t saying that we should squash the report or it shouldn’t be discussed. What I am outraged about is the blatant anti-semitism this sort of thread invites on the part of those who simply don’t like the Jews and as much as they try to hide it, it oozes out of their very words. I would like for you to address that as well as address some of the hateful comments being made. [/quote]
Great post and nice Avitar!
Accuracy in Reporting of Israel/Palestine
[quote]harris447 wrote:
OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Perhaps major media outlets tend to favor Israel because the other side keeps walking onto buses with bombs strapped to them.
Major media outlets tend ro favor Israel because 90+% of the media is owned/operated by Jewish people. I’m sure JustTheFacts can provide a link, but all the major networks/newspapers are owned/operated by Jewish media moguls. The BBC is a far more onjective source of info on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Once again–and this is the last time I’m going to ask nicely without saying unbelievably rude things about your hayseed ass–please provide FACTS to back up your statement.
Do not go running to a poster no one takes seriously who digs up all his bullshit theories from www.tinfoilhat.com.
Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Viacom and GE are publicly owned. So, the “90%” figure you pulled out of your ass is nonsense.
Back up your ludicrous, Jew-hatin’ statements with facts or fuck off and don’t come back.
[/quote]
OKLAHOMA STATE is right. Does just stating a fact make somebody a racist? You flip out like it isn’t true, like in your mind it’s a complete fallacy that media, politics and finance is DOMINATED by Jewish people.
Your the one who ends up looking like a whacko here – it’s akin to arguing, it’s a conspiracy theory to think there are mostly blacks in the NBA - or NASCAR and golf are dominated by white guys.
The danger here is that Jews represent only 2% of the US population and only 1% of the entire world population – to say they’re over represented in media, politics and finance is the UNDERSTATEMENT of the century. All things being equal you would expect to see on average less than 1 Jewish person in a group of 100 media executives – instead it’s conservatively probably 70 out of 100.
In reality this isn’t a race issue, it’s about ideology.
The fact that the following people are Jewish is not what concerns me. I have no problem with Jews as a race – how would you feel if these guys were Southern Baptists or Mormons or Scientologists? Would you want this small group of ideologues with KNOWN ties and allegiance to a foreign power determining US foreign and domestic policy without question?
Richard Perle, who was caught in the 70’s giving classified information to Israel was chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board and was key policy advisor in the decision to invade Iraq. PNAC member.
Paul Wolfowitz was Deputy Defense Secretary and Policy Advisor, was appointed to head the World Bank. PNAC member.
Douglas Feith was Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor, resigned, currently under investigation for cooking intelligence and giving classified information to Israel.
Larry A. Franklin, former Pentagon analyst under Douglas Feith, recently sentenced to 12 years in prison for passing classified information to Israeli lobby AIPAC.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11624.htm
I. Lewis Libby, former Dick Cheney Chief of Staff, under indictment for outing Valerie Plame. PNAC member.
Dov Zakheim, Under Secretary of Defense from 2001 to 2004, ordained rabbi. Vice President of System Planning Corporation - manufacturer/developer of Command Transmitter System (CTS) a tunable UHF FM transmitter designed for ground use in controlling guided missiles, pilotless aircraft and pilotless boats. PNAC member.
Henry Kissinger, advisor on Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, all-around bad guy.
Elliott Abrams, National Security Council Advisor, involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, pardoned by papa Bush. PNAC member.
Michael Chertoff head of Homeland Security.
John Bolton appointed ambassador to the United Nations. PNAC member.
To say that Israel hasn’t practically hijacked our government is to ignore the OBVIOUS.
Zionism and Judaism - Let Us Define Our Terms
Thus, we find that, today, despite the power of the Zionist lobby and the subservience, until recently, of most politicians, media outlets and educational settings here in America, to its dictates, the historical blackout is coming to an end.
More and more people are questioning the Zionist version of history. At the United Nations and throughout Europe the questions have already been raised and largely answered. The answers are a variety of criticisms of the Israeli state. Some of these center on Israel’s practices. Others point to its underlying philosophy.
BTW Rupert Murdoch, a good friend of Ariel Sharon wanted you to watch this – aired on FOX March 4, 2001
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Lone%20Gunmen/lonegunmanpilot.wmv
[i]Brit Hume: “What about this question of advanced knowledge of what was going to happen on September 11? How clear are investigators that some Israeli agents may have known something?”
Carl Cameron: "It’s very explosive information, obviously, and there’s a great deal of evidence that they say they have collected, none of it necessarily conclusive. It’s more when they put it all together. A bigger question, they say, is how could they not have known?"[/i]
http://207.44.245.159/article7545.htm