Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The New Anti-Semitism Strikes Again

By Hung Fu in Op-Ed
Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 11:57:42 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

When Harvard and University of Chicago professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer released a working paper entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" (Full version here), few expected the national storm of controversy that was about to be unleashed. It's not often that academic research is roundly condemned by the American media and Harvard University forced to remove it's official seal from a paper.

"The Israel Lobby" is a scathing critique of what Walt and Mearsheimer claim to be one of America's most powerful lobbies - the pro-Israel lobby, in particular the American Israel Public Action Committee or AIPAC. In their own words, "No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical". The Anti-Defamation League and prominent commentators such as Alan Dershowitz and Eliot Cohen responded with condemnation and outrage, stating that the paper was "anti-Semitic" "hate speech" whose arguments were plagiarized from far-right websites; a modern-day "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" or, as Dershowitz put it, "David Duke with footnotes".


Walt and Mearsheimer's arguments against what they dub "the Lobby" and American support for Israel are best summarized in their own unsubtle words:
  • "In the same way, the creation of Israel in 1947-48 involved acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres and rapes by Jews, and Israel's subsequent conduct has often been brutal, belying any claim to moral superiority."
  • "Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship."
  • "Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and best known."
  • "Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli."
  • "The US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around."
  • "Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value."
  • "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical."

Whilst these claims are no doubt polemic, controversial and arguable, considerable evidence is also presented in the 82 pages of the full working paper. Like any academic paper, it presents a reasoned argument supported by citations, footnotes, statistics and quotations. Although the American media declined to seriously discuss the content of the paper, preferring to focus on the allegations of anti-Semitism, foreign newspapers such as The Independent, The Financial Times, The Australian and even Ha'aretz praised the paper and acknowledged the suppressive atmosphere stifling debate in America. As Jefferson Morley of the Washington Post noted "In the international online media, it has attracted largely positive coverage. By contrast, U.S. and Israeli commentators have described their findings as outrageous and scandalous."

Most criticism of the paper centers around perceived anti-Semitism and, secondarily, upon factual inaccuracies and poor scholarship. Alan Dershowitz in his reply states "It is not only the words - false and unbalanced as they are - that invoke old stereotypes and canards. It is the "music" as well - the tone, pitch, and feel of the article - that has caused such outrage from academics and concerned citizens from all across the political and religious spectrum". Commentator Christopher Hitchens, whilst admitting that "AIPAC and other Jewish organizations exert a vast influence over Middle East policy", said the conclusions of the paper were "partly misleading and partly creepy". Eliot Cohen called the paper "a wretched piece of scholarship" as well as "bigotry".

Observers of the academic debate about Israel in America will know that accusations of anti-Semitism, and the accompanying McCarthyist tactics of intimidation, censorship, and blacklisting, are common and a threat to academic freedom. The accusations do nothing to root out real anti-Semitism (if it even exists at universities) and create a "chilling effect" that discourages free expression. Columbia University has been rocked by orchestrated campaigns designed to intimidate, silence and sabotage speakers deemed to be "anti-Semitic" for their views on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Their tactics include spamming email accounts, filling lecture halls and loudly disrupting lectures. Recently, Alan Dershowitz attempted to suppress Norman Finkelstein's book, "Beyond Chutzpah", going so far as to write to the Governor of California. Books, plays and art that support the Palestinian point face strong grass-roots opposition and calls for censorship. An organization known as Campus Watch is devoted to blacklisting academics with inappropriate views about Israel, encouraging students to inform on their professors. Mearsheimer and Walt can now expect to be heckled in their lectures, monitored and blacklisted, all in addition to the very public accusations of anti-Semitism; a smear that has a tendency to linger.

In fact, the American Jewish establishment has made it quite clear by their actions: any criticism of Israel may be considered "anti-Semitism". As Walt and Mearsheimer point out, "criticise Israeli policy and you are by definition an anti-Semite." Whilst The Anti Defamation League concedes "Criticism of particular Israeli actions or policies in and of itself does not constitute anti-Semitism" it then goes on to claim "questions of motivation arise, when Israel is singled out for criticism for actions or policies". As left-wing Rabbi Michael Lerner has observed "The ADL lost most of it's credibility in my eyes as a civil rights organization when it began to identify criticisms of Israel with anti-Semitism". There is no clear line drawn between what is considered legitimate criticism of Israel and what is considered illegitimate hate speech. Discussing Israel, and indeed your own country's foreign policy, is a minefield.

The implications are absurd. For example, a cursory examination of the United Nations General Assembly voting record shows global opposition to Israel's actions in the occupied territories, not just from neighbouring Islamic countries in the Middle East, but also from Europe, Asia, South America and Africa. There are numerous resolutions that single Israel out for criticism of it's violations of international law. In fact, the only countries who consistently vote in support of Israel are America, who has used it's security council veto to block more than 30 resolutions against Israel, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. So it appears that, using the logic that singling out Israel for criticism is anti-Semitism, the vast majority of people on the planet are "anti-Semitic".

The flip side of this vigilance and paranoia about perceived anti-Semitism is the relative tolerance of bigotry against Arabs and Muslims in both Israel and America. Conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter, Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly publicly call Arabs and Muslims "ragheads", "non-humans", "prehistoric groups" and face little or no censure. In Israel, a far right group advocating the effective expulsion of Arab citizens by redrawing Israel's borders has had great success in the recent election; a recent poll of Israelis has exposed "widespread racism" against Arabs. Surely, if political correctness is of such paramount importance to the debate, all forms of bigotry should be focused upon.

Mark Mazower has observed that even Israeli academics are not immune from scrutiny. "There is something peculiarly Kafkaesque about the idea of an American Jewish watchdog monitoring Israel for anti-semitism, yet once the mechanism and mindset exist, this is where the logic of vigilance leads: anti-Semitism may be found anywhere." In the face of such hysteria, some simple common sense is the best antidote. Regardless of where you stand regarding the Israel debate, it's crucial that participants commit themselves to an open and frank discussion of the facts, rather than engaging in character assassinations and fear mongering. Silencing academics may be convenient for certain interests in the short term, but in the long term a lack of honest criticism of foreign policy can only harm America and Israel.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Is the Mearsheimer-Walt paper anti-Semitic?
o Yes 11%
o Maybe 26%
o No 62%

Votes: 53
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"
o here
o American Israel Public Action Committee
o The Anti-Defamation League
o Alan Dershowitz
o Eliot Cohen
o their own unsubtle words
o The Independent
o The Financial Times
o The Australian
o Ha'aretz
o Washington Post
o Christophe r Hitchens
o orchestrat ed campaigns
o attempted to suppress
o Books
o plays
o art
o Campus Watch
o The Anti Defamation League
o Michael Lerner
o United Nations General Assembly voting record
o Ann Coulter
o Michael Savage
o Bill O'Reilly
o expulsion of Arab citizens
o recent poll of Israelis
o observed
o Also by Hung Fu


Display: Sort:
The New Anti-Semitism Strikes Again | 373 comments (310 topical, 63 editorial, 0 hidden)
This is why it's anti-semitic: (2.15 / 26) (#8)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 12:25:28 PM EST

"In the same way, the creation of Israel in 1947-48 involved acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres and rapes by Jews, and Israel's subsequent conduct has often been brutal, belying any claim to moral superiority."

Accusing a nation of ethnic cleansing is serious business, yet you do it without so much as a citation, as if it were common knowledge. From what I've seen, there was one or two isolated incidents for which the perpetrators were punished by Israel that makes up "acts of ethnic cleansing".

And because of a few bad apples I'm expected to believe the state-sponsored terrorism perpetrated by the Palestinians is a moral equivalency. It is not. People who deliberately target children as a strategy are not deserving of human rights and that is why the situation persists.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

In defense (2.66 / 3) (#10)
by Sgt York on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 12:51:56 PM EST

The story author is quoting the paper published by Walt and Mearsheimer. They in turn cite some guy named Morris, in a book titled Birth Revisited. So, it is cited, but you'd have to track back this Morris guy for more details and real supporting evidence.

But you're right, it's a pretty damming accusation to make with only one supporting reference and a single mention. You don't just idly say things like that.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

I was attacking the paper (1.66 / 3) (#15)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 01:06:46 PM EST

Granted, I suppose I should have read it to see their citations to be fair, but that would be akin to me following up on baldrson's claims for the sake of intellectual neutrality.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Yeah (2.42 / 7) (#18)
by Sgt York on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 01:25:06 PM EST

Intellectual neutrality is sooooo overated.

Who needs rigorous methodology when you have reflex arcs?

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

reputations are useful for triage (2.75 / 4) (#105)
by Delirium on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:08:06 PM EST

Following up claims is worth doing in approximate proportion to the respectability of the source making the claims. If Gene Ray makes a claim about physics, it's not worth spending much time to debunk it.

[ Parent ]
I will crack secret of time cube egg into you! $ (none / 1) (#114)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:38:42 PM EST

Educators are the stupids!@!

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Having actually followed up on the article (2.75 / 4) (#17)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 01:23:02 PM EST

It appears the claims made of ethnic cleansing were based entirely on a single historian's work, Benny Morris, and - you guessed it - is a rather controversial figure himself, having been accused of falsifying his data by Professor Efraim Karsh of King's College.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
I disagree (2.75 / 4) (#52)
by debacle on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 04:59:43 PM EST

In a world rife with verifications of Godwin's Law, I would say that the exclamation "X gassed his/her/their own people!" is merely one of those things, similar to the presupposition that generally anyone of UKian descent has, at some point in time, fornicated with livestock.

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]
Completely off topic (none / 1) (#67)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 05:48:29 PM EST

I may have asked you this before, but where did you get your .sig? It tastes sweet.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
A fortune cookie (3.00 / 4) (#69)
by debacle on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 05:50:47 PM EST

Some Chinese place in Florida (shitty ethnic food all around down there).

The food gave me the shits, but they had some interesting fortune cookies.

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]

Hey now (2.75 / 4) (#11)
by mtrisk on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 12:52:34 PM EST

Even pedophiles get due process.

______
"If you don't like our country, why don't you get out?"
"What, and become a victim of your foreign policy?"
[ Parent ]
Due process is a luxury of peacetime (2.12 / 8) (#14)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 01:04:16 PM EST

Furthermore, it's hard to prosecute when the attacker kills himself in the process and his masters are hidden behind walls of international esteem.

Put more directly, homicide bomber attacks on Israel should by all rights be considered acts of war, and soon will be once Israel pulls out of the West Bank and declares Palestinian sovereignity.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

You misunderstand the concept (2.57 / 7) (#16)
by ksandstr on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 01:14:34 PM EST

... of human rights. Specifically the part about them being fundamentally inalienable.

Not that I'm surprised, this coming from a self-confessed fringe right type.

Fin.
[ Parent ]

Response (1.80 / 5) (#19)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 01:26:37 PM EST

There's a reason they're called civil rights in the States. I probably should have used that term and duly apologize for the syntactic misnomer. True human rights can only function under a one world government where national rights no longer come into conflict because they cease to exist. Seeing as we are presently without a one world government, human rights will continue to be put on the back burner when war rears its ugly head.

And yes, this is a war.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

here is an interview with the historian (3.00 / 5) (#20)
by guidoreichstadter on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 01:29:53 PM EST

Benny Morris, whose research the claims are based on.

Interview with Benny Morris

with Ari Shavit


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]

So he concludes (2.00 / 7) (#25)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 01:51:50 PM EST

in toto: 800 civilians killed and 12 women raped.

Yeah, that's a fucking atrocity right there. I'm pretty sure we've done worse in Iraq already.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

actually (3.00 / 5) (#28)
by guidoreichstadter on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 02:09:36 PM EST

he concludes that the stigma attatched to both the victim and victimizer suggests that what has achieved careful attention and documentation is "the tip of the iceberg"

I agree that the same dynamic is at play in Iraq.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]

Shit (3.00 / 3) (#72)
by debacle on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:17:15 PM EST

I bet I could do that in a weekend, and still have time to watch 'the game' on Sunday.

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]
Rabin on Ben Gurion (2.85 / 7) (#23)
by guidoreichstadter on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 01:35:11 PM EST

Rabin wrote in his memoirs::

What would they do with the 50,000 civilians in the two cities ... Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution, and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward. ... Allon repeated the question: What is to be done with the population? Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said: Drive them out! ... 'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring ... Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of [Lydda] did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion.
(Soldier of Peace, p. 140-141)



you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]
well (2.80 / 5) (#24)
by khallow on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 01:45:16 PM EST

A couple of the "bad apples" managed to become prime ministers of Israel (I speak of Begin and Sharon). But I do have to agree that Israel hasn't been as violent and ruthless as the Palestinians.

My take is that Palestine is close to a massive die-off. They have a disfunctional relationship with Israel that keeps getting worse and are in no way self-sufficient. If someone cuts off supplies (and it need not be Israel), then mass starvation would result. And the new leadership of Palestine is playing out some fantasy that I can't see ever working.

But I think also the isolating policies of Israel have played a large role in the current disaster. and certain opportunistic groups have fed on the conflict. The Likud party and Hamas have turned out to be natural allies each coming up with ways to strengthen the other side's political stature though cruel and base tactics.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Likud lost (2.50 / 6) (#26)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 01:54:29 PM EST

In case you haven't been following the news lately. Though I agree, a complete and total collapse of Palestinian society is at the door. I would argue their complicit support of terrorism makes them responsible for the mess they are in.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Interesting. (2.85 / 7) (#29)
by HackerCracker on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 02:25:29 PM EST

People who deliberately target children as a strategy are not deserving of human rights
Funny, by that measure the Israelis don't deserve human rights either. That's just one example, there are many, many more (OK, one more). And of course, you just don't hear about the Israeli people who oppose the policies of their government, like Breaking The Silence.

To pretend that Israel is purely the victim is to ignore reality. There's plenty of innocent blood on their hands.

[ Parent ]
Please cite credible sources, please (2.20 / 5) (#30)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 02:43:35 PM EST

You give me websites making investigative claims in Palestine, which given the security situation are, forgive me, highly dubious, and a blurb supposedly from an IDF soldier who doesn't give his name. While these certainly could be true, they could also be bullshit.

Contrast that with Hamas and Al-Aqsa who erase all doubt by BRAGGING about their activities.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

Oh yes, of course (2.66 / 3) (#31)
by HackerCracker on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 02:54:34 PM EST

We know that all Palestinians are terrorists, after all, they are a single, monolithic entity. Sheesh.

Just out of curiosity, what would you call a 'credible source?'

[ Parent ]
No (1.75 / 8) (#32)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 02:56:55 PM EST

But the majority of them are terrorist sympathizers, as cleary evidenced by their election of fucking Hamas.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Whatever (2.75 / 4) (#35)
by HackerCracker on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 03:13:42 PM EST

Maybe they did it because the government they elected previously was ineffectual and fucking Hamas looked like the only viable alternative? Maybe the Palestinians who just wanted to be left alone and were tired of being victimized by the Israelis saw this as a way of letting their displeasure be known?

Talk about spouting off without any evidence. You call them terrorist sympathizers based solely on the way they voted? Unless you're omniscient, I call bullshit. Credible sources, please.

[ Parent ]
Please tell me IHBT (2.00 / 2) (#36)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 03:20:51 PM EST

Yes, I am saying that if you vote for an organization, that implies you sympathize with them. I do not, nor do I imagine any sane person thinks of this as a contentious point.

I voted for the Republicans in the last three elections. It is very fair to say I'm a Republican sympathizer.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

No, but I'm beginning to think IHBT (3.00 / 3) (#39)
by HackerCracker on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 03:36:11 PM EST

I'd say it's a point of contention, since it's a bad analogy that doesn't even come close to the situation over there.

[ Parent ]
You don't believe much in the vote, do you? (none / 1) (#43)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 03:56:35 PM EST

Or am I missing something?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Not really (2.75 / 4) (#56)
by HackerCracker on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 05:11:58 PM EST

Especially when there's a de facto two party system and the two parties are virtually identical. *shrug*

[ Parent ]
Only (3.00 / 3) (#109)
by destroy all monsters on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:45:02 PM EST

if you conveniently ignore how they campaigned, their political reality and everything else that goes on there.

By your metric it is our country that is guilty and we are all terrorists. Which, given our record of supporting human rights globally is probably not that far off after all.

"My opinion: You're gay, a troll, a gay troll, or in serious need of antidepressants." - horny smurf to Lemon Juice
[ Parent ]

Hamas has the Protocols in their charter, but... (3.00 / 4) (#149)
by BerntB on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:36:00 AM EST

I have to agree with Hung Fu's alter ego's here. (*)

If you have a totally corrupt government party, they will lose an election. Even if the only alternative is fanatical crazies like Hamas with the Protocols of Zion in their charter...

It is hard for an American to realize, but it works like that. Your democracy seems to be more about influencing groups and individuals inside the parties.

From an European perspective, the US two-party system is strange. But it do seem to work; both Fox News and Chomsky are allowed, even trives. Besides, lots of other countries have two big blocks with little fluidity.

IMHO, the main reasons that US democracy works are the fluidity of the parties (so senators etc can have very varying opinions) and the high quality US press.

(*) Hung Fu tried to get a story exactly like this through before, but was shot down in flames... now he has lots of supporters. Hung Fu has stopped pissing people off by voting down people disagreeing, but HackerCracer does in a very similar way... I predict lots of new voters voting this story up.

[ Parent ]

The alternative was Fatah. (2.50 / 2) (#250)
by Russell Dovey on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 09:06:06 PM EST

Did you know that Fatah was not only a corrupt bunch of self-serving greedheads, but that Arafat ran at least eight competing security services, all with their own apparatuses of death squads, torture chambers, etc?

He kept them competing against each other to keep his rivals for the leadership from gaining too much power. This system not only denied the Palestinians peace with Israel, but denied them freedom with cruel suppression of their human rights.

Think of what it would be like to live under that, and you might realise that to vote for Hamas wouldn't be so unthinkable.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

They could have stayed home (1.66 / 3) (#291)
by LilDebbie on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 02:54:53 PM EST

That is the standard response to shitty electoral choices.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
What is Hamas? (2.66 / 3) (#305)
by Jah-Wren Ryel on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 09:38:58 PM EST

You know why people voted for Hamas?  Because Hamas gave a shit about the people.  You are all used to hearing about "the terrorist organization Hamas" in the western media.  What you probably have never heard about is "the social services organization Hamas."

The terrorist part of Hamas is vastly dwarfed by the size of the social services part.  These guys have been spending greater than 90% of their yearly budget (most recently ~$70M) on social programs for over a decade now.

These guys are out in the field taking care of the people in a beseiged country during a state of war.  It was absolutely no surprise to me that they won the election - nobody else has made that kind of effort to do things that directly benefit the Palestinians on a day-in and day-out basis.  There was absolutely no competition.

[ Parent ]

It is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood (none / 1) (#335)
by destroy all monsters on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 02:16:27 AM EST

(as such related to Islamic Jihad) and one largely created and supported by Israel's own security services as being preferable to the secular Fatah.

They are not samaritans no matter how much good work they might do. Everyone has an agenda. However, the west has as much to blame here as these islamofascists.

"My opinion: You're gay, a troll, a gay troll, or in serious need of antidepressants." - horny smurf to Lemon Juice
[ Parent ]

The alternative was Fatah. (1.50 / 2) (#353)
by Russell Dovey on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 03:53:33 AM EST

Did you know that Fatah was not only a corrupt bunch of self-serving greedheads, but that Arafat ran at least eight competing security services, all with their own apparatuses of death squads, torture chambers, etc?

He kept them competing against each other to keep his rivals for the leadership from gaining too much power. This system not only denied the Palestinians peace with Israel, but denied them freedom with cruel suppression of their human rights.

Think of what it would be like to live under that, and you might realise that to vote for Hamas wouldn't be so unthinkable.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

BTW (3.00 / 3) (#41)
by HackerCracker on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 03:49:46 PM EST

It's awfully hard to get 'credible sources' (whatever that means) when organizations like the Associated Press actively cover up the truth.

[ Parent ]
Maybe you didn't catch it the first time (2.00 / 2) (#44)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 04:20:23 PM EST

I do not consider counterpunch.org as a legitimate news source. I am stating that these people could very well be liars making this shit up, including the conspiracy accusations against the AP.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Alexander Cockburn is a well known reporter (2.75 / 4) (#51)
by maynard on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 04:57:13 PM EST

While he admits to an open political bias, he does tend to cite sources and follow traditional journalistic ethics. However, Hung Fu's article is trash. -1 for me.

Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
Everyone is deserving of human rights (2.50 / 4) (#71)
by The Diary Section on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:01:00 PM EST

NT.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
How is accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing (2.75 / 4) (#82)
by debacle on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:45:28 PM EST

Antisemitism?

Flawed logic there, Debbie.

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]

Making such an accusation (1.50 / 4) (#87)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:50:07 PM EST

with a single citation as evidence, is anti-Semetic. Milosevic got a better rap than that.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
But does that mean (3.00 / 6) (#92)
by debacle on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:58:56 PM EST

That making the same accusation against Iran would be anti-Islamic?

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]
I think we have a little more evidence there (1.66 / 6) (#115)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:40:26 PM EST

Like Iran announcing publicly today that they have completed flouted all UN nuclear treaties and agreements by refining uranium.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
You're being deliberately dense (2.75 / 4) (#146)
by curien on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:14:54 AM EST

Israel is a regional power. It's natural to make wild claims of abuse of power by such entities. In most cases we consider those accusations to be somewhere between natural questioning of authority and crackpot conspiracy theories.

Except in the case of Israel. With Israel, you're not a conspiracy theorist or an inquisitive individual -- you're automatically labeled an anti-Semite.

The fact is, the bigots now-a-days tend to be the ones defending Israel. They believe Israel should be given a special status that we don't afford other nation-states. Call it pro-Semitism and support it if you like, but denying its existence is ultimately counter-productive for everyone.

--
We are not the same. I'm an American, and you're a sick asshole.
[ Parent ]

Denying its existence, eh? (none / 1) (#204)
by LilDebbie on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 10:30:52 AM EST

Interesting choice of words.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Which nuclear treaties in particular? (3.00 / 5) (#202)
by guidoreichstadter on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 10:06:29 AM EST

not the Non Proliferation Treaty:
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world

1968 Non Proliferation Treaty

Under what treaty to which Iran is a party is the refinement of unranium for peaceful purposes a violation?


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]

If you're talking about the 1947/8 (2.66 / 3) (#108)
by destroy all monsters on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:39:52 PM EST

war then it was pretty far from isolated and many that participated in various terrorist activities  in Palestine ended up Prime Ministers in Israel.

No offense but I think that you have rose colored glasses when it comes to teh Israel.

"My opinion: You're gay, a troll, a gay troll, or in serious need of antidepressants." - horny smurf to Lemon Juice
[ Parent ]

This is well accepted in academia (2.80 / 5) (#127)
by Hung Fu on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:38:24 PM EST

Benny Morris, an influential Israeli historian who strongly supports Israel, has studied the 1948 war and found that there were many instances of atrocities (e.g. Deir Yassin massacre) which led to the mass exodus of Palestinians from Israel, essentially "ethnic cleansing". Don't believe me? Read "Righteous Victims" yourself. For example, he has said:

There is no justification for acts of rape [...] or acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.

    There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide--the annihilation of your people--I prefer ethnic cleansing.

    That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.

However, this perspective is almost completely unknown in the public. Funny that.

__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]
So (2.25 / 4) (#172)
by stuaart on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 05:51:39 AM EST

You utterly believe only one side's story (the Palestinians) and don't believe that there could be any truth in the other side's?

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
And where did I say that? (none / 1) (#179)
by Hung Fu on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 06:54:05 AM EST



__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]
From the parent (2.50 / 2) (#184)
by stuaart on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 07:25:37 AM EST

``there were many instances of atrocities (e.g. Deir Yassin massacre) which led to the mass exodus of Palestinians from Israel''

You set up a simple relation here: Jews do atrocities => Palestinians leave. Apologies if this is mischaracterising your argument, but is important to qualify it.

The reality is probably more complicated that this simple relation. Illan Pappe (in Were they expelled?, from the collection The Palestinian Exodus) suggests that ``several massacres were committed adding an incentive to the flight of the population''. There is also this interesting passage from Bad News from Israel:


... Israeli historians such as Benny Morris and Avi Shlaim ... contend that the expulsions were `born of war not design', being part of military expediency rather than political planning. For these historians the expulsions were carried out as part of a military strategy that was spontaneous and instigated on an ad hoc basis by local commanders.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
Huh (2.66 / 3) (#186)
by Hung Fu on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 07:42:57 AM EST

Nothing you have said refutes the thesis that the Palestinians were coerced to leave, and did not do so voluntarily. I don't see this as the "Palestinian" version; as many Israeli historians agree with this. I see this as the "correct" version of history.

__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry (none / 1) (#188)
by stuaart on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 07:47:04 AM EST

I thought you were suggesting that the expulsion was not a locally-produced, ad hoc phenomena, but rather part of some grand Zionist strategy.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
1, because of denial of human rights for humans (2.50 / 4) (#246)
by wobblywizard on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 08:07:56 PM EST

Seriously, human rights are inalienable rights for everyone, no matter what they've done. So, to deny anyone their human rights means effectively giving up the idea of human rights alltogether.

Why? Because it implies judgement over whether human rights (HR) can be granted. Such judgement is a very dangerous thing: while the perfectly moral human may pass able judgement, this human does not exist. And even if he did, non-perfectly moral humans would also claim their judgemental rights. Which would very quickly end in everyone judging everyone else worthy of HR solely based upon their respective moral values. Total arbitrariness in granting HRs would ensue.

It all goes back to the equality of man to man.

Note: nothing in this comment should be construed as support for using and/or killing children in suicide attacks. Or as support for suicide attacks as a means for whatever purpose for that matter.

--
You never win an argument with anyone who fucks you or signs your paychecks. I just smile, bite my lip and sip my drink. --Philalawyer
[ Parent ]

A few bad apples? What about "settlers"? (3.00 / 2) (#249)
by Russell Dovey on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 08:56:55 PM EST

The Israeli government has directly supported and encouraged its citizens to occupy Palestinian land for decades. That's a lot of bad apples in very influential positions.

Also, pushing half a million Arabs into Lebanon was ethnic cleansing; they were being displaced to make room for Jews.

Those who kill civilians should be hounded to the ends of the earth and given napalm enemas, but don't tar everyone in the occupied territories with that brush. They're not the only ones who have voted for leaders who kill civilians.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Settlements (none / 1) (#263)
by Peaker on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 06:39:42 AM EST

The settlements are indeed one of the worst things Israeli governments have supported over the years, but that is ending.

Just now Israel has elected an anti-settlement government which promises to get rid of settlements that will not be part of Israel after the division into two states.

Also, pushing half a million Arabs into Lebanon was ethnic cleansing; they were being displaced to make room for Jews.

Source please.

Those who kill civilians should be hounded to the ends of the earth and given napalm enemas, but don't tar everyone in the occupied territories with that brush. They're not the only ones who have voted for leaders who kill civilians.

Israel is in a state of war. Civilian casualties are unavoidable, especially since the Palestinian militants hide amongst the civilian populace.

The important thing is though, that while the Palestinian militant groups directly target civilians, Israel targets militants and attempts to minimize civilian casualties. Equating the two morally is far from the truth. Just think what the implication of Israel's army attacking civilians would really be, had it really targeted civilians.

[ Parent ]

So what you're saying... (2.75 / 4) (#309)
by PhillipW on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 04:17:58 AM EST

...is that the very methods that the Israelis used to demand their own independence are immoral if used against the Israelis by the Palestinians to demand their independence?

-Phil
[ Parent ]
Logic leap? (none / 1) (#324)
by Peaker on Sat Apr 15, 2006 at 06:39:47 AM EST

I really don't understand the connection between what I wrote and what you replied, so it is hard for me to reply.

[ Parent ]
Not at all (2.50 / 2) (#363)
by PhillipW on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 05:53:51 AM EST

I was commenting on this: The important thing is though, that while the Palestinian militant groups directly target civilians, Israel targets militants and attempts to minimize civilian casualties. Equating the two morally is far from the truth.

My point is that you can morally equate the two.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
Please (2.66 / 3) (#336)
by destroy all monsters on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 02:21:05 AM EST

spare us the flag-waving Israeli propaganda. Both sides have enough wrong to spread around. The "Israel as underdog" concept is not only wrongheaded ideologically but factually as well.

Terrorism has been used extensively on both sides of this conflict. The zionists have been no saints as any student of history will tell you.

"My opinion: You're gay, a troll, a gay troll, or in serious need of antidepressants." - horny smurf to Lemon Juice
[ Parent ]

Source? (none / 1) (#370)
by Russell Dovey on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 08:03:21 AM EST

Uh, Israel exists now. Source enough for ya?

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Also, I was equating Hamas with the USA. (none / 1) (#371)
by Russell Dovey on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 08:04:33 AM EST

Just so we're clear.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Hmmm (2.66 / 6) (#256)
by PhillipW on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 04:12:41 AM EST

711,000 people displaced because they aren't Jews sounds like ethnic cleansing to me!

-Phil
[ Parent ]
Sorry (3.00 / 3) (#257)
by PhillipW on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 04:13:40 AM EST

Source

-Phil
[ Parent ]
"Displaced" (2.00 / 2) (#262)
by Peaker on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 06:34:55 AM EST

If by displaced, you mean "make room for ethnic cleansing of the Jews" as the Arab leaders asked them to before the war, then yeah, they were displaced.

[ Parent ]
What? (none / 1) (#308)
by PhillipW on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 04:16:02 AM EST

What in God's name are you going on about? I searched for "make room for ethnic cleansing of the Jews" on Google and could find nothing. Who might you be quoting there?

-Phil
[ Parent ]
Its not an exact quote (2.00 / 2) (#325)
by Peaker on Sat Apr 15, 2006 at 06:41:20 AM EST

Many of the Arabs who left Israel during the Israeli independence war, left because they were requested to leave by the Arab leaders. The Arab leaders told them that they should leave to make room for ethnic cleansing of the Jews, after which they will be able to return.

Well, tough luck, they lost the war, and they couldn't return.

[ Parent ]

This is a commonly held myth (2.66 / 3) (#334)
by destroy all monsters on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 02:08:10 AM EST

that thus far has proven to have no basis in reality. If you have sources kindly cite them. Typically this argument is made by Israeli politicians and apologists.

Many left out of fear for their lives and persecution. They weren't wrong.

"My opinion: You're gay, a troll, a gay troll, or in serious need of antidepressants." - horny smurf to Lemon Juice
[ Parent ]

Israelis kill 80% of the victims of the conflict. (none / 1) (#355)
by RobRoy on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 12:04:51 PM EST

Or at least they have since September 2000.

I don't belive that that can be called analyzed as "the perpetrators were punished by Israel".



[ Parent ]
This article also raises a related point (2.66 / 12) (#40)
by HackerCracker on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 03:40:03 PM EST

Just why are we in bed with Israel? What do they have to offer us besides trouble and bloodshed? Is it because they have the bomb? Seriously, I'm having a very difficult time trying to figure out why we're Israel's bitch.

Ob disclaimer: I have nothing against Jews, so lay off the anti-semite remarks

why? (2.83 / 6) (#42)
by RelliK on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 03:53:48 PM EST

Just why are we in bed with Israel? What do they have to offer us besides trouble and bloodshed?

*ahem*... campaing "contributions". Can't beat that!
---
Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism it's just the opposite.
[ Parent ]

They're the only stable democracy in the Mideast (1.66 / 9) (#45)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 04:28:24 PM EST

Up until recent events in Iraq, they were the only democracy period. Believe it or not, the US has a vested interest in spreading its ideas.

It's also nice having the greatest military on Earth per capita as an ally.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

Iran says hi!$ (1.60 / 5) (#46)
by V on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 04:29:18 PM EST


---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens
[ Parent ]
IRAN IS NOT A DEMOCRACY (2.66 / 6) (#49)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 04:50:30 PM EST

YAY, CAN I HAVE A VOTE WHERE I PICK ALL THE CANDIDATES BY FIAT AND CALL IT FREEDOM?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Sorry d00d (1.66 / 3) (#55)
by V on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 05:07:18 PM EST

The late ayatollah Khomeini beat you to the punch by about 25 years.

V.
---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens
[ Parent ]

not even officially a democracy (none / 1) (#103)
by Delirium on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:02:18 PM EST

Even if we ignore the fact that the unelected Guardian Council gets to decide who's allowed to run, and routinely disallows anyone seen as too pro-reform, Iran isn't even officially a democracy: The President is constitutionally subordinate to the Ayatollah.

[ Parent ]
SFW? (3.00 / 7) (#59)
by HackerCracker on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 05:18:54 PM EST

If we really believe that Democracy is the ultimate good then we would believe in it in Palestine where they elected fucking Hamas and in Iraq where the elected government is leaning towards a theocracy and is friendly to Iran. Oops.

Sorry, but that answer doesn't justify the relationship to me. To answer my own question, I think that in general we support Israel because of the general apathy of the population of the US to the question. If people were really tuned in to what's going on over there, I think we'd pull the plug in a heartbeat.

[ Parent ]
It's just text (none / 1) (#66)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 05:45:23 PM EST

You'll find the site layout makes it look very inconspicuous upon casual inspection. This is one of the things ruston got right.

WRT the Palestinian election, I would remind you this is their first and it is hoped that after their world turns to shit now that the foreign aid is gone, they'll more carefully consider the consequences of their actions next time.

Likewise, the jury is still out on Iraq. However the possibility of failure should not invite certainty of failure by giving up.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

Sure (3.00 / 5) (#75)
by HackerCracker on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:26:58 PM EST

Re: Palestinian election I would remind you that this is their second election. As for removing aid, yeah, that worked so well in Germany after WWI. Maybe the Israelis will come full circle and start firing the ovens for the Palestinians. They're already making concentration camps with their "fence."

And the jury is still out on Iraq? Are you insane? The country is on the verge of civil war and the secular government they had is being replaced with a theocratic one. Chaos and death is now the norm. Just WHY THE HELL should we be spending multiple BILLIONS of dollars over there for NO good reason (spare me the WMD-al Qaeda-spreading democracy crap)?

An aside: I may be partially retarded but I have no idea what you're referring to when you say
It's just text

You'll find the site layout makes it look very inconspicuous upon casual inspection. This is one of the things ruston got right.


[ Parent ]
SFW = safe for work? (none / 1) (#81)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:43:39 PM EST

I cannot provide you for a good reason for going to war in Iraq that you have not already dismissed out of hand.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
SFW = So Fucking What $ (3.00 / 2) (#98)
by HackerCracker on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:55:06 PM EST

Sorry, but those reasons are all bullshit. Just calling it as I see it.

[ Parent ]
IFI $ (3.00 / 2) (#99)
by HackerCracker on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:59:16 PM EST



[ Parent ]
pulling out != giving up (2.60 / 5) (#77)
by debacle on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:30:41 PM EST

The best course of action for Iraq would be to go to the UN and say "We effed up liberally."

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]
You're kidding (2.50 / 2) (#80)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:40:18 PM EST

Pray tell, even if the US went before the UN and put its balls up on the table for it to stomp on, what the UN would do about Iraq?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
I imagine it going something like this: (3.00 / 6) (#85)
by debacle on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:48:42 PM EST

France: "Let them eat cake."

Russia: "Do they want to buy our nukes?"

Britain: "We're still working out our issues with the IRA."

China: "How can we totally fuck the US over with this one?"

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]

And of course (2.66 / 6) (#86)
by debacle on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:49:45 PM EST

That means fucking Argentina and Kenya are going to be solving the biggest fucking geopolitical debacle in the past twenty years.

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]
If by "solving"... (2.50 / 2) (#228)
by confrontationman on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 03:23:32 PM EST

you mean "ignoring" then yes.



[ Parent ]
Yes thanks (3.00 / 2) (#91)
by The Diary Section on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:58:56 PM EST

I don't know if you noticed but the UK is already in Iraq, was there from the beginning, and is according to the news set to take over in Afghanistan in June.

You know all well and good and everything, but given that a large number of people are against these things but they are happening anyway, insulting everyone else who might be on your side isn't very helpful
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]

What the hell are you talking about? (3.00 / 2) (#93)
by debacle on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:01:19 PM EST

Thank you for ejaculating your perpendicular opinion into this story.  

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]
You apparently imagine (none / 1) (#94)
by The Diary Section on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:06:54 PM EST

that the UK response to Iraq would be to make an excuse and leave it as someone else's problem.
This is clearly not the case.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
Apparently (2.33 / 3) (#95)
by debacle on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:11:15 PM EST

I mean, come on, I couldn't have been being sarcastic! That would be heinous!

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]
Oh. (none / 1) (#96)
by The Diary Section on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:15:26 PM EST

Sorry I didn't pick up on it I'm afraid.
I've met too many people who honestly think those things.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
Seriously (none / 1) (#116)
by LilDebbie on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:43:16 PM EST

If I'm ever in England for a pint, point them out for me so we can take turns kicking the shit out of them.

Fuckin' wankers. Rule Brittania!

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

sure (3.00 / 5) (#137)
by The Diary Section on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:08:06 AM EST

we'll pop down the jack tar in our best flutes (I'll stand you a pig), round up this Berkshire Hunt wait until he goes to use the dog and bone, rearrange his boatrace and toss him down the apples and pairs onto their Aristotle and then scarper.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
Your sig works *really* well with that one. (NT) (none / 1) (#373)
by vectro on Thu May 04, 2006 at 09:24:28 PM EST



“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]
Dunno, multinational force? (2.80 / 5) (#165)
by A Bore on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 05:07:37 AM EST

Get other Arab countries to help with the policing? Fuck knows.

[ Parent ]
I fail to see justification (3.00 / 5) (#78)
by debacle on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:33:08 PM EST

In there being a vested interest in the US to spead democracy. If anything, dropping the idea that any non-democratic nation is inferior and wrong might aid us in our global relations greatly.

Spreading "freedom" by way of democracy is a farce. Democracy means freedom just as much as communism means tyranny.

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]

We're spreading *something* in the Middle East (3.00 / 4) (#100)
by HackerCracker on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 08:03:40 PM EST

But it sure ain't freedom.

[ Parent ]
Palestine (2.80 / 5) (#101)
by alphaxer0 on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 08:53:27 PM EST

Just had free election, so now we got two democracies fighting each other. Didn't Bush or some other GOPer say this would never happen.

[ Parent ]
Lebanon (2.80 / 5) (#150)
by alphaxer0 on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:44:36 AM EST

Let us not forget Lebanon had free and fair elections. Since the Syrians left, we can safely assume Hizbullah has popular support for beating the Israelis.

[ Parent ]
Which supports the thesis (2.00 / 2) (#163)
by BerntB on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 04:05:56 AM EST

Your comment doesn't contradict the classical point -- democratic countries don't have wars.

Since Israel has no continuing military conflicts with Lebanon, it fits the model.

(Hezbollah is more or less a government unto itself and resist demilitarization. Any future trouble with Israel should come from them.)

[ Parent ]

A non-democratic party won an election.. (1.75 / 4) (#152)
by BerntB on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:55:27 AM EST

A non-democratic party has won a democratic election; is that country a democracy?

First, the old government has to step down. We'll see when Abbas releases the large security organizations. Hamas will want to stuff them with their own people.

Note that Hitler was also elected. Hamas cites the Protocols of Zion in their charter and Mein Kampf sells quite well around Israel...

Do you believe Hamas will release control if a non-islamic party won the next election? If so, I have a bridge to sell.

I think Hamas will denounce violence and hide their militants in a separate wing. Except for Libya, no governments ever commit acts of terrorism themselves. They hide their hand by giving money and weapons to terrorists.

[ Parent ]

Hitler was not elected (2.80 / 5) (#207)
by alphaxer0 on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 11:02:48 AM EST

He got appointed by people who thought Hinderburg (sp?) could contain him. Please consult your 10th grade world history text book.

[ Parent ]
OK, ok, he was in a coalition. Mea culpa $ (3.00 / 3) (#210)
by BerntB on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 11:08:43 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Why vote THAT up? Irrelevant for my argument! $ (none / 1) (#270)
by BerntB on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 10:29:37 AM EST



[ Parent ]
This neatly covers (3.00 / 2) (#110)
by destroy all monsters on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:50:32 PM EST

the U.S. supporting repressive regimes worldwide for longer than any of us have been alive how?

You can't use the cold war as an excuse now - and there's no justification on any idealogical level for supporting China.

"My opinion: You're gay, a troll, a gay troll, or in serious need of antidepressants." - horny smurf to Lemon Juice
[ Parent ]

the U.S. supports China? (none / 1) (#113)
by Delirium on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:35:57 PM EST

I suppose that's why we sell weapons to Taiwan and have pledged to defend it if necessary?

[ Parent ]
When was the last time we did that? (2.66 / 3) (#134)
by destroy all monsters on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:54:30 PM EST

It's been years. In all border disputes since the 1970s we've told the Taiwanese to back off. We were instrumental in having mainland China accepted as the official China in the U.N. and we have taken a strictly hands off approach in the discussion of Taiwan becoming the Republic of Taiwan (and all China's sabre-rattling in regards to it).

If China invaded we'd do nothing other than complain in the U.N.


"My opinion: You're gay, a troll, a gay troll, or in serious need of antidepressants." - horny smurf to Lemon Juice
[ Parent ]

Turkey? (none / 1) (#141)
by Scrymarch on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:05:54 AM EST

I know they're in the Eurovision Song Contest, but they do border Syria and Iraq. Though I suppose the US does support them, thus making this comment largely hair-splitting.

[ Parent ]
Rather different cultural sphere... (2.75 / 4) (#148)
by strlen on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:25:12 AM EST

If you consider Turkey to be Middle East, you may as well as consider Pakistan (and India) to be such -- which some people do. Nonetheless they a) not a Semetic people b) Asia Minor is not Middle East, geographically c) Turkic people originate from Central Asia, thus Turkey is more apt to be compared to places like Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, China's Xianjiang -- all of those are closer culturally to Turkey than its immediate neighbours. Nonetheless this is a fair argument:  yet no one chooses whether to support Turkey or Israel, the two countries are allied with each other (and in fact, the arguments in favor and against support of both are similar).


--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
Culture and geography (2.50 / 2) (#154)
by Scrymarch on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 02:32:22 AM EST

Certainly there's a different ethnic source culture there, but culture isn't quite everything. Lots of cultural exchange happened in the centuries the Ottoman Empire ruled much of what is now called the Middle East. Magyars originate from Central / East Asia yet no-one disputes Hungary is part of Eastern Europe.

Come to think of it Israel is in the Eurovision Song Contest too.

[ Parent ]

Yeah... (2.75 / 4) (#158)
by strlen on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 02:53:47 AM EST

Ottoman empire was a different thing alltogether: it was still to (a great extent) a theocracy, but it lacked some of the elements presently in the mix in modern day Middle East: less tribalist, more cosmopolitan. The Orthodox Church was allowed to freely function in the Ottoman Empire after Byzantium's fall and Sephardic Jews were welcome. Indeed, intolerance (the Armenian genocide, which unfortunately the Turkish govt. denies to this day) only came with introduction of nationalism by the Young Turks. That being said, the thing about Turkey isn't the Ottoman Past: it's rapid and (more or less) succesful modernization and secularization under Attaturk.

Israel is indeed in the Eurovision contest and Israel and Turkey are both considered candidates for entry into the EU. Indeed, that is all the more reason, perhaps to support them both: they are a source of civilization, Westernized (to a degree) nations in a place where Western ideas are rare. All the more sense to consider them to be natural allies.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]

because we think they're worthy of support? (2.40 / 5) (#102)
by Delirium on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:00:12 PM EST

Not all U.S. foreign policy is self-interested realpolitik; some of it is simply the result of what the U.S. population thinks we ought to support. Israel has strong support among Americans, so we support them.

[ Parent ]
correction (2.83 / 6) (#119)
by RelliK on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:48:38 PM EST

Israel has strong support among Americans, so we support them.

That should read "Israel has strong support among Americans because we support them.
---
Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism it's just the opposite.
[ Parent ]

not really (2.60 / 5) (#120)
by Delirium on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:52:43 PM EST

The U.S. as a state supports Israel because its citizens oblige it to: If a national-level politician proposed withdrawing the U.S.'s support for Israel, he or she would run into electoral difficulties. Therefore the state cannot withdraw support for Israel because its citizens will not elect anyone who proposes doing so (some seats elected from small constituencies, like in the House of Representatives, excepted).

[ Parent ]
yes really (2.80 / 5) (#122)
by RelliK on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:09:06 PM EST

The reason such a politicial is unlikely to be elected largely has to do with campaign "contributions" and media control that the pro-Israel lobby has. I bet you most of the electorate would be quite happy to save $3 billion/year when the country is already running a massive deficit. Said politician would also run into trouble with the military-industrial complex since a lot of that "aid" is used to purchase weapons from US corporations (so a lot of the "foreign aid" money never actually leaves the US). Corporate wealfare. Good for the economy, you know?
---
Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism it's just the opposite.
[ Parent ]
got any evidence to back that up? $ (2.50 / 2) (#124)
by Delirium on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:28:49 PM EST



[ Parent ]
back what up? (2.80 / 5) (#129)
by RelliK on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:44:38 PM EST

That Israel receives $3B/year?
Or that it buys a shitload of US-made weapons?
Or that pro-Israel lobby is one of the most powerful in US?
Or that the vast majority of politicians care more about campaign "contributions" than their electorate?
---
Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism it's just the opposite.
[ Parent ]
that Americans are pro-Israel because of lobbying (2.66 / 3) (#135)
by Delirium on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:01:00 AM EST

You made an assertion: that Americans support Israel because a powerful pro-Israel lobby manipulates them into doing so, not because they actually believe supporting Israel is the right thing to do.

Note that I'm not talking about "support" in the sense of monetary contributions, but in the sense of political support. The U.S. typically vetoes anti-Israel U.N. resolutions, for example, and I think this is because most Americans do not think such resolutions are justified, and the reason they think that has nothing to do with "media control".

[ Parent ]

ok, then (1.75 / 4) (#138)
by RelliK on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:42:17 AM EST

Which mainstream US media organizations are not owned/controlled by jews?

Why are USians so uninformed about the nature and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict?

---
Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism it's just the opposite.
[ Parent ]

thanks for showing your hand (3.00 / 4) (#139)
by Delirium on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:50:09 AM EST

lol teh jewish conspiracy

[ Parent ]
eh? (2.00 / 4) (#142)
by RelliK on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:06:33 AM EST

WTF are you talking about? It is a fact that the majority of US media is owned by jews. It is a fact that 40% of US millionairs are jews. It is a fact that money buys politicians. It is a fact that, while there is some dissent in the ranks, most jews support a policy of "Israel can do no wrong". What conspiracy are you talking about?

This is really no different than NRA pushing for the unrestricted gun ownership, or RIAA pushing for unlimited copyright terms, or for that matter any other group. On the issue of Israel, jews tend to push in the same direction, and together they make a powerful lobby. Where is the surprise in that?

---
Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism it's just the opposite.
[ Parent ]

have any stats on that? (3.00 / 2) (#145)
by Delirium on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:11:11 AM EST

Can you name any major U.S. media outlets "owned by jews", let alone demonstrate that "the majority" is? Has Rupert Murdoch converted to Judaism while I wasn't looking?

[ Parent ]
You never know... (3.00 / 5) (#155)
by BJH on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 02:33:19 AM EST

...Rupert Murdoch would convert to Satanism if he thought it'd make him a couple of more bucks.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]
Silly ... (3.00 / 4) (#199)
by rpresser on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 09:56:13 AM EST

Rupert Murdoch already owns Satan.
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]
no (2.00 / 3) (#156)
by RelliK on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 02:44:31 AM EST

no I don't have any stats. But don't try to downplay the political clout the pro-Israel lobby wields -- it is quite formidable. Again, that is not to say that jews are unique in this -- far from it. There's the oil lobby, the bible thumpers, the "from my cold dead hands" cowboys, the "what's good for GM is good for America" crowd, and of course "Israel can do no wrong" jews. Everyone has their pet cause, and if you have money and connections, you can actually get politicians to listen to you.
---
Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism it's just the opposite.
[ Parent ]
If you don't have any stats (2.00 / 2) (#197)
by rpresser on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 09:55:44 AM EST

why should I listen to you?
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]
You have made two assertions (2.33 / 3) (#237)
by destroy all monsters on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 04:17:23 PM EST

1. "Not all U.S. foreign policy is self-interested realpolitik"

2. "The U.S. typically vetoes anti-Israel U.N. resolutions, for example, and I think this is because most Americans do not think such resolutions are justified, and the reason they think that has nothing to do with 'media control'."

You have stated no reasons or provided any facts to support these points.

"My opinion: You're gay, a troll, a gay troll, or in serious need of antidepressants." - horny smurf to Lemon Juice
[ Parent ]

p.s. here's 40 years of survey results (2.50 / 2) (#125)
by Delirium on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:31:10 PM EST

link

[ Parent ]
you've just prooved my point (2.25 / 4) (#131)
by RelliK on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:48:56 PM EST

Let's assume for the moment that the data is correct. All it shows is the effectiveness of media control and selective reporting in US. Care to provide the same survey results in any other country? (Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy -- whatever. Pick one).
---
Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism it's just the opposite.
[ Parent ]
bit flawed (2.66 / 3) (#278)
by kromagg on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 11:41:45 AM EST

"In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israel or with the Arab nations?"

If your sympathies are more with Israel (which is the most logical, since it's more western) this does not mean that (a) you think your government should support them and (b) you actually agree with the Israeli policy.

There's hundreds of polls like this out there. But they never prove what people seem to think they prove.

[ Parent ]

HAHAHAHAHHAA!! (2.42 / 7) (#164)
by A Bore on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 05:02:30 AM EST

Not all U.S. foreign policy is self-interested realpolitik

hahahahahaha ahahahahahahaha

[ Parent ]
Because.. (1.75 / 8) (#126)
by strlen on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:36:14 PM EST

They're a modern, Western-style country in a sea of collectivist tribalists (not an exageration, tribal politics play a huge role in places like Saudi Arabia) who think it still 746 AD? Because they are the only country that shares American values (vs. a country like Saudi Arabia which merely relies on America to provide a market place for its oil and support for its "royal family") Because even Israel's Arab citizens enjoy far more civil rights than do Arabs in any of the Arab states?

Most of the countries in that region still execute people for such sins as homosexuality or converting out of Islam -- and those are the "moderate" ones.

Are you that blind? Or do you think Islamic theocracy is just as good as Western-civilization?

I have very little interest in Zionist (or for that matter any other kind of nationalism these days), it may or may not have been a good decision to establish Israel in 1948, but that is not my point: Israel would be only country in the Middle East where I would feel comfortable living (or even traveling to for that matter).

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]

ok, and why do the US support Saudi Arabia then? $ (2.75 / 4) (#161)
by boxed on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 03:45:06 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Oil (2.75 / 4) (#223)
by LilDebbie on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:15:21 PM EST

Duh

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
they shouldn't (2.33 / 3) (#252)
by strlen on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 10:39:41 PM EST

I am not arguing morality of overall US foreign policy, I am arguing for morality of US support for Israel (which I find inherent). I'm all in favor of cutting of all aid to Saudi Arabia (if not outright bombing them back to the stone age -- although they have never evolved beyond the stone age either).

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
Picking and choosing (2.66 / 3) (#329)
by peace on Sat Apr 15, 2006 at 10:31:54 AM EST

...data points will skew your results.  You need to look at the whole of US foreign policy in order to understand it's objectives.  It's support of Israel is nothing more than self interest.  The United States would support a nation of pacifists just as soon as it would support a nation of axe murdering maniacs as long as it was getting what it wanted.  And what it wants is equal to what a very few want.

-peace

[ Parent ]

It it self-interest, no doubt. (2.66 / 3) (#331)
by strlen on Sat Apr 15, 2006 at 03:18:29 PM EST

But there are two kinds of self-interest or rather there is self-interest vs. hedonism. Self-interest is going to the gym on a regular basis, living prudently and within one's own means. Hedonism would be racking up debt to buy expensive cars while living paycheck to paycheck, or in a more extreme case, shooting up heroin.

I'd argue that the relation with Saudi Arabia is more akin to a kind of hedonism (with oil replacing heroin) -- simply keeping whomever keeps the next fix in power, while the relation with Israel is much more in America's interests (and is far more moral).

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]

Then argue it :) (2.66 / 3) (#332)
by peace on Sat Apr 15, 2006 at 05:10:33 PM EST

   It is the "masses" that are footing the bill for a select group of hedonists.  These hedonists would drop support for Israel or Saudi Arabia if it ment loosing control of some interest.  It's just that on the surface Israel looks hedonisticaly compatible to the West, where as Saudi Arabia looks hedonisticaly orthogonal.  But it's all the same game of control and exploitation.  The expense of the many in support of the few.

   If you are saying the the US engages in one type of morality when supporting Saud and another type when supporting Israel, I do not agree.  The actions stem from the same root and it is amoral.

Kind Regards

[ Parent ]

Yes, I will disagree (2.50 / 2) (#333)
by strlen on Sat Apr 15, 2006 at 05:41:29 PM EST

Individuals are not consitent and neither are states: both are far too complex to be driven by one kind of morality in every aspect. I am a hedonist in some ways: I drive far more than needed, I consume large amounts of coffee and sugar, I spend too much time on kuro5hin :-) I am also self-interested in that I a) have zero debt despite access to a large credit line b) attempt to keep myself healthy c) work hard at my job.

United States acts in long term self-interest by maintaining the relationship with Israel (which has it long before Israel became the sort of power it is today -- US was one of the first states to recognize Israel) and (for another example) by withdrawing troops from less critical places (i.e.: Europe). US acts hedonistically by supporting Saudi Arabia.

The support for Saudi Arabia is primarily oil related (as Captain Obvious can point it out). Oil is needed for America in the short term (in the long term ideas such as bio-diesel and other alternative fuels are going to be needed, cf the peak oil theory). However, in the long term, support for Saudi Arabia does mean more terror: the 'royal family' (i.e.: the King's tribe) supports terror (I trust you're familiar with evidence for that) and benefits the most from American support.

Israel has no oil (that's why it took Moses forty years to find it -- the place in the Middle East that has no oil; actually the Sinai did have oil, but it was peaceful relinquished back to Egypt). Israel, however, is quite different from Saudi Arabia in that they share our values: individualism/humanism vs. collectivism/tribalism, secularism vs. theocracy, reason vs. revelation (although this isn't exactly true for some of Israel's religious-right parties or the "Left Behind" crowd in the US, but these are a tiny minority in both cases). Most importantly, however, Israel can be trusted to act with the same motivations as America: they are not going to fund terrorists to attack American civilians, they have no plans of installing a world-wide caliphate.

In short, the core difference, is that the relationship with Saudis is one of a temprorary convenience, while relationship with the Israelis is one of a long term alliance.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]

lol what?! (2.40 / 5) (#48)
by tkatchevzz on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 04:32:50 PM EST

lol i'm still not done having fun with the old yet!

The old anti-semitism is still around (none / 1) (#76)
by debacle on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:29:34 PM EST

After all, Ben Stiller is still making movies, isn't he?

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]
uh, -1 (1.53 / 15) (#50)
by t1ber on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 04:52:02 PM EST

First off, this doesn't really add anything to the article, all you're doing is grandstanding it.  If you want to make a book report out of it, then go ahead, but I expect you to actually cite the book.  You're telling me that there's nothing you agree with or disagree with in all 90 pages of bullshit here?  This is an awful piss poor review, but it's a long MLP.  However, it fits the 'M' in 'MLP', so resection it and I might consider +1ing it if I'm drunk.

also:  When the synod of the Church of England recently voted to divest from Caterpillar Inc on the grounds that it manufactures the bulldozers used by the Israelis to demolish Palestinian homes, the Chief Rabbi complained that this would `have the most adverse repercussions on . . . Jewish-Christian relations in Britain', while Rabbi Tony Bayfield, the head of the Reform movement, said: `There is a clear problem of anti-Zionist - verging on anti-semitic - attitudes emerging in the grass-roots, and even in the middle ranks of the Church.' But the Church was guilty merely of protesting against Israeli government policy."

Alright, your framing this as some kind of rabid dog reaction to the church distancing itself from Caterpiller and you're implying that the decision was condemned solely on racism.

Did you ever stop to think that the Jews might be calling the Church on BS?  The Rabbi might as well have said, "Why not divest yourself from Ford since there's been at least one car related death of a Palestinian somewhere in history and you know there's at least one Jew turning bolts on the assembly line?"  It's not that it's a racially shaded decision, that's not why people were making fun of the church.  They are making fun of the synod because the decision is flat out asinine.  But see, you quoted the Rabbis out of context, so you lost the meaning.

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

learn2read (2.00 / 3) (#54)
by debacle on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 05:05:31 PM EST

The implications are absurd. For example, a cursory examination of the United Nations General Assembly voting record shows global opposition to Israel's actions in the occupied territories, not just from neighbouring Islamic countries in the Middle East, but also from Europe, Asia, South America and Africa. The only countries who consistently vote in support of Israel are America, who has used it's security council veto to block more than 30 resolutions against Israel, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. So it appears that, using this twisted logic, the vast majority of people on the planet are "anti-Semitic".

Opinion highlighted for emphasis.

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]

you're missing a fine line here (none / 1) (#58)
by t1ber on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 05:18:50 PM EST

Why Caterpiller and not Ford? Where is the line?

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

[ Parent ]

Why does there have to be a line? (2.66 / 3) (#61)
by debacle on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 05:22:24 PM EST

I do believe that you may be missing the bigger picture.

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]
because... (none / 1) (#62)
by t1ber on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 05:35:24 PM EST

One of them is "How do the Jews use the tools" and the other is "What are the Jews involved in"?

You're trying to use an example of UN voting against my example of what the Jews are currently doing.

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

[ Parent ]

I don't think there really is a line (2.66 / 3) (#63)
by debacle on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 05:38:35 PM EST

I mean, there is a difference, but mostly in scope.

"The Jews" are involved in mostly everything, out of precaution. While I agree that there might be some sort of Israeli conspiracy, it is in the same manner that I agree that there might be an omniscient being guiding our existence in the universe.

My example was only to show that the author did interject some of his own opinion into the story, as a counter to your assertion that it should be resectioned to MLP.

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]

Also (2.80 / 5) (#68)
by debacle on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 05:48:40 PM EST

I apologize for using a World of Warcraft meme in response to your comment, but I feel that you do not give enough credit to the author of the story, who was able to, unlike Baldrson, commence a commentary on the issue of antisemitism (the heart of the article. "t3h j00s!" are really an afterthought here) and how a country who is based on ethnic principles can hide behind the idea that anyone anti-Israel is also and antisemite.

I feel that the problem is that this issue really can't be focused on because so many detractors on both sides fail to realize that, at heart, it is fogging up the entire picture. Taking Israel as a country and Judaism as a religion, I think one would find that some people do make the same broad generalizations as the US has made against Islam for being a tenant of Al Queda and the Taliban. These sort of generalizations can cause terrible feedback that can last for generations.

Israel is using the same correlation that the Muslims are trying to fight off (religion versus political organization), however, to constantly pit themselves as a victim.

Europe is a very old and mature global region. Things like The Holocaust have happened there dozens of times over the last several thousand years. On the contrary, the United States is a very young nation that still, to this day, cannot forget nor forgive a slavery that existed nearly one and a half centuries ago. So while Europe scoffs at Israel's whoring of The Holocaust, the New World Man feels infatuous guilt and inherent responsibility.

In a hundred or more years, when The Holocaust is just another historic genocide, who knows what will happen.

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]

correct (2.50 / 2) (#104)
by Delirium on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:04:15 PM EST

the vast majority of people on the planet are "anti-Semitic"

Indeed, they are.

[ Parent ]

As in wishing that the middle east would (2.00 / 4) (#111)
by destroy all monsters on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:58:35 PM EST

just disappear? Quite right.

Don't yew ferget them Ay-rabs are semites too.

"My opinion: You're gay, a troll, a gay troll, or in serious need of antidepressants." - horny smurf to Lemon Juice
[ Parent ]

words are not defined by their etymologies (3.00 / 2) (#112)
by Delirium on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:34:11 PM EST

The word "anti-Semitic" in general use means "biased against Jews", not its literal meaning of "biased against Semites".

(You may consult your local dictionary for confirmation.)

[ Parent ]

Thanks for pointing out the literal meaning (2.66 / 3) (#132)
by destroy all monsters on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:49:42 PM EST

I mean after all that wasn't my point or anything.

If you can show that there's less hatred/animosity towards arabs you might've had a point.

If you can name someone that wouldn't just as soon never hear anything about the region again other than a travelogue I'd like to see it.

"My opinion: You're gay, a troll, a gay troll, or in serious need of antidepressants." - horny smurf to Lemon Juice
[ Parent ]

do you apply that to all words? (none / 1) (#136)
by Delirium on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:02:11 AM EST

So when you use "homophobia", which literally means "fear of sameness", do you use it exclusively in its literal sense, and complain when people use it more narrowly to mean "fear of homosexuals"?

[ Parent ]
Only when people deliberately (none / 1) (#144)
by destroy all monsters on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:09:35 AM EST

avoid the other meaning in order to make a one-sided point. Globally Arabs are no better liked than Jews.

"My opinion: You're gay, a troll, a gay troll, or in serious need of antidepressants." - horny smurf to Lemon Juice
[ Parent ]
That fails mathematically. (2.50 / 2) (#196)
by rpresser on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 09:51:27 AM EST

There are more Arabs than Jews.  Arabs hate Jews. Therefore, even if everyone besides Arabs and Jews dislikes Arabs and Jews equally, there would still be more people globally disliking Jews than there would be disliking Arabs.
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]
Are there? (3.00 / 2) (#230)
by destroy all monsters on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 03:30:20 PM EST

Given the number of people Jewish by faith or by heritage I'm not sure that's true.

Since all arabs don't hate jews (not even the majority of the ones I know - here the percentage is tiny. Hating Israel's behavior is another matter entirely).

Regardless, there is at least as much stigma and prejudice attached to being an arab as a jew.

"My opinion: You're gay, a troll, a gay troll, or in serious need of antidepressants." - horny smurf to Lemon Juice
[ Parent ]

that has nothing to do with the issue (none / 1) (#224)
by Delirium on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:21:25 PM EST

What we're discussing is anti-Jewish sentiment, commonly called "anti-Semitism". The common English term for anti-Arab sentiment is "anti-Arab sentiment", or when specifically about the religion, "Islamophobia".

[ Parent ]
Because (3.00 / 2) (#231)
by destroy all monsters on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 03:34:31 PM EST

someone has hijacked a word to mean what it is they want to mean (and I'd argue that's precisely what the pro-Israeli faction has done with the word anti-semitism) doesn't mean there isn't a larger issue to be had.

It is far more popular and acceptable in the west ,and to a greater number of people, to be prejudiced against arabs than jews.

"My opinion: You're gay, a troll, a gay troll, or in serious need of antidepressants." - horny smurf to Lemon Juice
[ Parent ]

no, they haven't (3.00 / 2) (#234)
by Delirium on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 03:45:18 PM EST

The word was never hijacked; it was coined in the 1860s to mean anti-Jewish bigotry. Before it meant "anti-Jewish", it was not a word that was used for any meaning at all.

I have no problem using "anti-Jewish bigotry" if you'd prefer, but "anti-Semitism" is the word commonly accepted in English (and German, fwiw) to mean that.

If you want to argue that anti-Arab bigotry is more common than anti-Jewish bigotry, argue that, instead of non-sequitur attacks on the etymologies of words. Your disingenuous argument reminds me of people who respond to accusations of homophobia by attacking the word "homophobia" instead of addressing the actual issue, which is why I used that example for comparison.

[ Parent ]

I already have (none / 1) (#236)
by destroy all monsters on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 03:51:53 PM EST

argued that anti-arab sentiment is at least as great as anti-jewish sentiment.

You're irritated at the set up, that's fine.

"My opinion: You're gay, a troll, a gay troll, or in serious need of antidepressants." - horny smurf to Lemon Juice
[ Parent ]

(0) - hide (3.00 / 2) (#151)
by seisa on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:48:09 AM EST

moron uses 'learn2<foo>' terminology like that idiot wowboy

[ Parent ]
They're not demolishing houses with a Mondeo (2.50 / 4) (#159)
by gordonjcp on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 02:54:58 AM EST

The fact is that the Israeli army murder civilians by bulldozing their houses on top of them in the small hours of the morning. This is utterly repugnant.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, why is it that the Nazis trying to exterminate the Jews was (rightly) seen as an abhorrent act, but the Israelis trying to exterminate the Palestinians isn't?

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
I'm sorry? (1.40 / 5) (#171)
by stuaart on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 05:48:34 AM EST

If Israel is the Nazis then WHAT are you going to call the actual genocide happening in Dafur?

Hello, doublethink.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
You're missing the point. (3.00 / 3) (#243)
by gordonjcp on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 06:11:00 PM EST

Yes, there is genocide going on in Darfur, and yes there is genocide going on in Palestine. Where's the problem?

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
DON'T BLAME ME (2.72 / 18) (#83)
by Tex two point oh on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:46:06 PM EST

I VOTED FOR JIM BOWERY

We could solve the Israel-Palestine conflict... (3.00 / 9) (#166)
by A Bore on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 05:13:11 AM EST

By creating two separate 'demes' run by an anarcho-syndicalist council, with security of each haven ensured by a sort of mutual insurance network. I wonder why no-one has ever thought of it before?

[ Parent ]
Oh they have... (3.00 / 2) (#235)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 03:50:15 PM EST

The problem is people don't take them as seriously as they do mainstream ideas like invading Iraq to preemptively stop them from employing weapons of mass distruction. Clearly someone's a kook here.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

I do not give a rat's ass about Israel. (2.77 / 9) (#128)
by kosuri on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:42:24 PM EST

I'm serious, here. It is a little pissant of a country, not even 90% the size of, nor 75% the population of, New fucking Jersey. I don't give two shits about New Jersey, and I sure as shit don't fucking care about Isreal.

What on earth is all the fuss about? The President of Israel can't so much as use the toilet without making CNN Headline News and Airport Network.

Can't we just talk about boobies instead?
--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005

no you can't (none / 1) (#140)
by KingRamsis on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:00:17 AM EST

because what happens in Israel directly impacts you and the rest of the world, 911, the London terror blasts, and the Spanish incident are all directly related to your government support for Israel which gives justifications to the fanatics who committed these acts.

[ Parent ]
I don't think... (2.60 / 5) (#153)
by BJH on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 02:25:02 AM EST

..."justifications" is quite the word you're looking for.

If you're saying that supporting Israel in any way automatically makes you a target for violence, that's the logic of terrorism.

--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

Supporting violence, logic of terrorism (3.00 / 3) (#327)
by peace on Sat Apr 15, 2006 at 10:15:38 AM EST

If supporting a group equates to supporting the violence of that group then you should expect the victims of that violence to retaliate.  At the very least you should not be shocked by it.

The logic of terrorism seems to be that if you are incapable of attacking a nation with planes and tanks, you attack the nation with whatever other means are available to you.  The justifications of a nation and a terrorist organization are all cut from the same cloth. e.g. the "logic" of invading Iraq was WMD and it's support for Al Qaeda.  Incidentaly, both were beyond false, they were lies.  The US support of Israel is, however, quite plain and true.

-peace

[ Parent ]

How about your PROMISED answer re this argument? (1.50 / 4) (#168)
by BerntB on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 05:22:32 AM EST

You wrote that you'd be "more than happy to write about" my argument here, but lied as usual.

[ Parent ]
swedish are we?? I did -nt (1.50 / 2) (#189)
by KingRamsis on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 08:28:05 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Liar. You claimed that... (1.50 / 4) (#209)
by BerntB on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 11:05:26 AM EST

You claimed that Israeli democracy is a "myth" and that you'd be "more than happy to write about it."

Stuaart, me, HHD and nidarus asked for details. You then only wrote that you kept your cards close, which contradicts your previous statement.

Now you flat out lie again -- and claim to have answered!

AGAIN, it is not enough to present a few items of criticism -- no country, including Sweden, is perfect. Are you too stupid to understand that point? How does it feel to have less integrity and honor than a hard-line atheist like me?

[ Parent ]

Oh no, feel the TENTACLES. (1.00 / 3) (#170)
by stuaart on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 05:45:44 AM EST


Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
You're full of it (2.50 / 2) (#213)
by kosuri on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 11:36:04 AM EST

what happens in Israel directly impacts you and the rest of the world, 911, the London terror blasts, and the Spanish incident are all directly related to your government support for Israel
You're full of it. If Bin Laden hated Israel so much, why would he not.. oh.. gee whiz... I dunno... attack Israel directly? I mean, they're right in the neighborhood. Way easier to get there than New York City and Washington DC.

If Bin Laden is waging war over Israel, which he has repeatedly stated that he is not, he's really going about it all wrong by attacking US and European targets. Perhaps we can take Bin Laden at his word when he says he wants the US out of Saudi Arabia and wants the UK and Spain to quit supporting us?
--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005
[ Parent ]

Check your facts. (2.66 / 3) (#289)
by Jah-Wren Ryel on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 02:32:24 PM EST

If Bin Laden is waging war over Israel, which he has repeatedly stated that he is not,

That would FALSE. Bin Laden has repeateadly stated that he is waging war with the US because of Israel.

Bin Laden highlighted three grievances against the United States: U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. aggression toward Iraq, and U.S. favoritism toward Israel.
--Stanford Review
Google for "bin laden" and "three demands" you will find thousands of webpages discussing the topic.

[ Parent ]
He is attacking the support (2.75 / 4) (#328)
by peace on Sat Apr 15, 2006 at 10:24:35 AM EST

Bin Laden appears to be attempting to destabalize the Western sense of security.  Send us packing into our terrorist shelters.  attacking Israel directly would accomplish less than salting the soil that nurishes it.

It's strategic (Al Qaeda) rather than tactical (PLO) thinking.

-peace

[ Parent ]

but you're willing to pay $500 to every guy in NJ? (3.00 / 3) (#160)
by boxed on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 03:42:15 AM EST

...because that's the amount of money per person given in aid to Israel. That means YOU pay taxes to give directly to the state of Israel. Somehow I think you'd be pissed if it went to New Jersey.

[ Parent ]
I am certain (2.75 / 4) (#193)
by rpresser on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 09:43:36 AM EST

that New Jersey, like most US states, receives far more than $500 per person of federal tax money, in various allocations.
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]
Heh (2.87 / 8) (#211)
by kosuri on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 11:29:21 AM EST

That means YOU pay taxes to give directly to the state of Israel.
It seems that for every dollar I pay in taxes, $0.00108 goes to the state of Israel. Hopefully you'll forgive me for continuing to not give a fuck about the tenth of a penny. The funny part of it is that, according to the World Bank, 70% of US foreign aid to all nations is spent on US goods and services and 87% of military aid to Israel is spent on US goods and services. So while we may be "giving money to Israel", it really represents nothing more than a stimulus to the US economy.

I'm much more concerned about the $300,000,000,000 that we are spending in Iraq. I'm also concerned about the $30,000,000,000 of Pork-Barrel projects the US did in 2006 according to Citizens Against Government Waste (with plenty of that pork money going to New Jersey). Why aren't you angry about the $2 billion in foreign aid the US gives to Egypt every year? Were you aware that YOU pay taxes to give directly to the state of Egypt?

Have you ever considered that for the $300 billion that we have spent on a useless war with Iraq, we could have solved the Israeli/Palestinian conflict several times over?

I maintain that the foreign aid that we "give to Israel" (who is required to hand it back over to us) is given way more attention than it deserves. If you want to write your congressman about something, tell him to cut the fucking Pork Barrel waste.
--
I'm glad that when this story goes down this stupid comment will go with it. -- thankyougustad, 11/23/2005
[ Parent ]

I'm not a US citizen, so I pay nada :P (none / 1) (#258)
by boxed on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 04:17:14 AM EST

Also I think you're overly optimistic about the israel/palestine problem. Some (most) problems cannot be solved by just throwing money randomly at them.

[ Parent ]
And do you know why Egypt gets 2 billion a year? (none / 1) (#344)
by Hung Fu on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 11:20:29 PM EST



__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]
*oh noes!* teh boobies! here comes the FCC! :-( $ (2.00 / 2) (#218)
by HackerCracker on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:12:26 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Hung Fu? (1.22 / 9) (#157)
by United Fools on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 02:52:06 AM EST

That sounds like a Israeli?

We are united, we are fools, and we are America!
Critical oversight (1.93 / 16) (#169)
by stuaart on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 05:44:34 AM EST

Asides from this being, quite frankly, a thoroughly boring topic that has been trodden over so many times, you are displaying your own prejudices (mirroring Baldrson, in fact) by conflating ``Jews'' with ``some Jews in America.'' People do this all the time, typically Americans, since they seem to believe that America and American Jews are the only thing that matters.

The UK has a Jewish community. The UK, on the other hand, does not have a particularly powerful Jewish/Israel lobby. It's there but it is decidedly less influential than AIPAC. This puts a lie to your assertions which seem to be motivated by the belief that all Jews think and act alike, rather like sheep. This is pretty much Baldrson thinking, I'm afraid, and is his justification for bizarre theories too.

In essence there are two problems in the world regarding criticism of Israel:

  1. Pro-Israel organisations such as the ADL and the more insane AIPAC;
  2. Anti-Israel organisations or `critics' such as yourself, Chomsky and so on.
These two are the source of the trouble since they both deny the existence/legitimacy of the others' point of view.

Finally, the stark differences between America's (or maybe Hung Fu's) idea of `conservatism' and the UK's is pretty well blatant here when you say:


Conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter, Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly publicly call Arabs and Muslims "ragheads", "non-humans", "prehistoric groups" and face little or no censure.

(Assuming, of course that Hung Fu has the decency to put these into context, which I note he has not.) In the UK these people, if given airtime, would be called out as racists; there was a pretty massive scandal when Robert Kilroy-Silk suggested that Arabs were ``suicide bombers'' and so on. The most crazy people we get in the mainstream media are people like Melanie Phillips or Peter Hitchens.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


Furthermore, (1.75 / 4) (#173)
by stuaart on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 06:13:09 AM EST

like most `critiques' of anti-Semitism, this article critically fails to address what anti-Semitism is in the first place, and the typical traits and themes it displays. As such the article fails to provide any context for its musings over the ``new'' anti-Semitism.

In addition to this, it is worth noting that the Jewish pro-Israel community outside Israel is often more vehement than Israelis themselves.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
NO YUO ARE TEH BALDRSON! (2.80 / 5) (#175)
by Hung Fu on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 06:29:15 AM EST

Well, gee, thanks for taking the high road and debating the actual facts rather than resorting to personal attacks. I see you took the last paragraph to heart.
This puts a lie to your assertions which seem to be motivated by the belief that all Jews think and act alike, rather like sheep.
What assertions? How is this supposed to "put a lie" to them? How can you infer anti-Semitic motives from them? I expected a little more than incoherent smearing from you.
(Assuming, of course that Hung Fu has the decency to put these into context, which I note he has not.)
In what context would "raghead" be acceptable?
In essence there are two problems in the world regarding criticism of Israel:

   1. Pro-Israel organisations such as the ADL and the more insane AIPAC;
   2. Anti-Israel organisations or `critics' such as yourself, Chomsky and so on.

These two are the source of the trouble since they both deny the existence/legitimacy of the others' point of view.

See, what you call "trouble" most people refer to as "debate". There is nothing wrong with people having strong, opposing opinions at either ends of the spectrum and people should not be unfairly constrained in their thoughts or speech. If you bother to read my article, you'll see that the problem is that legitimate debate itself is being extinguished, particularly in American academia, by less than fair means. You seem to believe that nobody should be allowed to have strong opinions about Israel; that kind of thinking is scary and exactly the problem here.


__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]
A response (1.60 / 5) (#177)
by stuaart on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 06:40:09 AM EST

``In what context would "raghead" be acceptable?''

I was referring rather to ``non-human'' since, if the context was suicide bombing, this is perhaps understandable. But no, ``raghead'' is never acceptible.

``See, what you call "trouble" most people refer to as "debate".''

The point I was trying to draw out was the fact that this so-called `debate' has become increasingly polarised to the point where either side is unable to make any concessions or appreciate the other's point of view.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
Interesting. (2.80 / 5) (#178)
by Hung Fu on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 06:49:06 AM EST

Notice how because I was talking about "Arabs" and "Muslims" you immediately assumed that the racial epithet was in reference to suicide bombing.

In fact, if you read Michael Savage's diatribes it's clear he's not talking about suicide bombing. He just happens to hate Arabs and thinks they should be converted to Christianity or "nuked".

All it took was one click to find this out; instead you assumed based upon your prejudice. Classic.


__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]

*sigh* (1.66 / 3) (#181)
by stuaart on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 07:13:44 AM EST

I was imagining a supposed context for ``non-human'' rather than ``raghead'' etc. being more than just a racist statement. I was suggesting it might be used in referring to certain acts, rather than talking about one context in particular. And just because I suggest a particular context does not mean I endorse the implications of that context. The context in which Savage uses ``non-human'' does not have the connotation that he is displaying anything other than base prejudice.

So, instead of actually addressing my points, you've implied prejudice as a way of avoiding the answers to the questions.

Why don't you address my second point rather than focussing only on the first? I.e., that you are helping to polarise the debate.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
Yeah (2.80 / 5) (#185)
by Hung Fu on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 07:36:22 AM EST

Personal attacks suck, don't they? So why don't we all just give it a rest.

As for avoiding questions, why haven't you responded to my questions ("What assertions?") regarding your allegations that I'm anti-Semitically generalizing about the Jewish people? I'd rather like an answer about that, please.

As for the debate, yes it is rather "polarized". But you seem to be suggesting that the relatively obscure Chomsky and company are as much to blame for this as the vastly powerful AIPAC; not to mention the influential right-wing commentariat.

The debate is polarized, but in America it's weighted very heavily in favour of blind support of Israel. And even the trace of left wing scholarship is being delegitimized and suppressed. Which is what this article is about. Do you believe that this is a good thing?

Do you genuinely think the debate would be better without the criticisms of Chomsky, Finkelstein and company to counterbalance the enduring myths about Israel? Because they seem to be the only ones opposing opposing blind support of Israel these days.

__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]

I'm not arguing (1.66 / 3) (#187)
by stuaart on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 07:43:50 AM EST

that Chomsky et al. should be silenced or something, don't be silly.

What I am concerned about is your characterisation of the debate as left or right wing. It seems that you'd favour political alliance rather than reality. Maybe you're just a product of America's weird public discourse? Who knows.

And finally, I did not suggest that you were anti-Semitic, but rather that you suffer from the same problem vast swathes of the members of this debate also encounter: that the Jewish community is one whole, there is only one kind of Zionism, and that `Israel' is equivalent to `the Jews.'

Small groups of people are pretty good at making a lot of noise, you know, and it doesn't always represent the community it claims to represent.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
you obviously didn't read the article (3.00 / 6) (#192)
by nostalgiphile on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 09:22:00 AM EST

Otherwise you'd have picked up on the fact that this piece is about cries of "anti-semitism" in the US, and not in your musty little corner of the world. Pay attention, no one cares about what happens in Britain.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately (2.16 / 6) (#200)
by stuaart on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 10:00:13 AM EST

the UK---or Tony Blair at least---has a special relationship with the US, and the two cultures very much affect one another.

Besides, Great Britain helped start some of the problems off by not thinking carefully before blithely implementing the Balfour Declaration.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
I didn't read it? (3.00 / 2) (#356)
by Wen Jian on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 12:27:41 PM EST

Well, since we were talking about a fairly international issue, I thought I'd mentioning it. I know that some of you atlantically-challenged types don't have the attention span for things that you haven't seen on CNN within the last 30 seconds, but if you reach just one person, then hey, to me that's worth it. Eh what? Jolly good. Regarding the stifling of debate - I think that's what the issue is here. Not that some people have a view that I (for example) might disagree with, but that there appears to be an attempt to say 'you aren't allowed to express X, even if X is a valid point!' I live in Germany at the moment, and that sentiment is extremely influential.
It was an experiment in lulz. - Rusty
[ Parent ]
But the more ardent zionists... (3.00 / 3) (#221)
by Wen Jian on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:40:44 PM EST

Would have people believe that all Jews think alike on these matters, indeed that zionism is an integral part of Judaism. No-one is accusing these lobbies of being 'the voice of the Jewish people' EXCEPT for themselves - because it siuts them to assume a 'voice of a people' stance. I know loads of Jews that hate Israel and zionism, but they are not part of organised lobbying/pressure groups. I'm sure they exist, but they are not large or particularly influential. Anyway, the lack of influence that the zionists have in Britain is clearly due to the antisemitic policies of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office...
It was an experiment in lulz. - Rusty
[ Parent ]
True (2.00 / 4) (#227)
by stuaart on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 03:21:33 PM EST

The problem is thus: AIPAC et al. attempting to claim they stand for all Jews and people on the far left also claiming they (AIPAC et al.) stand for all Jews.

The situation is clearly stupid, which is why I suggested that there are two main problems in this debate: the `far right' and the `far left.'

Also, let's move away from this idea that Jews who support Israel are somehow `bad Jews' and that there is only one brand of Zionism. I know someone, for example, for whom `Zionism' only means this: that the Jews have a right to their own homeland, no matter where in the world that is. That's a pretty pared-down form of Zionism.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
t3h j00z!!!!!!!!!!!!! (1.19 / 21) (#174)
by circletimessquare on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 06:16:00 AM EST

when it comes to conspiracy theories, i don't dispute or support, i join in the fun: create your own conspiacy theories

for example, t3h j00z as the universal bogeyman, is so passe

i'm into a new conspiracy theory i created, help me out here and spread this meme far and wide:

T3H S1KHZ!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.akalsecurity.com/

http://www.nriinternet.com/NRI_Awards/USA/AKAL_Security/index.htm

http://www.sikhnet.com/s/SikhMemorialDC

THE SIKHS ARE INFILTRATING THE US GOVERNMENT'S SECURITY APPARATUS, THEY ALREADY CONTROL OUR AIR FORCE FACILITIES

THEY WILL SOON CONTROL OUR MINDS AND OUR DESTINY!!!!!!!!!

;-P

fucking xenophobic bullshit

my point?

just like ghost stories, no one takes conspiracy theories seriously except the feeble minded... but its still very entertaining for the rest of us

sao don't fight the secret dominion of jews controlling the west, join the fun. have a laugh. make your own narrative. the catholics. the sikhs. the jews: pick your own bad guy, smear away. it's all fun and games about who is secretly in control of your destiny

conspiracy theories: from james bond to comic books to the da vinci code: good cheap entertainment for the level headed

THAT'S the purpose of conspiracy theories folks: don't fight it, don't take this feeble minded paranoid schizophrenia seriously, don't dispute all of their carefully constructed arguments... revel in the fun! WIDEN the narrative

but, by saying this, by spreading aspersions on this story about jews controllling washington dc, i'm obviously an agent of the illumnati/ t3h j00z. so if you will excuse me, i have to go back to giving dick cheney a blow job, my work in obfuscating The Real Truth (tm) is done here

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

It comes from the Baldrson perspective (2.20 / 5) (#176)
by stuaart on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 06:35:12 AM EST

That is, treating one ethnic group as a single homogenous mind, body and soul, rather than a complex superposition of identities. It's a classic way of thinking and reasoning about an entire group of people without actually truly engaging with said people. And it appears on the far left and the far right, just under different names.

Take the example of the `dual loyalties' argument about Jews. The notion is, as promogulated by both the left and the right, that Jews cannot be members of a society because they have a `dual loyalty' to their host country and to Israel. This fails on several levels:

  1. Not all Jews support or even care about Israel. Some actively hate the fact that they have any links to it at all (i.e., they are tired of thinking about it, drained by the debate over it in the public sphere, or perhaps by Israel's actions).
  2. The implication is that Jews are unlike others in that they are the only ones with `dual loyalties.' The truth is that everyone has different loyalties with different places, peoples and so forth. Again, this is about understanding all people in terms of identity, not just Jews.
  3. Jews themselves are some of the most vocal critics of Israel. This goes to show the diversity of opinion.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
there's a deeper issue, one which you fail too: (2.00 / 6) (#180)
by circletimessquare on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 07:11:51 AM EST

WHO FUCKING CARES ABOUT JEWS

i don't love jews, i don't hate jews. jews are jews. there's nothing to talk about

in other words, there's a hell of a lot more important things to talk about than jews in this world

the real troll is in getting everyone talking about jews

jews matter, just like every other group, but the attention they receive is way out of proportion to their numbers

that's why i bring up sikhs as an example of conspiracy theory idiocy: there are a lot more sikhs in this world than jews, but if you went by the amount of thought and effort people spent obsessing over jews versus sikhs, you would think there were more jews than christians and muslims combined in the world together, and maybe about 10 sikhs

it's so stupid

it's just one giant troll everyone has swallowed hook line and sinker: OMG! T3H J00S!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I care (3.00 / 3) (#182)
by stuaart on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 07:14:57 AM EST

because I have vested personal interest in the Jews. Personal situations mean that I cannot `get away' from it.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
well, ok then, you get a pass (2.00 / 2) (#183)
by circletimessquare on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 07:17:41 AM EST

i'm not going to tell a sikh "who fucking cares about sikhs", that's stupid

but if everyone were obsessing over sikhs, i'd sure as hell say to everyone, in general, just shut the fuck up about sikhs already, they don't matter as much as you all are obsessing


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Excuse me, but ghosts and UFOs are real (3.00 / 3) (#190)
by maynard on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 09:09:56 AM EST

better find a new boogeything to compare your conspiracy theories against.

Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
true in one respect (1.50 / 2) (#195)
by circletimessquare on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 09:47:12 AM EST

comparing conspiracy theories to ghost and ufo stories is insulting to ghosts and little green men

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
They're not green (3.00 / 3) (#205)
by maynard on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 10:34:11 AM EST

visitors are teh gray!!!

Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
and live in your anus? nt (1.50 / 2) (#206)
by circletimessquare on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 10:50:26 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
farting fire (2.33 / 3) (#208)
by maynard on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 11:03:04 AM EST

linky

Cartman:  Okay, that's does it! Now listen! Why is it that everything today has involved things either going in or coming out of my ass?!
Cartman Farts.
An anal probe comes out of his butt and turns into an 80-foot satellite.
Cartman:  I'm sick of it! It's completely immature.
Stan:  Hey, it's happening again.
Kyle:  Whoa, look at that.
Stan:  Now, do you believe us, Cartman?
Cartman:  You guys can't scare me! I know you're making it all up.
Stan:  Cartman, there's an 80-foot satellite dish sticking out of your ass.
Cartman:  Sure, you guys, whatever.

Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

hear tom cruise got the scientology rerun pulled? (2.25 / 4) (#219)
by circletimessquare on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:12:53 PM EST

fucking cults


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
+1FP, articulate, well-reasoned article (2.12 / 16) (#191)
by nostalgiphile on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 09:11:27 AM EST

You've written a very fine article here, and I think K5's lucky to get it's grubby lil hands on it. I say this because

A)we should always be suspcicious of those who hide behind cries of "racism" instead of debating the issue (the issue being America's badly flawed foreign policy toward Israely)

B) the authors of the paper (and Hung Fu) are criticizing our country's stigmatic, warped view of the Middle East, and that can never be an unhealthy thing.

C) Hung Fu presents a well-balanced and, frankly, valuable survey of the debates (and non-debates) going on around this issue.

C) the writing is top-notch and a whole horde of information is being very clearly organized and presented.

My critique of your work, such as it is, boils down to this--I was frustrated by how mild you are in your criticism of the paper's numerous critics. If anything, you are too easy on them. Who actually has said anything good about Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer?? All I see is alot of CTS-style name calling and ad hominem argumentation. For example, Turncoat Hitchens (a former "lefty") and Dershovitz are obviously playing the populist "race card" when they claim it's the "tone" of the paper they resent, and not its contents (which they plainly don't want people to know about). If I were you, I'd have laid into the bastards for their sophistry and outright chicanery in dodging the facts. This is exactly the kind of "PC" sophistry that the conservatives are always accusing liberals of.And that's only the beginning. The second tactic they will use is to call the paper (and your article, btw) a "conspiracy theory". The idiots (e.g., CTS) who are gonna claim this piece is conspiracy theory are simply trying to censor the debate by labeling you a kook. This is just to try and shut you up and stop being a problem for the powers-that-be.

You've obviously put some work into this, and it should definitely make FP.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
If CTS is a shill for the powers that be... (2.00 / 4) (#203)
by alexboko on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 10:25:55 AM EST

...those powers be way stranger than we thought.


Godwin's Law of video games: if a company is out of ideas for a long enough period, they will eventually publish another World War II shooter.
[ Parent ]
#####################333333#three#######$ (1.00 / 3) (#372)
by debillitatus on Fri Apr 28, 2006 at 01:38:15 AM EST


Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
[ Parent ]

Theres n interesting article on this (1.60 / 5) (#217)
by jubal3 on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 11:51:56 AM EST

in slate recently, which, I think, is a better critique of the piece.
http://www.slate.com/id/2138741/


***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
I, for one, welcome our Jewish overlords. . . (2.66 / 18) (#225)
by Lode Runner on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:22:57 PM EST

Many of us who are both proud supporters of Israel and avid readers of political essays have followed the Mearsheimer-Walt affair with despair.

Ideologically-motivated accusations of anti-semitism and equally disingenuous outrage over being labelled anti-semitic haven't helped. Everyone, it seems, is wallowing in victim status.

Tarring Mearsheimer and Walt (henceforth M-W) as anti-Jewish is the lazy way out. Same goes for characterizing opposition to M-W as little more than crying "anti-semite," hence my -1 to this article. (Really, Hung Fu, are Hitchens and Eliot Cohen the best you can do? I can find rabid anti-zionists who hit M-W harder than that.)

A smarter objection to M-W is that their analysis of very complex developments is just a tad too elegant. Are strong supporters of Israel disproportionately powerful in the USA? Yes. Are their priorities the engine that drives American foreign policy and the nation's public discourse? Now that's just silly, but that's what M-W are claiming, and it's therefore little wonder that their essay has been embraced by so many conspiracy theorists, the underinformed, and sundry others who wish to demonize the USA or Jews or Israel or all three.

What sinks M-W is that they make a comprehensive claim and then fail to consider anything that contradicts it. A couple of the most salient omissions are:

  • The establishment of economic and political ties with (and subsequent unflinching US support for) the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish rulers of oil-rich states in the Middle East. If you want to see the most sickening anti-Jewish rhetoric, don't look at Iran, look at the Bushies' good friends the Saudis. Zionists have wanted to put a match to the oil-ticks for decades, but so far there's been zero movement in that direction. A Zionist energy policy would call for switching to solar power posthaste -- see Thomas Friedman.

  • There are millions of Americans who are broadly anti-semitic and who will not support politicians unless they countenance what one might call Likudnik policies. They're the LaHaye & Jenkins reader base -- if you had to google that, you're sufficiently out of touch that you'd be capable of believing that "Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay" are representative of grassroots evangelicals. Yet M-W lump them right in with AIPAC.

Anyway, lots of careful students of The Lobby have called M-W for their slipshod work, but I'll give the last word to my very least favorite political commentator, Noam Chomsky.

How right you are (none / 1) (#229)
by stuaart on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 03:26:37 PM EST

You put it better than I could.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
Who is being disingenuous? (2.80 / 5) (#244)
by Hung Fu on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 07:19:57 PM EST

Ideologically-motivated accusations of anti-semitism and equally disingenuous outrage over being labelled anti-semitic haven't helped.
There is nothing disingenuous about pointing out the highly suppressive intellectual atmosphere on campuses and in the media. Noam Chomsky, whom you cite, says "M-W deserve credit for taking a position that is sure to elicit tantrums and fanatical lies and denunciations,". What is disingenuous is to ignore the proverbial gorilla in the living room and fail to acknowledge the lopsided debate and M-W's courage in releasing such a paper.
Same goes for characterizing opposition to M-W as little more than crying "anti-semite," hence my -1 to this article
Have you read Alan Dershowitz's reply paper, probably the most comprehensive response to MW? It may not just be crying "anti-Semite", but there's not much else except for quibbling over facts, quotations and debatable semantic points (e.g. the whole "blood kinship" issue). It's interesting that many people who would usually spurn Chomsky's highly negative views about the United States are opportunistically using him to discredit M-W. Chomsky's positions are far more extreme and fringe than M-W's "offensive realism". Mearsheimer and Walt, in fact, have advocated American "soft power" and have hawkish views on many issues, such as China.
(Really, Hung Fu, are Hitchens and Eliot Cohen the best you can do? I can find rabid anti-zionists who hit M-W harder than that.)
That's reality. These are the commentators whose opinions are feted by the mainstream media. "anti-Zionists" are, by definition, locked out of the debate and consigned to academic obscurity.
The establishment of economic and political ties with (and subsequent unflinching US support for) the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish rulers of oil-rich states in the Middle East.
Firstly, you vastly overstate Saudi Arabia's supposed threat to Israel; not only is Israel's military unmatched in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia recently offered to normalize relations with Israel in exchange for a settlement with the Palestinians. Hardly an implacable ideological enemy. Furthermore, the paper cites two major instances in which the interests of Israel have been favored over the interests of oil companies and the economy.
For example, the U.S. decision to give Israel $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an OPEC oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage to Western economies.
...
Pressed by AIPAC and other pro‐Israel forces, Clinton toughened up the policy in the spring of 1995 by imposing an economic embargo on Iran.  But AIPAC et al wanted more.  The result was the 1996 Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which imposed sanctions on any foreign companies investing more than $40 million to develop petroleum resources in Iran or Libya.



There are millions of Americans who are broadly anti-semitic and who will not support politicians unless they countenance what one might call Likudnik policies.
There is no doubt Christian evangelicism and Christian Zionism includes anti-Semitism in some of their beliefs, but I don't see how this changes the fact that that they are part of the Israel lobby.

__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]
well, you are, for starters (2.33 / 6) (#251)
by Lode Runner on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 09:32:08 PM EST

Surely, Hung Fu, you don't think it has escaped my notice that you've repeatedly and consistently set the gold standard here in playing the "help I'm being stifled" card. You've found a great way to duck a real debate--i.e. the one you keep piously imploring us to join--and I'm calling you to the carpet for it.

Before you unleash another torrent of victimhood narrative please bear in mind that I've accused neither you nor M-W of anti-semitism.

    There is nothing disingenuous about pointing out the highly suppressive intellectual atmosphere on campuses and in the media.
There is if it doesn't really exist; at least not in the way you insinuate it does. Despite the machinations of Daniel Pipes, anti-Zionism is freely expressed in all but a few major US universities. I'd even say it's the norm.

    Noam Chomsky, whom you cite
Where do I cite Chomsky? I think he's a crank and I'll thank you not to attribute any of his positions to me. Nevertheless, he's useful in this circumstance because he articulates most of the precepts of Western academic anti-zionism but still finds enormous fault in M-W.

    What is disingenuous is to ignore the proverbial gorilla in the living room and fail to acknowledge the lopsided debate and M-W's courage in releasing such a paper.
I believe I've adaquately acknowledged the Zionist Lobby's power, and I'm sorry if my inability to regard it as the "prime mover" doesn't conform to your agenda.

Frankly, I don't see the "courage" in publishing a poorly-sourced piece abroad without peer review and then ducking back into one's tenure-protected office, especially considering that what M-W argue deviates so little from the academic norm. Standing up to big, scary, elderly Alan Dershowitz! How brave!

    Have you read Alan Dershowitz's reply paper, probably the most comprehensive response to MW?
Yeah, I'm not terribly impressed by Dershowitz, but his paper does present a strong case that M-W were inexcusably credulous when it came to nasty assertions about Zionist motives.

    Mearsheimer and Walt, in fact, have advocated American "soft power" and have hawkish views on many issues, such as China.
M-W are also hawks on the issue of al Qaeda. What they didn't like was Bush's decision to oust Saddam Hussein by invading Iraq. They're NPR regulars, so I'll go out on a limb and suggest they voted for Kerry. They're not anti-semites, nor do they want some kind of national debate; they just want to cudgel Bush and the neo-cons.
    These are the commentators whose opinions are feted by the mainstream media. "anti-Zionists" are, by definition, locked out of the debate and consigned to academic obscurity.
Like poor, obscure Mearsheimer and Walt? I'd never heard of Harvard University or the University of Chicago until I read their piece. Poor Noam, all alone at MIT! Now Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz, there're a couple of marginal academics.

    Firstly, you vastly overstate Saudi Arabia's supposed threat to Israel; not only is Israel's military unmatched in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia recently offered to normalize relations with Israel in exchange for a settlement with the Palestinians. Hardly an implacable ideological enemy.
So you're going to ignore the ordure that emanates from Saudi regarding Israel and the Jews? We've helped Saudi's economy grow to the point where it dwarfs that of Israel; plus we give Saudi access to our best weapons. Maybe if they hadn't rushed to foot the bill for the Hamas government, then maybe I'd take seriously their crafted-for-Western-audiences-so-they-don't-realize-we're-a-bunch-of-Wahhab ist-nutters offer to normalize relations with Israel.

    For example, the U.S. decision to give Israel $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an OPEC oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage to Western economies.
That would be a brilliant example if it weren't for that whole pesky Cold War context thing. Also noted is the use of "October War" so as to divert attention from any unpleasantness associated with attacking on Yom Kippur.

    Pressed by AIPAC and other pro‐Israel forces, Clinton toughened up the policy in the spring of 1995 by imposing an economic embargo on Iran. But AIPAC et al wanted more. The result was the 1996 Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which imposed sanctions on any foreign companies investing more than $40 million to develop petroleum resources in Iran or Libya.
That's just proof by vigorous assertion. I'll believe when I see the documents. Anyway, AIPAC still doesn't trust Libya--rightly so, but Bush doesn't care.

    There is no doubt Christian evangelicism and Christian Zionism includes anti-Semitism in some of their beliefs, but I don't see how this changes the fact that that they are part of the Israel lobby.
That's because you (and M-W) can't bring yourself to see that the so-called Israel Lobby is neither monolithic nor even coherent.

[ Parent ]
You are boring and wrong (1.83 / 6) (#271)
by Hung Fu on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 10:39:32 AM EST

Surely, Hung Fu, you don't think it has escaped my notice that you've repeatedly and consistently set the gold standard here in playing the "help I'm being stifled" card.
When? As you haven't bothered to link to any of my supposed "torrents of victimhood narrative", I see you're just fishing for a response. Badly.
Frankly, I don't see the "courage" in publishing a poorly-sourced piece abroad without peer review and then ducking back into one's tenure-protected office, especially considering that what M-W argue deviates so little from the academic norm. Standing up to big, scary, elderly Alan Dershowitz! How brave!
"Poorly-sourced"? Give some examples; the 182 footnotes are there for a reason. And I'd like to see how you'd react to being condemned by the national media as a racist.
Yeah, I'm not terribly impressed by Dershowitz...
So what? Do you or do you not agree that Dershowitz's reply is completely founded upon claims of anti-Semitism and guilt by association? And if other people believe that the paper is objectively flawed, you should be able to produce a long list of condemnations that do not fundamentally rely on the "anti-Semite" card. So far, you've only come up with a mild rebuke from... Noam Chomsky.
Like poor, obscure Mearsheimer and Walt? I'd never heard of Harvard University or the University of Chicago until I read their piece. Poor Noam, all alone at MIT! Now Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz, there're a couple of marginal academics.
Huh? I don't see the M-W paper or Chomsky "feted by the mainstream media" which is what I actually said. Pipes and Horowitz on the other hand...
That's just proof by vigorous assertion. I'll believe when I see the documents.
No, they actually cite Brzezinski and Scowcroft, Differentiated Containment, p. 130. Dismissing a paper because you can't be bothered checking the sources? That's a new one. I'll have to try that.
Maybe if they hadn't rushed to foot the bill for the Hamas government, then maybe I'd take seriously their crafted-for-Western-audiences-so-they-don't-realize-we're-a-bunch-of-Wahhab ist-nutters offer to normalize relations with Israel.
Oh, I see. Those Muslim "nutters". Isn't it amazing how insane people manage to run a thriving economy, provide a large percentage of the global oil supply and maintain the cultural center of the Islamic world? Yawn. Click.

__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]
and you're lazy too (2.42 / 7) (#287)
by Lode Runner on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 01:45:56 PM EST

    When? As you haven't bothered to link to any of my supposed "torrents of victimhood narrative"...
Here's the latest. Plenty of more whines about "censorship" and so forth in your comment history, and you really came unhinged in the comments attached to your rejected story "Anti- Semitism and its Misuses".

Here's what would be nice: you clearly state your political position with regard to US support for Israel.

    "Poorly-sourced"? Give some examples; the 182 footnotes are there for a reason. And I'd like to see how you'd react to being condemned by the national media as a racist.
Dershowitz, despite leaning on the anti-semitism crutch, does a decent job with M-W's sourcing. Old Al's been around the block enough times to know that sheer volume of footnotes means nothing if the references themselves are questionable.

    you should be able to produce a long list of condemnations that do not fundamentally rely on the "anti-Semite" card.
Jeff Weintraub has been maintaining a list. Granted, most of the earlier, knee-jerk entries rely too heavily on smearing M-W as anti- semites, but lately the criticsm of M-W has become more substantial. I think you'll find Dov Waxman's two-part [1 and 2] meets your criteria.

    I don't see the M-W paper or Chomsky "feted by the mainstream media"
When's the last time you saw any academic paper "feted by the mainstream media"?

    No, they actually cite Brzezinski and Scowcroft, Differentiated Containment, p. 130. Dismissing a paper because you can't be bothered checking the sources? That's a new one. I'll have to try that.
I suspect you just have tried that.

Here's what Brzezinski, Scowcroft, and Murphy wrote:

    The dual containment policy initially involved mobilizing international political opposition against Iran, together with limited unilateral economic sanctions. The Clinton administration asserted that it was not trying to change the Iranian regime per se but rather its behavior, particularly its quest for nuclear weapons, its support for terrorism and subversion in the region, and its opposition to the peace process. By early 1995, however, the U.S. attitude toward Iran began to harden. The Iranian behavior at issue had continued. But the real impetus for a shift seems to have come out of American domestic politics, in particular the administration's desire to head off a challenge on Iran policy mounted by an increasingly bellicose Republican Congress.

    Congressional initiatives were designed to increase pressure on so-called rogue states such as Iran and Libya, to the point of erecting secondary boycotts against all parties doing business with them, including American allies. Hoping to deflate support for such action, in spring 1995 President Clinton announced (with an eye on domestic politics at the World Jewish Congress) that he was instituting a complete economic embargo against Iran. The move achieved its intended domestic effects in the United States, but only temporarily. Late in 1995 pressure from Congressional Republicans, led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), called for covert action against the Iranian regime, and last year Congress passed the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which the president signed. This legislation mandates U.S. sanctions against any foreign firm that invests more than $40 million in a given year in the development of energy resources in Iran or Libya. Not surprisingly, it has been strenuously opposed by America's allies as an unjustifiable attempt to coerce them into following a hard-line policy.

It's clear that contrary to M-W, Brzezinski and Scowcroft saw forces besides The Lobby shaping US Middle East Policy, namely "a bellicose Republican Congress". It's also clear that they saw courting The Lobby as the means to moderate Gingrich et al. And no, there's no evidence that Brzezinski and Scowcroft regarded Republicans and The Lobby as a single entity.
    Those Muslim "nutters". Isn't it amazing how insane people manage to run a thriving economy, provide a large percentage of the global oil supply and maintain the cultural center of the Islamic world? Yawn. Click.

Note that I said "Wahhabist nutters" not "Muslim 'nutters'". For someone who takes exception to being labelled anti-semitic, you sure are happy to hurl accusations of bigotry at others.

As for the Saudis, their economy relies on one product, which Westerners extract and process. Saudis themselves do an astonishingly small amount of work within their domestic economy as well, preferring to bring in subcontinentals to run the place. Worse, our policy towards Saudi perpetuates this system. At the very least we should pressure the Saudis to reform so that their legions of idle, middle-class, young men have something to aspire to besides loafing around all day or jihad.

[ Parent ]

Well, you're a liar. (1.33 / 3) (#340)
by Hung Fu on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 11:01:17 PM EST

A couple of sarcastic sentences does not a "torrent of victimhood narrative" make. Nice try, though, but it's quite apparent you're making this up as you go along.
Dershowitz, despite leaning on the anti-semitism crutch, does a decent job with M-W's sourcing. Old Al's been around the block enough times to know that sheer volume of footnotes means nothing if the references themselves are questionable.
"Old Al"'s credibility is shot to pieces since Finkelstein proved he copied sources from the proven fraud From Time Immemorial without even reading them. And what MW sources does he do a "decent job with"? I'd like to see this.
I think you'll find Dov Waxman's two-part [1 and 2] meets your criteria.
Ok, I read this and the prime argument seems to be that because there have been superficial disputes between the US and Israeli governments in the past, the Israel lobby cannot possibly be powerful at all. I don't buy that as it's a false dichotomy. The second argument is that the reason America supports Israel is shared values, but that doesn't explain why other Western countries don't also have such uncritical support of Israel and the fact that Israeli society (based, as it is, upon blood kinship and religion) is quite different from American society (based upon liberal values). Waxman also has some quite fallacious reasoning, for example: If Israelis can openly criticize the activities of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, then surely they should not be immune from public criticism in the United States or elsewhere of a particular lobby. Huh? What Israelis can and cannot say in their media has no bearing on what Americans can and cannot say in their media. Different countries; different rules.
Here's what Brzezinski, Scowcroft, and Murphy wrote:
I'm curious, did you just happen to have a copy lying around or did you copy this from some blog?
It's clear that contrary to M-W, Brzezinski and Scowcroft saw forces besides The Lobby shaping US Middle East Policy, namely "a bellicose Republican Congress".
And why were the Republicans so bellicose to begin with? Could it be they were both trying to appeal to the same lobby?
For someone who takes exception to being labelled anti-semitic, you sure are happy to hurl accusations of bigotry at others.
You sure are paranoid, hypocritical and, again, you're lying. I didn't accuse you of bigotry. I was pointing out how stupid it is to pretend that the leadership of any nation is insane. It's a boring and common propaganda tactic used by neocons, particularly in the lead up to the Iraq war for example. If you truly think Saudi Arabia is run by insane people, it discredits you as a commentator.
Note that I said "Wahhabist nutters" not "Muslim 'nutters'"
And even though the orthodox religious right in Israel has vast political power, just like Saudi Arabia, it would be silly to call Kadima a bunch of "Hassidic nutters". Political leaders can pander to a religious electorate but that does not make them insane.

__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]
Btw, with this comment (3.00 / 4) (#348)
by nidarus on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 11:26:06 AM EST

You lost the right to say anything Israeli politics.

Do you even know what "Hassidic" means? Kadima is a religious right-wing party? Do you understand how outlandish this sounds to anyone who knows anything about Israeli politics?

[ Parent ]

Jewish doctors in the States and circumcision NT (none / 1) (#350)
by dollyknot on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 06:46:12 PM EST


They call it an elephant's trunk, whereas it is in fact an elephant's nose - a nose by any other name would smell as sweetly.
[ Parent ]
and ur ignerint (2.00 / 2) (#361)
by Lode Runner on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 01:31:41 AM EST

I'm going to keep this short because it's clear you're pushing an agenda rather than trying to engage in a constructive dialogue.

Waxman got it right with common values. We and Israel both see ourselves as bastions of liberty; and we're both willing to fight for that liberty. You need to read Exodus. There's the whole pioneer/frontier thing too. Anyway, I'm not claiming that these common beliefs are 100% correct, but they do exist.

    I'm curious, did you just happen to have a copy lying around or did you copy this from some blog?

    And why were the Republicans so bellicose to begin with? Could it be they were both trying to appeal to the same lobby?

Institutional subscription for the win! Those Republicans were bellicose because of Iran's vile rhetoric and because if Clinton didn't take a harder line than the GOP, then the GOP could accuse him of being another Jimmy Carter.

    If you truly think Saudi Arabia is run by insane people, it discredits you as a commentator.

    And even though the orthodox religious right in Israel has vast political power, just like Saudi Arabia, it would be silly to call Kadima a bunch of "Hassidic nutters". Political leaders can pander to a religious electorate but that does not make them insane.

The al-Saud dynasty really are a bunch of Wahhabis. Wahhabism, you should know, is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi. Hasidic Judaism, meanwhile, is a marginal denomination in Israel.

[ Parent ]
M-W at least opens the door to debate (2.66 / 3) (#290)
by backwards on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 02:46:11 PM EST

While it is clear that M-W provide only a partial analysis of the complexities of the world of Washington D.C. lobbyists, at least their frank approach to the topic and their ability to wheather the shrill cries of anti-Semitism opens the door to further debate. I think that is where the real value of their paper is.

By the paper's very nature of being one of the first serious academic papers to analysis this area it will likely be at least incomplete. I hope more research is done to clarify more the inner workings of Washington D.C. lobbying.

It is undoubtable that oil played a huge role in the rush to war as well as the general military-industrial complex -- the war as in their economic self-interest.

[ Parent ]
The Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer paper... (2.16 / 6) (#232)
by confrontationman on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 03:35:36 PM EST

is grossly inaccurate. There is irrefutable overwhelming evidence that Haliburton is the most powerfull lobby.



That's not the new antisemitism (2.33 / 12) (#233)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 03:42:40 PM EST

That's the new antizionism -- not the new antisemitism. The new antisemitism is what is going on in Europe in response to Muslim immigration and Jews are prominent in that antisemitic movement.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


I though that was about muslim antisemitism... (1.33 / 3) (#293)
by BerntB on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 03:29:58 PM EST

I thought that was about the shocking arab and persian antisemitism, which you can find even in mosques in Sweden, until I saw who wrote it. :-)

[ Parent ]
A response to the funding issues (1.55 / 9) (#242)
by stuaart on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 05:52:09 PM EST

It is interesting to delve a bit deeper into the following assertion by the authors:
Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli.

A lot of cash is ploughed into Israel by the US. However there is a massive disparity here with reality given that various sources have reported that nearly one in five families in Israel live below the poverty line. So the authors' suggestion of thinking about the aid budget as being ``$500 a year for every Israeli'' is pretty twisted, divisive and reckless.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


Huh? Your comment is practically a non sequitor (2.00 / 2) (#259)
by deadcow on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 04:42:00 AM EST

Just because aid is funneled to Israel doesn't mean it's actually going to the Israeli citizens. It's most likely going to Israel's huge military. Please come up with a better source before criticizing the author's source. Note that I'm not taking sides here, just taking umbrage with your sourcing (hence the 0)

[ Parent ]
That's my point (2.50 / 2) (#260)
by stuaart on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 05:16:23 AM EST

The paper suggests that $500 as going to each Israeli. It clearly doesn't. Maybe it is just using this as a way of illustrating the amount of money, but it's still quite reckless.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
hmmm (2.50 / 2) (#275)
by jbridge21 on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 10:54:35 AM EST

Quoting directly from page 3 of the paper:

"Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one-fifth of America's foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year. (3)"

This didn't confuse me; did it confuse you?

[ Parent ]

Ah (none / 1) (#279)
by stuaart on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 12:01:09 PM EST

I should have looked at the paper rather than rely on Hung Fu's paraphrase.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
It's not a paraphrase (none / 1) (#343)
by Hung Fu on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 11:07:20 PM EST

I quoted the abridged LRB article, and how does that change the meaning anyway? Sheesh, what won't people accuse me of.

__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]
It's probably used as a statistic figure (3.00 / 2) (#266)
by nandix on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 08:46:59 AM EST

and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli (emphasis mine).
I'm sure it's pretty obvious that they don't mean every israely citizen receives a check for usd 500 yearly as a result of US aid, just as when a nation's per capita income is mentioned, only someone truly naive would assume that's how much a citizen makes yearly in that country.

[ Parent ]
Maybe (none / 1) (#273)
by stuaart on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 10:45:08 AM EST

You may be right.

I still think it is interesting in light of the common perception that Israel is vastly wealthy. It entirely depends upon where that wealth is concentrated.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
No disparity (2.66 / 3) (#269)
by m50d on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 10:28:36 AM EST

However there is a massive disparity here with reality given that various sources have reported that nearly one in five families in Israel live below the poverty line. So the authors' suggestion of thinking about the aid budget as being ``$500 a year for every Israeli'' is pretty twisted, divisive and reckless.

Not at all. They get the money and then spend it on weapons rather than people.

[ Parent ]

"Twisted, divisive and reckless"? (2.50 / 2) (#276)
by Hung Fu on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 11:12:11 AM EST

It's a common way of looking at funding and entirely true. Furthermore, it's interesting to note that the American poverty rate isn't much less (12%) and that Israel has a very high minimum wage (half the average) and a large government. How ironic that America funds are propping up a rather socialist state.

And, given that inequalities in Israel have often been reported along racial lines, I'd wager that a lot of those families are Israeli Arabs who face systemic exclusion and discrimination.

__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]

Indeed, US aid to Israel increass poverty (2.00 / 3) (#277)
by guidoreichstadter on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 11:14:28 AM EST

US aid to the government of Israel comes with "no strings attatched," and so there is no way to prevent the effective use of US funds for whatever purpose the Israeli government determines. Even military aid from the US could simply be used to offset Israeli government obligations and funding diverted to Israeli social spending or humanitarian foreign aid. While no individual is solely responsible for the actions of their government, in a representative system, the citizens of Israel putatively bear the collective social responsibility for the malapropriation and abuse of US aid.

The Israeli government's military ethnic cleansing and the apartheid-like conditions it imposes in Gaza and the occupied West Bank has retarded the development of Palestinian society and is a strong determinant of the social conditions there. It bears a large part of the responsibility for the excess unemployment and poverty obtaining in these regions, poverty which according to the article you cite was estimated at 60% of the Palestinian population living under 60 dollars a month by the World Bank in 2003. Recent figures place unemployment is over 20%. To the extent that US aid facilitates this regime, it is a contributing factor to Palestinian impoverishment.

There is, of course, the larger issue of the opportunity cost of US military and economic aid to economies like Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, China, etc. Such aid would be more effective in saving lives and decreasing global poverty if effectively channelled to where it is needed most, for example the majority of the world's population that lives on $2 a day or less. Of course, it seems most citizens of the industrialized world seem relatively unconcerned with these issues, considering the heavy preponderance of luxury consumer spending over humanitarian aid donations.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]

You see (none / 1) (#280)
by stuaart on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 12:12:22 PM EST

it's all very well busting a gut over the IDF's treatment of the Palestinians, however any critique that does not temper this with an appreciation for the hostility of the surrounding countries and the rise of terrorist groups targeting Israel simply does not cut it.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
sorry- should have rephrased that (1.50 / 2) (#281)
by guidoreichstadter on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 12:41:32 PM EST

US aid to the government of Israel comes with "no strings attatched," and so there is no way to prevent the effective use of US funds for whatever purpose the Israeli government determines. Even military aid from the US could simply be used to offset Israeli government obligations and funding diverted to Israeli social spending or humanitarian foreign aid. While no individual is solely responsible for the actions of their government, in a representative system, the citizens of Israel putatively bear the collective social responsibility for the malapropriation and abuse of US aid.

The hostility of surrounding countries and the rise of terrorist groups targeting Israel in no ways justifies the Israeli government's military ethnic cleansing and the apartheid-like conditions it imposes in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, which have retarded the development of Palestinian society and is a strong determinant of the social conditions there. It bears a large part of the responsibility for the excess unemployment and poverty obtaining in these regions, poverty which according to the article you cite was estimated at 60% of the Palestinian population living under 60 dollars a month by the World Bank in 2003. Recent figures place unemployment is over 20%. To the extent that US aid facilitates this regime, it is a contributing factor to Palestinian impoverishment.

There is, of course, the larger issue of the opportunity cost of US military and economic aid to economies like Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, China, etc. Such aid would be more effective in saving lives and decreasing global poverty if effectively channelled to where it is needed most, for example the majority of the world's population that lives on $2 a day or less. Of course, it seems most citizens of the industrialized world seem relatively unconcerned with these issues, considering the heavy preponderance of luxury consumer spending over humanitarian aid donations.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]

Simplistic (none / 1) (#282)
by stuaart on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 01:09:38 PM EST

Come on, you can do better than that. There is a complex feedback between IDF activities, Jewish settler activities, Palestinian militant activities and (historically) the surrounding countries' military activities.

I also suggest that `ethnic cleansing' is an overused phrase here. The reality is more like `iron fist' at the moment. Previously there was what was euphemistically termed `retroactive transfer,' however this is hardly on the cards at the moment.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
simple enough, I suppose (none / 1) (#303)
by guidoreichstadter on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 08:47:16 PM EST

Is it too simplistic to point out that the Israeli government's ethnic cleansing and iron-fisted imposition of apartheid-like conditions in no ways justifies Palestinian terrorism? We are discussing a level of social breakdown in which thousands of children have suffered irreversible brain damage due to chronic or acute malnutrition. Do you think you can form a concept of the experience of irreversible brain damage, or chronic or acute malnutrition?

It is not common for humans to demonstrate altruism beyond a rather small circle of experience. It is completely unreasonable to expect most people to have mercy on their perceived enemies, when most people aren't minimally responsive to the suffering of people who haven't threatened them at all. I think that in the end, this will explain a lot. In enough time, the thing we are making will eat all of our children.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]

Excellent Summary +1FP (2.50 / 8) (#247)
by harrystottle on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 08:38:51 PM EST

Even though I prefer Chomsky's analysis, (thanks to lode runner for that link - see below) you do a great service by covering the topic well enough to lift a few scales from a few pairs of eyes. Which is all any of us can hope for.



Mostly harmless
Resolutions against Israel (2.12 / 8) (#261)
by Peaker on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 06:29:50 AM EST

The implications are absurd. For example, a cursory examination of the United Nations General Assembly voting record shows global opposition to Israel's actions in the occupied territories, not just from neighbouring Islamic countries in the Middle East, but also from Europe, Asia, South America and Africa. There are numerous resolutions that single Israel out for criticism of it's violations of international law. In fact, the only countries who consistently vote in support of Israel are America, who has used it's security council veto to block more than 30 resolutions against Israel, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. So it appears that, using the logic that singling out Israel for criticism is anti-Semitism, the vast majority of people on the planet are "anti-Semitic".

Fallacies:

  • UN representatives vote according to their concious thoughts and well-based opinions on the subject: Rediclously naive! The UN representatives vote according to a myriad of factors, mostly political ones. If voting for Israel means losing the support of the Arab lobby in the UN (Which was for some reason not mentioned at all in the article) then the only country that can afford this is the United States. This is why resolution after resolution (almost) only the US stood by. The European and other countries could not withstand the arab country pressure.
  • The United Nations votes really represent the opinions of most of the world: Do you really believe so?


Naievety (2.00 / 2) (#267)
by m50d on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 10:27:25 AM EST

Rediclously naive! The UN representatives vote according to a myriad of factors, mostly political ones. If voting for Israel means losing the support of the Arab lobby in the UN (Which was for some reason not mentioned at all in the article) then the only country that can afford this is the United States. This is why resolution after resolution (almost) only the US stood by. The European and other countries could not withstand the arab country pressure.

What, but they can afford to upset the U.S.? The reason the resolutions pass is they are right, as any objective analysis would show.

[ Parent ]

Sorry, (2.80 / 5) (#274)
by Hung Fu on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 10:52:32 AM EST

but the influence of the "Arab lobby" is nothing compared to the influence of America. If the world was voting purely out of political considerations, why would they oppose the world's largest economy and greatest military power? Perhaps they actually find the flagrant violation of international law a threatening precedent?
The United Nations votes really represent the opinions of most of the world:
This is a fair point and I should probably have wrtten "nations" instead of "people". Still, my point holds for the many democracies in the world that vote against Israel as their governments rule by broad consent. And in dictatorships, in the Middle East at least, the dictators often have more pro-Israel opinions and actions than their people.

__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]
Veto power (2.66 / 3) (#288)
by Peaker on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 02:13:06 PM EST

When you have veto power, you don't need to use your lobby to convince nations to vote one way or the other.

When, on the other hand, you hold control of energy prices and can threaten disconnection of financial relations as the Arab world did back when resolutions against Israel were the fad, you do try to apply your lobby for these resolutions.

Did you know that before the Oslo accords, Israel did not have McDonalds and many other large labels selling and investing in its economy because of the Arab world's discontinuation of relations with any business that sold in Israel?

[ Parent ]

OMG No McDonalds' in Israel!?!?!?! (none / 1) (#346)
by xcham on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 02:48:35 AM EST

Cry me a fucking river.

Economic embargo may not be pretty but it's within any country's rights not to engage in commerce with any other, for any reason they please.

And it's not gone, only slowed down.

Sure, they were probably just doing it because they hate Jews. The US's embargo against Cuba exists on equally absurd (though probably not racist) grounds.

[ Parent ]

Did you know (2.50 / 2) (#347)
by Hung Fu on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 04:17:08 AM EST

it's illegal for American companies or individuals to boycott products that come from Israel? So much for freedom of expression.

__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]
Factors of ten worse are NOT condemned in UN... (2.00 / 5) (#292)
by BerntB on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 03:27:10 PM EST

Even using a Palestinian description of Israel, countries factors of ten are NOT condemned in the UN.

The Arab block are e.g. voting down resolutions against Sudan, which have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and committed incredible atrocities.

[ Parent ]

Someone has probably already mentioned this (1.85 / 7) (#264)
by creature on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 08:05:19 AM EST

But please learn the difference between "its" and "it's".

Who runs the USA and the UK? (1.90 / 11) (#265)
by dollyknot on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 08:30:57 AM EST

I watched Micheal Moore's movie 'Bowling For Columbine' and was puzzled by his statement that, gun ownership in Canada was nearly as high as gun ownership in the States, when the murder rate is far higher in the States. I found a possible answer in Wikipedia.

Worldwide circumcision statistics.

The relevant parts are USA 60.1% males routinely circumcised and Canada 11.5% males circumcised. This leads me to believe that circumcision leads to males that are more callous both literally and figuratively.

The evidence for callous behaviour can be found in the decision not to to march all the way to Bhagdad in 1992 and finish the job under the uspices of international law. Why was Saddam not tried as a war criminal then? Why wait twelve years?


They call it an elephant's trunk, whereas it is in fact an elephant's nose - a nose by any other name would smell as sweetly.

original and irrelevant research (none / 1) (#286)
by backwards on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 01:37:51 PM EST

This is obvious original research and it just seems to be a spurious correlation erroneously interpreted to be more meaningful.

[ Parent ]
original and irrelevant research (2.00 / 3) (#294)
by dollyknot on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 04:27:22 PM EST

I don't want to be nosey, but have you been surgically sexually altered?


They call it an elephant's trunk, whereas it is in fact an elephant's nose - a nose by any other name would smell as sweetly.
[ Parent ]

Middle East Trivia (2.52 / 21) (#268)
by The Real Lord Kano on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 10:27:40 AM EST

Question: Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?
Answer: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections?

A: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force and continues to occupy it in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions?

A: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East routinely violates the international borders of another sovereign state with warplanes and artillery and naval gunfire?

A: Israel.

Q: What American ally in the Middle East has for years sent assassins into other countries to kill its political enemies (a practice sometimes called exporting terrorism)?

A: Israel.

Q: In which country in the Middle East have high-ranking military officers admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war were executed?

A: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East refuses to prosecute its soldiers who have acknowledged executing prisoners of war?

A: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East created 762,000 refugees and refuses to allow them to return to
   their homes, farms and businesses?

A: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East refuses to pay compensation to people whose land, bank accounts and businesses it con- fiscated?

A: Israel.

Q: In what country in the Middle East was a high-ranking United Nations diplomat assassinated?

A: Israel.

Q: In what country in the Middle East did the man who ordered the assassination of a high-ranking U.N. diplomat become prime minister?

A: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East blew up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt and attacked a U.S. ship in international waters, killing 33 and wounding 177 American sailors?

A: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East employed a spy, Jonathan Pollard, to steal classified documents and then gave some of them to the Soviet Union?

A: Israel.

Q: What country at first denied any official connection to Pollard, then voted to make him a citizen and has continuously demanded that the American president grant Pollard a full pardon?

A: Israel.

Q: What country on Planet Earth has the second most powerful lobby in the United States, according to a recent Fortune magazine survey of Washington insiders?

A: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East is in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council resolutions and has been protected from 29 more by U.S. vetoes?

A: Israel.

Q: What country did the United States invade because "U.N. Security Council resolutions must be obeyed?"

A: Iraq.

--
All except the last item were taken from Charley Reese's Orlando Sentinal editorial.

Israel is a bad friend and the US shouldn't be so closely aligned with it.

LK

too harsh (2.60 / 5) (#285)
by backwards on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 01:34:43 PM EST

I think this is a selective list designed to be a damning as possible. It's not a good method for encouraging debate or understanding. The hostility that such selective lists bring out in people doesn't lead to productive and globally optimal solutions but rather more hurt, resentment and unfair attacks.

[ Parent ]
You're new here? :-) (1.50 / 2) (#295)
by BerntB on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 05:27:47 PM EST

I think this is a selective list designed to be a damning as possible. It's not a good method for encouraging debate or understanding.
You are new here or has been away? :-)

Hung Fu tried to get a similar story posted some weeks ago, but was shot down in flames. This time he posted it on Easter when many people are away -- and seems to have mobilized his revolutionary cell members (or his alter egos).

[ Parent ]

BerntB - clarification. (2.00 / 2) (#304)
by backwards on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 09:01:44 PM EST

I wrote earlier a comment which said "I think this is a selective list designed to be a damning as possible. It's not a good method for encouraging debate or understanding.", BerntB replied with "You are new here or has been away? :-)"

Just to clarify I wasn't referring to the story but rather the comment my comment was in reply to. Switch you view to threaded. I actually think the story is a good and important one.

[ Parent ]
Well... you missed the point (2.00 / 2) (#306)
by BerntB on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 02:07:44 AM EST

Just to clarify I wasn't referring to the story but rather the comment my comment was in reply to.
What you commented upon was in the "tradition" of the last few months. I believe that posting was to hide Lode Runners post further down.

'Hung Fu', 'KingRamsis', 'A Bore' and others has argued most positions possible that is anti-Israel while skirting the anti-Jew position. Hung Fu e.g. argued earlier that antisemitism is just about religion... (A new account even did the Hung Fu voting thing -- 0 to everything he didn't like -- until I commented that it was exactly like Hung Fu used to do...)

And some background: Why do I care?

I am not American and conspiracy theories about that some Jewish/Cuban/etc lobby groups are controlling the president looks like the standard US conspiracy theories. I never even watched the X Files -- I like sf that is written by physics professors.

What shocks me a bit is the incredibly different standards for Israel and its neighbours. Countries with factors of ten worse human rights violations (even with a Palestinian description of Israel -- see Pallywood!) are literally critized multiple factors of ten less. The only motivation I've heard is that "we should have higher standards for democracies". But (a) that is mostly from people that in other places argue that Israel isn't a democracy and (b) are 3 factors of ten reasonable?!

[ Parent ]

I agree with you 50% (2.80 / 5) (#311)
by KingRamsis on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 08:58:52 AM EST

Arab countries record of human rights SUCKS big time, prison for expressing your opinions, dictatorships, corruption, I agree with you, but there are two point I am trying to communicate to you for as long as I remember:

1.We arabs don't consider our presidents and kings to represent us, we don't approve their actions and we certainly didn't elect them. At any given point of time they are supported by external forces like the US (Gulf,Egypt now),USSR(Yemen and Egypt back in 70s and early 80s) or France (Morocco and Tunisia)

2.The current state with the Arab world is NO JUSTIFICATION for Israel to commit the daily crimes against the civilians of Palestinians and humiliate them on daily basis.

One final note the ratio is not 1:10 as you are claiming, Israel is much worse except they know how to handle media very well.
I hope you got my point finally.

[ Parent ]
Ha! (2.00 / 4) (#315)
by Apuleius on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 04:10:09 PM EST

The current situation is more than enough justification for Israel to do whatever it takes to keep the lunacy of the Arab world outside of our borders. It's bad enough to be an Arab in the Arab world. But a Jew? Or a Copt? By the way, another of your fellow Egyptians, a Copt naturally, was murdered today. Needless to say, this won't bother you one bit.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
there is a problem though (2.66 / 3) (#312)
by backwards on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 10:58:39 AM EST

"What shocks me a bit is the incredibly different standards for Israel and its neighbours."

I think the difference in standards is a reaction to the exhalted status and influence many in power give to Israel and the Israel lobby. I personally am not happy with the attack on Iran that the Israel lobby is pushing for at the moment. If they were pushing for things that were more innoculous I wouldn't care much. It is a fact that the Israel lobby also pushed hard for the Iraq war.

I guess how I got interested in this area was a result of the second intifada. I did a bunch of research on it and found some really strange things going on with regards to the justification and long term plans. I wrote this essay many years ago here on what I found: Israel and its Disastrous Settlement Policy.

[ Parent ]
The problem is (2.50 / 2) (#320)
by stuaart on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 09:34:43 PM EST

that everyone keeps going on about the ``Israel Lobby'' when what they're really talking about is a certain subset of Jews within America (AIPAC). The people `representing' the Jewish population of America are incredibly skewed and don't represent the community. Have a look at Jewish voting stats:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html

I don't remember what Kerry stood for over the Iraq war etc. (someone please remind me), but the continual support for the democrats is quite interesting, when compared to the current claims over the link between the neocons and the Jews in general.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
Kerry's Position on the Iraq war (3.00 / 3) (#322)
by chunkstyle on Sat Apr 15, 2006 at 03:28:04 AM EST

He was for it before he was against it.

[ Parent ]
Hah (3.00 / 2) (#342)
by Hung Fu on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 11:06:12 PM EST

you do know that the Democrats have traditionally been more supportive of Israel than the Republicans? George W Bush is an exception to this and took many by surprise, given his father's relative anti-Israel stance.

__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]
All this lobby X-Files smell like the Protocols (2.00 / 2) (#352)
by BerntB on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 03:52:34 AM EST

I think the difference in standards [factors of ten harder for Israel] is a reaction to the exhalted status and influence many in power give to Israel and the Israel lobby
Well, the judgements are the same around Europe, which doesn't have Israel lobbies.

My nose tingles a bit from the power attributed to the Jewish lobby. It smells a bit of the Protocols.

(Personally, I don't think there is a difference with the US lobbies and European ones. Except that the US ones are more visible.)

I wasn't arguing that the Israeli methods of stopping the Intifada is humane or intelligent. And I won't. It isn't really relevant for my argument.

[ Parent ]

Support comes with strings attached. (2.66 / 3) (#313)
by The Real Lord Kano on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 11:06:31 AM EST

What shocks me a bit is the incredibly different standards for Israel and its neighbours.

The billions of dollars in foreign aid that the US gives to Israel gives us a right to comment on their internal practices. If Yemen or Oman or Iran were suckling at the teat the way Israel is, we'd have the same right to dictate terms to them as well.

LK

[ Parent ]

Like Egypt's $2B a year? -nt- (2.66 / 3) (#323)
by chunkstyle on Sat Apr 15, 2006 at 03:30:10 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Do you know _why_ Egypt gets 2 Billion? (2.66 / 3) (#341)
by Hung Fu on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 11:04:46 PM EST

That's right, for honouring the 1978 Camp David peace agreement with Israel. If anything, this strengthens the argument of a powerful Israel lobby.

__
From Israel To Lebanon
[ Parent ]
Well (3.00 / 3) (#314)
by The Real Lord Kano on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 11:19:22 AM EST

'Hung Fu', 'KingRamsis', 'A Bore' and others has argued most positions possible that is anti-Israel while skirting the anti-Jew position.

I don't have any issue with Jewish people. I grew up in a multicultural setting; black people, white people, latino people, asian people and jewish people. I can honestly say that I have friends from every catagory and family in several as well.

My problem is with a country. If England did the things that Israel has done I'd advocate neutral diplomatic relations with them too.

LK

[ Parent ]

Double standards? (2.00 / 2) (#351)
by BerntB on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 03:38:53 AM EST

My problem is with a country. If England did the things that Israel has done I'd advocate neutral diplomatic relations with them too.
Really, really strange that you didn't comment on this part of what I wrote, then:
What shocks me a bit is the incredibly different standards for Israel and its neighbours. Countries with factors of ten worse human rights violations (even with a Palestinian description of Israel -- see Pallywood!) are literally critized multiple factors of ten less. The only motivation I've heard is that "we should have higher standards for democracies". But (a) that is mostly from people that in other places argue that Israel isn't a democracy and (b) are 3 factors of ten reasonable?!


[ Parent ]
Different reason (2.66 / 3) (#359)
by The Real Lord Kano on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 11:25:49 PM EST

Really, really strange that you didn't comment on this part of what I wrote, then:
What shocks me a bit is the incredibly different standards for Israel and its neighbours. Countries with factors of ten worse human rights violations (even with a Palestinian description of Israel -- see Pallywood!) are literally critized multiple factors of ten less. The only motivation I've heard is that "we should have higher standards for democracies". But (a) that is mostly from people that in other places argue that Israel isn't a democracy and (b) are 3 factors of ten reasonable?!

Those other countries aren't supported unconditionally by my government. My government's relationship with those other countries hasn't made my a target for terrorist action.

LK


[ Parent ]

An addendum (2.00 / 3) (#345)
by xcham on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 02:32:21 AM EST

Q: Which country in the Middle East elected a prime minister who has admitted to carrying out such executions of POWs?

A: Israel. The man's name is Ariel Sharon.

I think he's still in a coma, which is just as well since he'll never be brought to justice for his crimes by his country. So I wish him as much pain as possible in the time he has left to live.

[ Parent ]

OT: The new illiteracy (1.45 / 11) (#272)
by melquiades on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 10:40:28 AM EST

The possesive pronoun "its" has no apostrophe. "His," "hers," "its" -- not "hi's," "her's," "it's!" When in doubt, substitute "it is" for "it's" and see if it works:
It is not often that academic research...
Looking good!
... is roundly condemned by the American media and Harvard University forced to remove it is official seal from a paper.
Uh, no. Sorry. Please try again.

World peace? It would be nice ... but at least give me a world where people know where to put their apostrophes!

who cares? nt (1.33 / 3) (#316)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 05:11:42 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
your right (2.00 / 3) (#317)
by Phil Urich on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 05:27:16 PM EST

y shud we bother /w teh rules of english grammer and speling? your to right, its stoopid, i c know reesan too b so nazish. Peeple kan overstand just feinwith all sortz of sloppynesss, why b sooo strict!...

[ Parent ]
that's absolutely correct (1.33 / 3) (#318)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 05:35:24 PM EST

Olny srmat poelpe can raed tihs? I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs psas it on !! Psas Ti ON!

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Grmaamr Erorr! (1.50 / 2) (#358)
by thefirelane on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 06:28:28 PM EST

Psas Ti ON!

But, you say:

taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae

Theerfroe "Ti" is wrnog!

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]

We are approaching a Tipping Point (2.80 / 5) (#283)
by backwards on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 01:12:07 PM EST

Many years ago anyone who suggested that Israel's settlement policy was problematic was tarred by the anti-Semitic label. I wrote back in the day, using an account I can no longer access, this Kuro5hin article on the topic: Israel and Its Disastrous Settlement Policy .

Around 2002, it seemed that the topic emerged from what I considered to be purposeful obfuscation and then things started to change in Israel. Israel has since then started to pull back from their settlement policies and has evacuated Gaza Strip and it looking to do something similar in the West Bank.

The topic of the Israel lobby in the US currently has a lot of parallels with Israel's settlement policies back in 2002. People are aware that something strange is going on there but the outlines are sort of fuzzy and its sort of dangerous talking about it -- no one wants to be labeled an anti-Semite. But a number of brave, smart folk who are not anti-Semitic are able to breech the subject in balanced ways and it starts to become wider understood what is going on. And then things organically start to improve because previous avenues of action are shutdown.

I honestly think we are again nearing a tipping point.

Sort of off topic: I read recently that there used to be a Taiwan lobby in existence after WWII in the US that prevented for decades the official recognition of communist China by the US. Eventually, the lobby lost power, but importantly, it didn't result in Taiwan being wiped off the map, but rather it allowed China to not be held down for Taiwan's benefit.

self-righteous, sorry (none / 1) (#284)
by backwards on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 01:20:34 PM EST

Damn, that above comment of mine sounds self-righteous. I apologize.

Although, I still think what I am saying is somewhat true. There is a critical mass of dissent that can arise that exposes the obfuscation. There are tipping points in debates like this where continued obfuscation becomes transparent and ineffective. Any article on Kuro5hin is obviously not going to play a major role but every well reasoned contribution plays its part.

[ Parent ]
ah but (none / 1) (#300)
by harrystottle on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 06:43:42 PM EST

"Any article on Kuro5hin is obviously not going to play a major role but every well reasoned contribution plays its part."

and you never know which butterfly will start the hurricane...

Mostly harmless
[ Parent ]

Logical, but you really don't get it. (2.62 / 8) (#296)
by Tango Down on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 05:45:31 PM EST

All this discussion about the U.N. trading, allies in the middle east, and the "Israel Lobby" is perfectly reasonable, but if those were the only reasons for our support, we would have sold Israel out long ago. Or if not sold them out, at least let them fight there own battles, and be done with it, Let me elucidate my point with a little history lesson. A week into the Yom Kippur war, Israel, although turning the tide of battle, was running out of supplies. Henry Kissinger had turned down Israel's request for arms and ammunition, saying "let the Israelis bleed a little" Golda Meir made a special visit to Richard Nixon. After listening to her side of the story, he gave them what the wanted and more. Later he said "I remembered my mother telling me stories from the old testament, and after reading the story of David to me, she once told me very intensely [Son, I do not know how or when, but some day, you will have a chance to help the tribes of Israel, don't miss that chance], I recognized that this was my chance." It is our bible thumping preachers and our religious mothers who have formed the U.S's policy on the matter, not all the other realities that have been discussed in this forum, or were discussed in the book. I know, my mother is the same way. And even now, even though I am not a practicing Christian, I still feel the urge to defend Israel and it's policies, despite the fact that I know it is illogical. The academics, who are mostly agnostics, atheist, or at the very least not evangelical Christians, do not understand. They never got bedtime stories from the book of Samuel like Nixion or Bush.

Kissinger's biography (2.00 / 2) (#297)
by dollyknot on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 06:04:46 PM EST

Kissinger


They call it an elephant's trunk, whereas it is in fact an elephant's nose - a nose by any other name would smell as sweetly.
[ Parent ]

What is the information for? (2.50 / 2) (#299)
by Tango Down on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 06:30:08 PM EST

I was aware that Kissinger was a Jew, that does not mean that he supported Israel's policies, or in fact did not say the words I quoted him as saying. Also, the information on the Yom Kippur war in that Biography did not mention what I was discussing. I do not think he was a bad diplomat, or that his decision did not make since at the time, I was just commenting on underlying empathy many people in the U.S. feel for Israel and how that has shaped politics. Also, as far as I am aware, Kissinger was not active religiously, although I could be wrong.

[ Parent ]
No no (2.00 / 2) (#301)
by dollyknot on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 07:09:00 PM EST

I am not talking about Kissinger being Jewish, but about Kissinger being circumcised, if you see what I mean in terms of historical causality and political psychology.

Sort of would he have done things a bit differently, if he had not of had the end of his dick cut off when he was a little baby?


They call it an elephant's trunk, whereas it is in fact an elephant's nose - a nose by any other name would smell as sweetly.
[ Parent ]

Umm huh? (none / 1) (#302)
by Tango Down on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 08:21:47 PM EST

I am not really sure what you mean, I read your earlier post, and did not really get that either. If you are saying that Kissinger's circumcision made him violent, and pro Israel, I think his policy towards Israel says otherwise. If anyone should be accused of violence due to circumcision, is is Nixon. Anyway, are you trying to be funny, if so, I still do not get it. If not, I am almost certain you have lost whatever semblance of sanity you once had. By the way, do you still have that disgusting piece of flesh called "Foreskin"?

[ Parent ]
Some explaining (2.66 / 3) (#298)
by Tango Down on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 06:14:05 PM EST

(Note: The Nixion quote is a bit of a paraphrase, so is you find a slightly different version of it, please do not yell at me.) Perhaps I should explain some of the implications of my statement. I am trying to say, that the reason for much of the support of Israel in the U.S is due to the belief that we must support the state of Israel so that they may fullfill the prophecies of the bible. Also there are several passages in the bible (I will ask my mother for specific passages one day.) which state in some way or another that those who support Israel will do well, and those who do not will do poorly in their affairs. That will seem weird to many people, and it even seems kind of strange to me, but it is likely the true motivation behind many a Presidents actions. Of course, no politicion would ever admit to this, and they may not even be thinking about the matter consciously in these terms. I find; however, that conservatives are the types who remember what their parents and preachers told them. :>)

[ Parent ]
From a biblical point of view .. (3.00 / 2) (#310)
by gizzlon on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 08:27:37 AM EST

its not that simple. Yes there was a day when supporting Israel was gathering blessings, but even then God used other people to "punish" Israel..

And even if it was true, are those people "following the bible"(?) in other ways? And if not, why would they put their ass on the line to help Israel even if (they think) the bible tell them to?
g
[ Parent ]

They never are. (3.00 / 3) (#319)
by Tango Down on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 06:43:14 PM EST

You are right, nothing is ever as simple as it first seems, especially where the Bible is concerned. None the less, when Israel was first formed there was a group of evangelical Christians who saw it as the beginning of the days that were prophased, and urgered their congregations to support Israel. This policy is continued today in the television preachers of Pat Robertson, and Fallwell. Although these people have no clout in the north, or among more educated types, they can effect public opinion in many red states. Bush is certainly one of the people who fall into that category. Most of this stuff is not public, and if the shit really hit the fan, reality would overcome this ingrained feeling, and we would ditch the Israelis for our own skin. In any case the predominantly Christian U.S. can feel for the plight of the Jews, who were Traditionally persecuted, over that of the surrounding Arab countries. Any way you run it, the sites of Israel are holy to Christians, most of whom would like to see them in the hands of Jews, rather than Muslims.

[ Parent ]
Alrighty, let's stir the pot... (2.33 / 3) (#307)
by Gooba42 on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 02:10:57 AM EST

How do we resolve our schizophrenic policy of allying with anti-Israel Arabs while still supporting the anti-Arab Israelis?

Are our interests really protected here or are we in effect just acting as a catalyst to further conflict and strife?

Have we really done a comprehensive pros and cons list for this thing or are we just getting mired down by degress?

heh (3.00 / 5) (#321)
by codejack on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 10:06:47 PM EST

You're assuming that "acting as a catalyst to further conflict and strife" isn't protecting our interests.


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
Body counts (2.00 / 5) (#326)
by expro on Sat Apr 15, 2006 at 08:13:52 AM EST

Has anyone compared the methodology of civilian body counts in Iraq under American occupation with the generally-accepted body counts of the Jewish Holocaust (or even under Hussein)? If anything, in the case of the Jewish Holocaust, the standards should be higher because of all the time and effort spent to account for them. From what I understand, they are just interpolating, but in the case of Iraq, the administration has now become the friend of Iraqi Body Count, which does not interpolate at all, but counts relatively-confirmed newspaper reports. It seems to be just yet another way of Bush lying to minimize the evil of the war, but you are antisemitic if you suggest that fewer than 6 million Jews were killed.

Lack of basic search (3.00 / 3) (#337)
by stuaart on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 06:21:51 PM EST

If you actually do a bit of research, you will find that the cataloguing of dead in the Jewish Holocaust has, for the large part, been incredibly systematic, especially given the incredible lack of resources and documents available to those counting the dead. It does not make sense to compare modern body counts based on daily reports (i.e., the Iraqi Body Count) with body counts from the Holocaust, in essence, because the situation in terms of reportage for the two is so utterly different.

I suggest you do a bit of essential reading to get this straight before linking the record of the Holocaust to current records of current events. The lack of you doing this makes you appear quite naive, I'm afraid.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
I have, in fact, read a number of conflicting work (2.50 / 2) (#338)
by expro on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 07:19:38 PM EST

Do you have One True Source, or do you accept the diversity of opinions on how accurate the numbers are and the complete lack of any evidence for many of the claims? There are more than one opinion even if the antisemitism charge has a censoring effect on those who would look at it scientifically.

No two things are ever the same or comparable, but looking at the current Neocon attempt to minimize the count and discount good research on the topic of Iraqi body counts seems less defensible in the light of the huge credibility assigned to other numbers and associated demonization of people who question their numbers (not the horror of the situation).



[ Parent ]
Explanation (2.33 / 3) (#339)
by stuaart on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 08:09:40 PM EST

Obvious things that I should not have to point out:
  1. Scholars have been wrong about the number of Holocaust dead.
  2. Scholars have argued about the number of Holocaust dead.
  3. Scholars (and others) have become too involved emotionally about the Holocaust dead and been less objective.
  4. Some organisations and some people have manipulated the Holocaust for their own ideological, emotional or political ends (both the deniers and various Jewish organisations, to name a couple).
I'm not aware of a neocon attempt to minimise the body count (please point this out with refs, as I'm not USian), however I'm sure that they would want to take the minimum possible figure as their actual figure (again, obvious).

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


[ Parent ]
The references are many. Bush/Blair quoted here.. (2.66 / 3) (#349)
by expro on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 04:59:22 PM EST

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/10099

If you cannot use Google, I will give you more references, and point out how easy they were to find. Of course one primary thing they did was tell the military to not publish civilian body counts because it got Americans in the Viet Nam era so up in arms that they had to lie. Now they apparently just lie to themselves and those with security clearances.

A popular neocon hobby in the post Iraq invasion was to point out how the deaths under the American occupation have been so much less than under Sadaam's rule, therefore justifying the illegal invasion. This has lessened as the count grows, but those involved had so demonized Sadaam, that it is extremely important to their egos that the deaths be seen as an order of magnitude less than those of Sadaam, and then attributing most of them to foreign terrorists or Sadaam's "dead enders", as though they forced the occupiers to kill innocents, since it appears that the majority of killings have been by Americans of what most would interpret as innocent civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Even if the number, for example, of the Lancet study were wrong (and were too high instead of too low), that Blair and Bush see the need to manage public perception of how many deaths there were, while maintaining the policy of not counting deaths makes it obvious what is happening.



[ Parent ]
Neocons need to value human life a little more. (none / 1) (#354)
by RobRoy on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 11:06:03 AM EST

Even if the number, for example, of the Lancet study were wrong (and were too high instead of too low)

Unlikely. They found about 285 000 excess deaths and reported 98 000, because they discarded the cluster with the most deaths.

There is also the New England Journal of Medicine paper that surveyed returning troops and found that 20% of American troops reported being responsible for the death of a non-combatant.

Probably meaning 200 000 deaths just by being killed by troops (if the rate remained similar, and if double ups cancel out [that is soldiers repsonsible for multiple deaths being about equal to multiple soldiers being responsible for single deaths.])



[ Parent ]
anti-semitism & anti-semitism (2.20 / 5) (#330)
by rozilla on Sat Apr 15, 2006 at 10:59:58 AM EST

The flip side of this vigilance and paranoia about perceived anti-Semitism is the relative tolerance of bigotry against Arabs and Muslims in both Israel and America. Conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter, Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly publicly call Arabs and Muslims "ragheads", "non-humans", "prehistoric groups" and face little or no censure.

i find it especially sad and very embarassing that the same people who "fight" against perceived anti-semitism would in the same instance refer to an arab with slurs like raghead etc. arabs are semites, too. u cannot possibly accuse israel-critics of anti-semitism, while u bitch about those "non-human ragheads".

it's as embarassingly idiotic as calling someone who criticizes angola a racist, while at the same time complaining about the "violent niggers" in ivory coast.
or like someone saying "I'm no racist. Not I. Not at all. It's just that I think these niggers need to know their place."

these kind of anti-anti-israel types are like a guy running naked thru the streets with his own faeces smeared on his lips, all the while accusing pedestrians of lunacy.


____________________________________________________________
"Apparently, all the assholes went nuts at the same time." - rusty
In case anybody miss-understands (1.25 / 4) (#357)
by dollyknot on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 06:02:02 PM EST

Jewishness is about the 'bris' it is cultural, not genetic.

Cackles

Peter


They call it an elephant's trunk, whereas it is in fact an elephant's nose - a nose by any other name would smell as sweetly.

Juan Cole (2.33 / 3) (#360)
by Hung Fu on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 12:20:58 AM EST

Juan Cole has written an excellent article about the controversy for Salon.com.

__
From Israel To Lebanon
Michelle Goldberg (none / 1) (#362)
by Lode Runner on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 01:40:11 AM EST

Michelle Goldberg has also written about the controversy for Salon.

I won't attribute any malice to your oversight. But I won't forget it either, especially considering that Goldberg's is by far the more thoughtful of the two pieces.

[ Parent ]

Judt in the NYT, and Leowenstein in The Australian (none / 1) (#365)
by backwards on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 10:58:52 PM EST

"But I won't forget it either..." - Lode Runner

Huh? Isn't attempts at intimidation on Kuro5hin a little over the top?

Anyhow, here's two more prominent pieces on the subect by relatively well known individuals:

Tony Judt in the New York Times: Op-Ed Contributor A Lobby, Not a Conspiracy.

Antony Leowenstein in the Australian: Don't let any lobby shut down debate

[ Parent ]
two tonys is still nothing (2.50 / 2) (#367)
by Lode Runner on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 04:28:10 AM EST

Enlighten me, how is calling someone for his lack of candor intimidation? Hung Fu has played the victim card long enough and I'm here to put a stop to it.

Poor Tony Judt. He's been living and breathing the debate surrounding American Zionism for years and M-W get all the attention. It's like when Michael Moore saw "Supersize Me" and he was all like, "shit, I'm a rabid anti-capitalist and I eat McDonald's every day; I totally could've made that movie." Anywho, Judt's wrong. First, there's no such thing as the "international community". Second, US support for Israel makes a lot of sense in the context of American religiosity.

Loewenstein, as usual, has added absolutely nothing to this discourse. People are playing the anti-semitism card? Wow, the M-W analysis is so watertight that that's the only retort. Yeah, you tell 'em, Antony!

[ Parent ]

partisanship is allowed (none / 1) (#368)
by backwards on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 11:43:17 AM EST

I guess what I am saying is that you are as much a partisan as Hung Fu is. Pot calling the kettle black and all that...

[ Parent ]
there's a tiny difference (2.00 / 2) (#369)
by Lode Runner on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 01:12:45 PM EST

I'm up front about my position. You generally are too, alphabit. But Fu pretends he's not partisan. Do you see the distinction?

[ Parent ]
Maybe (1.40 / 5) (#364)
by infoterror on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:49:15 PM EST

Different ethnic-cultural groups don't mix.

Arabs, Jews.
Europeans, Jews.
Americans, Arabs.

etc. ad nauseam. We keep trying to make "one big happy" but deny the fact that it requires each group to give up what makes it distinct. What is "anti-semitic" or "racist" about noticing this?
http://www.infoterror.com/

over-simplification (none / 1) (#366)
by backwards on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 11:06:57 PM EST

I think that you are sort of correct in that multi-ethnic societies are difficult to manage because of competing ethnic interests.

That said, your pairings are incredible over-simplifications and very arbitrary. Our societies are filled with these types of conflict.

Even within Israel's Jewish community there are significant between-group conflicts based on (a) religious denomination (none, reform, conservative, orthodox) and (b) between very recent immigrants and more established residents and (c) settlers and non-settlers.

[ Parent ]
The New Anti-Semitism Strikes Again | 373 comments (310 topical, 63 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!