Criticism of Israel

umghbcn smgrkx zwaox pdqmvfijo vxsrat yinzofqwc adcnfw

umghbcn smgrkx zwaox pdqmvfijo vxsrat yinzofqwc adcnfw

umghbcn smgrkx zwaox pdqmvfijo vxsrat yinzofqwc adcnfw

umghbcn smgrkx zwaox pdqmvfijo vxsrat yinzofqwc adcnfw

"the Palestinian issue will never die"

The word Palestinian has changed in meaning. It may change again. The issue comes from the last half of the last century and will not last to the last half of this century.

The 1st Century bit is a fantasy as are many elements in the late 20th Century "Palestinian" Story.

In the year 53b.c. these comments were heard on the streets of Jerusalem...
"so much hurt, so much pain, so many versions of the same story.. they hit us .. we hit them...
We fight to the death for a meager piece of land.. dirt.. sand.. we will not give it up and neither will they..."

Today is 2007.. and these sharp whispers still apply today.. the Palestinian issue will never die.. never. Its in our minds, our blood.. our heritage.. and our checkbooks... is this civilization??
who are the Barbarians..??

In the year 53b.c. these comments were heard on the streets of Jerusalem...
"so much hurt, so much pain, so many versions of the same story.. they hit us .. we hit them...
We fight to the death for a meager piece of land.. dirt.. sand.. we will not give it up and neither will they..."

Today is 2007.. and these sharp whispers still apply today.. the Palestinian issue will never die.. never. Its in our minds, our blood.. our heritage.. and our checkbooks... is this civilization??
who are the Barbarians..??

m742k

m742k

I am a Jew and I do not give Israel a free pass to do whatever it wants in the world.

I share a religion with the Israelis but I share something else as well - humanity. We're all human, we all have the capacity to make mistakes, including mistakes in the treatment of other humans.

I support Israel's right to defend itself from whatever small extremist minority wants to destroy it, but I have to wonder how effective its recent tactics have been, both militarily and in public relations terms.

It's natural to side with one's own people, to give them the benefit of the doubt. There used to be millions of Native Americans on the North American contintent. Now there aren't. Most Americans don't talk or indeed even think about this. How silly, to think that our people would do that! How silly to think that our people, our government commited.... genocide?

We all have good and bad in us. Pride in who we are is good, but we must not let it blind us to the potential for mistakes that resides in all people, even our own.

Well, I come back for a peak and the "same old same old" is still rampant.
Anonymous makes a good point. As i've said repeatedly, the fences and checkpoints would come down if the violence toward Israel would cease.

If a Hezbollah soldier were wounded and caught by Israelis, he would be treated medically to try and save his life. Turn the tables and the Israeli soldier would be killed and paraded as a prize.

Until the Arab moderates tamp down the forces of Hamas and Hezzbollah, there is no reason for Israel to let down it's guard.

And the U.S. should increase it's funding to help Israel prevail over these barbarians whose leaders use hatred of Israel to innoculate the masses against their utter incompetence and inability to create a viable economic and social model.

The sad truth of it all, if Hamas and Hezbolah were to disarm there would be peace but if the Israeli nation were to disarm there would be no Israel. That's the truth... I see nothing wrong with Israel defending itself do you?

This is from the Jews Against Zionism site.

"The leading commentators, such as Yefe Toiar [on the Midrash Rabba Shir HaShirim 2:7], explain that from the Midrash [Midrash Rabba Shir HaShirim 2:7] seems to be that even without rebellion and with permission from the nations, massive emigration and establishing a state is strictly forbidden, until the Messianic era comes, when all humanity will live in brotherhood and peace, serving the One and Only G-D. Almost all the Midrash is full with the idea that no redemption whatsoever will be possible until the coming of the Messiah and we don't know to be any dispute in the Midrash about this point."

I have the Soncino Press edition of Midrash Rabba Shir HaShirim 2:7 in front of me.

Rabbi Oshaia said the Holy One said wait for me and I will make you like the heavenly host.

Rabbi Judan in the name of Rabbi Meier said the Holy One said if you observe my oath I will make you like the heavenly host but if not I will make you like the lower host. [Like men. - Perhaps that happened after the Bar Kochba revolt which is mentioned as the third example of Israel defying the Holy One. Perhaps it happened earlier. Two revolts are mentioned before the Bar Kochba revolt.]

Rabbi Jose the son of Rabbi Hanina said there are two adjurations: one addressed to Israel to not rebel against the nations and one to the nations not to make their yoke too heavy on Israel as that would cause the end to come before it was due. {That could be viewed as what has happened and the Arabs could be viewed as having played a role in that since Baghdad is the site of the greatest Talmudic Academy and Jews were not allowed access to the holiest site in Judaism.]

Rabbi Chelbo said four adjurations are mentioned here:

1. Israel should not rebel against the governments.

2. Israel should not seek to hasten the end of times.

3. Israel should not reveal their mysteries to the other nations.

4. Israel should not attempt to return from the Diaspora until the Messiah has come. [That is construed by some Orthodox Jews to forbid the establishment of the modern state of Israel. However today as then most Jews are in the Diaspora.]

Rabbi Berekiah said when the Attribute of Justice shall please of itself the deliverance [of all human beings from slavery] will come.

Victoria,

I have said several times that it is odd you view what you are writing to me as discussion. If you and all the people you know have never even once encountered a Pro Israel Jew who is reasonable about it, how could I be different? And how can you have a discussion with someone you view as wholly unreasonable?

Now let us think about your website's explanations of the Talmud. I have pointed out that the site is flat out wrong about several things:

1. The words were not spoken by the person the site says spoke them.

2. They are not oaths for the Jewish people. There is no way the Jewish people can take an oath about what non Jews will do.

3. The principle established is not that Jews will not go to Israel as there was a Talmudic Academy in Jerusalem at the time.

4. The wall means the Jews are not to move en masse to Israel and they have not done so. Most Jews do not live in Israel and they do not have their bags packed.

The scriptural texts cited in the Talmud include the Song of Songs. Most people do not understand the Jewish allegorical understanding of that text.

I do not see how you infer from what I have written that I do not understand Jewish tradition. I own and have studied all the major commentaries on the Torah. I lead a Torah discussion group. I think I have also shown some understanding of Islam.

Now your view that my words are hostile while yours are those of a patient preson trying to understand do not match my sense of what words mean and how they are used. And I would be pretty surprised if my views on that differed from those of most people in LA and New York.

I was raised as a Jew before I found the true
spiritual road, but that is neither here nore
there.
Israel made many mistakes dealing with the
Palestinians, instead of knocking the homes
of terrorist's relatives they should have
been assisting in the financial well being
of the Palestinian people.
The surrounding Arab nations should have and
still can help the Palestinians create a viable
economy.
The citizens of Israel should have learnt a
lesson as per how hatred diminishes the hater
and emboldens the hated.
This is a true example as per why organized
religion should be abolished.

you leap to mountainous conclusions with the tiniest grain of information dave-

now, as to the talmudic info provided-
i can only assume you are not rally familiar with the great commentators.

ill post some for you as you must realize that the talmud is commentary on the torah
why not start at the beginning and go to the source then build outward?

as you didnt comment i can only assume my effort to present the rabbi-s interview was wasted.

also, as you insulted me unnecessarily, (and not the first time) and dont have the manners to address that (also not the first time) im thinking i am a fool to continue to discuss anything with someone who shows no respect.

Victoria,

First, I showed you what the Talmud says. So it is not I who is ignorant about what you call the three oaths.

Second, it is ignorant to think no Jew who supports Israel is reasonable about Israel.

I am not sure how hard a person is trying when they can not learn what Jews think after living in LA and NYC.

tonight there is a new series starting on PBS called america at a crossroads- it deals with muslims in america dealing with post 911 misapprehensions about islam
tonights subject is the formation of al qaeda and muslim extremists

i recommend it- learning is the best thing we can do- knowledge tends to wipe out old angers and prejudices

when we see each other as people and not 'others' we learn to be compassionate towards those whose views are different than our.

this is what i was hoping to establish and learn on this forum

here dave- look at this rabbi speaking-

right this minute im watching a pbs special about jewish persecution in nazi germany.

its all an effort to learn and understand

by the way dave-what efforts have YOU made to learn ANYTHING about the palestinians, or your muslim neighbors?

when you disagree with a persons politics you respond with angry insults, but will brook not the slightest critcism

what is the point of trying to be reasonable?

here, learn soemthing about your ownpeople and what they think

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/mediaclips/DombInterview.cfm?v=1QfgvDXsDds

what is the purpose of you saying this to me?

"And you do not view that as showing ignorance due to an inability to listen and learn?"

no dave- as ive indicated, im actively trying to find views that are reasonable.

how is that an inability to learn?
or worse ignorance?

why would you call someone names who is trying to learn?
wouldnt it be better if you offered some rational thoughts on the subject?

as for the 3 oaths- im not especially surprised you are nto aware of them, as youve shown no aptitude here for scriptural discussion.

so you insult one who actually tries to learn,
how can you expect anyone to work harder at finding an answer to understand your viewpoint,
when you wont bother to do anything to substantiate it.

but dont cry about anti-semitism every other post when you insult those who are open to dialogue and ask questions specifically TO LEARN
you shouldnt call me ignorant

thats just mean- it doesnt hide the fact that youve offered no reasons yourself

Victoria,

"no dave- i havent found any jewish people with a reasonable opinion about israel."

Except those who oppose Israel?

You have lived in LA and are in NYC and that is so?

How about the folks you know who share your views? Are they in the same place?

And you do not view that as showing ignorance due to an inability to listen and learn?

This was referred to several times a while back. I just got around to checking it out with the Talmud.

"What are these three oaths? One that Israel not “ascend the wall” [Rashi: together, by force]: one that the Holy One, Blessed be He, adjured Israel not to rebel against the nations of the world: and one that the Holy One, Blessed be He, adjured the nations of the world not to oppress Israel overmuch.
Bab. Talmud Ketubot 111a."

That is on several anti Israel sites. And its stupidity is oustanding. The debate in Babylon (Baghdad) was when there were Talmudic academies in Jerusalem and Baghdad. The issue was whether Jews in Israel should go to Babylon and Jews in Babylon go to Israel. The context is choosing between the academies. The recommendation was that Jews in Israel should stay in Israel and Jews in Babylon should stay in Babylon.

Per the Soncino edition.

The three adjurations were given by Rabbi Jose son of Rabbi Hanina.

1. Israel shall not go up [all together as if surrounded] by a wall.

2. Israel shall not rebel against the nations of the world.

3. God adjured the idolaters that they shall not oppress Israel too much.

That matches what the site says.

1. The children of Israel have not gone to Israel all together.

2. This is why Jews follow the laws of the nations they are in as long as they do not offend against God. That is the same God Christians and Mulsims worship as revealed in texts which they view as holy.

3. This is why the Arabs are in the mess they are in now.

After 1000 CE, rabbis have made various interpretations of that to address issues in the Diaspora. The mess with Sabbatai Zvi made rabbis very concerned about Jews taking up and moving to Israel on the advice of a would be Messiah. That has not happened. However there are Orthodox Jews who oppose the state of Israel on that basis.

Note that these are adjurations not oaths. And the third is to the nations not to the Jews. Jews have no control over whether the nations follow it. Clearly Jews are trying as hard as they can to convince the nations to follow it.

well, i dont like accusations dave, and try to keep away from them.

i found this statement that you made very biased and slanted and unfair-

"That does not mean each side is exactly equal in the above. Jews can freely discuss all kinds of things with little or no violence. Palestinians can not."

no dave- i havent found any jewish people with a reasonable opinion about israel.

like logical reasons that are apparent.

it always seems to be precluded by certain assumptions that non-jews dont hold.

if you know any good links id appreciate it.

i dont consider financial or military success to be indicators of any moral imperative.

i really am trying to understand- last night i watched a documentary dvd called protocols of zion by marc levin.

i was hoping for some edification, but the second half degenrated into pure muslim bashing and 911, and singing the star spangled banner at ground zero and whatever message there was to it, ended up pointing fingers and showing muslims like crazy maniacs.
it was a disappointment, but not unexpected.

if you have sources that are objective and present a clear statement without resorting to denigrating anyone- id be happy to see it.

dave we have women in black here every wednesday, and there are jewish women as well- but there arent any real israel love it or leave it types.

Victoria,

I thought you called me a bigot. Did I misunderstand you?

And living in NYC you can find no reasonable supporter of Israel? Or do I misunderstand you about that?

dave- THAT IS AN EXCERPT FROM YOUR POST!

YOU were the one doing the name calling!!!!!

Victoria,

That seems to be the whole basis for the reasoning many people use against Israel. Ignore the facts and pretend Palestinians are Jews and Jews are Nazis. The key is that you do not care that what you say does not fit the facts.

There is no logical way to deal with that kind of argument and name calling. So call people all of the names you like, ignore the facts, and imagine you and others like you are making the world a more peaceful place. I do not seek empty satisfaction such as that.

Victoria,

That seems to be the whole basis for the reasoning many people use against Israel. Ignore the facts and pretend Palestinians are Jews and Jews are Nazis. The key is that you do not care that what you say does not fit the facts.

There is no logical way to deal with that kind of argument and name calling. So call people all of the names you like, ignore the facts, and imagine you and others like you are making the world a more peaceful place. I do not to seek empty satisfaction such as that.

dave- its pretty clear what i did, indoctrinating people was not the issue-

that was your post, i just reversed the names so you could feel how truly bigoted a thing it is to claim.

as long as you keep thinking in such prejudiced extremes- how is it possible for you to be credible?

Victoria,

That is the kind of thinking that leads me to think folks like you are out to indoctrinate not discuss. You simply ignore facts. Where are Jews violently contesting things among themselves? And do you need me to help you find cases where Palestinians are? And how many Palestinians For Israel groups are there? Is it really true that no Palestinians anywhere can see Israel's side of things? And if so, what does it say about their readiness for true dialog?

dave - its statements like this that are so contrary to objectivity-

"That does not mean each side is exactly equal in the above. Palestinians can freely discuss all kinds of things with little or no violence. Jews can not."

would you agree that is a bigoted and extreme generalization of jews?

"That does not mean each side is exactly equal in the above. Jews can freely discuss all kinds of things with little or no violence. Palestinians can not."

its just as bigoted this way dave (which is what you wrote)

A reflexive there you go again being defensive and aggressive will not help the situation.

The interesting thing is that this is two way:

Someone talks about 15 million people controlling the world or Israel being racist and another person says that is anti-semitic. The person saying that "truth" about Jews and Israel dismisses the statement about anti-semitism as defensive and aggressive. That of course is no answer. So the person trying to make a point about anti-semitism dismisses the person attacking Israel as defensive and aggressive.

After endless repetitions of that, no one is any less ignorant than they were. This matter is handled by violence because there is massive ignorance and an aversion to carefully pursuing details and weighing probabilities that various allegations are correct. There is also an assumption by both sides that you can not trust the other side's sources of information.

There is much mutuality in these back and forth Pro Anti exchanges:

People on both sides are sure they are right.

[I am referring to many of the most active and energetic exponents. People like Dershowitz and Carter.]

People on both sides are sure their opponents are ignorant and thereby bigoted.

People on both sides endlessly repeat things from their side's collection of arguments.

People on both sides are sure they know what is going on in each other's heads.

That does not mean each side is exactly equal in the above. Jews can freely discuss all kinds of things with little or no violence. Palestinians can not. Free discussion advances truth and violence does not. So contrary to what folks like Carter think, the folks who agree with him reason less well and have less accurate information overall than the folks he says are ignorant. There is however still abundant ignorance.

One of the things that amazes me about Palestinians and their supporters is what they say about the lives of the Palestinians:

Listening to them you would think that Palestinians can accomplish nothing because they all suffer from massive Post Traumatic Distress Syndrome. They seem like a nation of victims who are far less able than Jews were when they were widely persecuted. Yet Palestinians do accomplish things. It is simply hard to find out what they are doing that is positive. You would think all Palestinians are alike but I know from the small amount of research I have done that some folks in some cities in the West Bank are much more successful than people in Gaza and the many refugee camps. It seems to me that there are two Nabluses. The thriving municipality and the camps. And I think that is a common pattern. Yet all we hear from Carter et. al. is about the horrors of the camps.

Israel's security measures are a mess that must be addressed. American Jews are often frustrated with the lack of creativity in what Israel is doing for security. But the people in Israel know what is going on with the Palestinians far better than occasional visitors like Carter or people like me who sit securely and read about it.

Pere,

Am I correct that you agree with me about the repetitive posts?

It seems to me that people who are not anti-semitic can say some of those things without thinking through what they are saying. How can you deal with that except by pointing out that what they have said could be construed as anti-semitic? And if it can be so construed, how can folks be outraged when someone thinks the person saying it is anti-semitic?

It is not as if most people give huge amounts of careful thought to everything they think and say. So it seems to me a person who feels maligned could give an explanation of why they say it and what they mean by it. A reflexive there you go again being defensive and aggressive will not help the situation.

dave I'm back...and here to help. Look anti-Semite hate talk is not what we need....As much as I disagree with some points about the politics of Israel. The kind of hate that can erupt is non productive... Dialog and peace is the answer...the Jews rule the world and the rhetoric that is behind that is wrong....I disagree with a lot of things but when people say things with a hateful undertone it just perpetuates the problem

Instead of yelling that the Jews do this and that ...which by the way is why Zionist felt that Israel was needed in the first place. We should find a common denominator and love everyone.

Stop Bigotry...in Israelis or anywhere.

Dave this is why using anti-semitism every time when criticizing Israel is dangerous because when we need it, it might fall on deaf ears....

Wow! Seven copies of the same anti-semitic post ostensibly from three different people. There is power.

I guess that is the kind of mild dissent that is not allowed a hearing except in obscure places like this Washington Post / Newsweek site. Ah the joys of power.

You can be critical of every thing from communism, terrorism, government, gays even the creator God who gave us the very knowledge but you dare not be critical of the mighty Jews people or state of Israel.

I do not understand why American's love the Jews so much that they follow all their orders blindly, get their sons die for their war, give all their money and gets nothing but the whole world yes the rest of the world including the Europeans hate them.

Americans are the real looser may be some day there would be another painful repeat of history in European Jews.

Look at the numbers:

1. Jews populatioin is only about 15 million and rest of the world over 6 billion people, what is the percentage.

2. Over 1 billion Muslims, 1 billion Indian, 1 billion Chinese.

3. Muslims sits over oil and they should control the world policy but who does it by proxy - the Jews. India has the brain power, look at US softwar industry, and China - they make every thing, yes every thing for the world.

5. In America they are about 5 million Jews but 10 million Muslims - where they are, brand them terrorist so Jews can be worshipped. China is evil without human rights, India they are half communist eat with hands, so Jews is the only friend of America.

6. 5 Billion in guns and money goes to Israel more than the rest of the world gets from the USA annually, why..

7. What America get in return, enemy of the Arabs, lost of friends in Europe, Bin Laden, 600,000 killed in Iraq (Jews wanted Saddan to be killed). 120,000 death in Afghanistan so oil pine can go to Israel from central Asia. World Trade centre death of 3000 Americans and humiliation of America around the world when their president travels.

8. What America really gets is nothing, Israel got no oil, no population like Muslim world of 1 billion consumers. China is the richest nation soon in terms of production and India the the power at the door.

9. American Jews dominated media would loss controld someday the Internet will bring the truth to every American home and the the history will repeat again as in Europe, this is sad for humanity but this about greed and drive for money. Poor America they do not understand what Europeans knew long ago, but obviously killing is not an option but they should choose the right friend it should the the Indians, Chinese and Muslims, they all controld brain, money and old together not the Jews.

Jews conspricy or whatever you say the fact Americans are naive to talk they are scare to death to be critical of Israel or Jews, they are same as early days Europeans afrid to talk, if one leader like Jimmy Carter comes to power that knows the facts about Jews or Ford (found of Ford motors) will be change todays Jews control of American power and the bad consequence. You can fool some time somebody you can not fool all time every body.

Choose wrong friend in long run, you run out of the game, who wins, China, - you stupid.

You can be critical of every thing from communism, terrorism, government, gays even the creator God who gave us the very knowledge but you dare not be critical of the mighty Jews people or state of Israel.

I do not understand why American's love the Jews so much that they follow all their orders blindly, get their sons die for their war, give all their money and gets nothing but the whole world yes the rest of the world including the Europeans hate them.

Americans are the real looser may be some day there would be another painful repeat of history in European Jews.

Look at the numbers:

1. Jews populatioin is only about 15 million and rest of the world over 6 billion people, what is the percentage.

2. Over 1 billion Muslims, 1 billion Indian, 1 billion Chinese.

3. Muslims sits over oil and they should control the world policy but who does it by proxy - the Jews. India has the brain power, look at US softwar industry, and China - they make every thing, yes every thing for the world.

5. In America they are about 5 million Jews but 10 million Muslims - where they are, brand them terrorist so Jews can be worshipped. China is evil without human rights, India they are half communist eat with hands, so Jews is the only friend of America.

6. 5 Billion in guns and money goes to Israel more than the rest of the world gets from the USA annually, why..

7. What America get in return, enemy of the Arabs, lost of friends in Europe, Bin Laden, 600,000 killed in Iraq (Jews wanted Saddan to be killed). 120,000 death in Afghanistan so oil pine can go to Israel from central Asia. World Trade centre death of 3000 Americans and humiliation of America around the world when their president travels.

8. What America really gets is nothing, Israel got no oil, no population like Muslim world of 1 billion consumers. China is the richest nation soon in terms of production and India the the power at the door.

9. American Jews dominated media would loss controld someday the Internet will bring the truth to every American home and the the history will repeat again as in Europe, this is sad for humanity but this about greed and drive for money. Poor America they do not understand what Europeans knew long ago, but obviously killing is not an option but they should choose the right friend it should the the Indians, Chinese and Muslims, they all controld brain, money and old together not the Jews.

Jews conspricy or whatever you say the fact Americans are naive to talk they are scare to death to be critical of Israel or Jews, they are same as early days Europeans afrid to talk, if one leader like Jimmy Carter comes to power that knows the facts about Jews or Ford (found of Ford motors) will be change todays Jews control of American power and the bad consequence. You can fool some time somebody you can not fool all time every body.

Choose wrong friend in long run, you run out of the game, who wins, China, - you stupid.

You can be critical of every thing from communism, terrorism, government, gays even the creator God who gave us the very knowledge but you dare not be critical of the mighty Jews people or state of Israel.

I do not understand why American's love the Jews so much that they follow all their orders blindly, get their sons die for their war, give all their money and gets nothing but the whole world yes the rest of the world including the Europeans hate them.

Americans are the real looser may be some day there would be another painful repeat of history in European Jews.

Look at the numbers:

1. Jews populatioin is only about 15 million and rest of the world over 6 billion people, what is the percentage.

2. Over 1 billion Muslims, 1 billion Indian, 1 billion Chinese.

3. Muslims sits over oil and they should control the world policy but who does it by proxy - the Jews. India has the brain power, look at US softwar industry, and China - they make every thing, yes every thing for the world.

5. In America they are about 5 million Jews but 10 million Muslims - where they are, brand them terrorist so Jews can be worshipped. China is evil without human rights, India they are half communist eat with hands, so Jews is the only friend of America.

6. 5 Billion in guns and money goes to Israel more than the rest of the world gets from the USA annually, why..

7. What America get in return, enemy of the Arabs, lost of friends in Europe, Bin Laden, 600,000 killed in Iraq (Jews wanted Saddan to be killed). 120,000 death in Afghanistan so oil pine can go to Israel from central Asia. World Trade centre death of 3000 Americans and humiliation of America around the world when their president travels.

8. What America really gets is nothing, Israel got no oil, no population like Muslim world of 1 billion consumers. China is the richest nation soon in terms of production and India the the power at the door.

9. American Jews dominated media would loss controld someday the Internet will bring the truth to every American home and the the history will repeat again as in Europe, this is sad for humanity but this about greed and drive for money. Poor America they do not understand what Europeans knew long ago, but obviously killing is not an option but they should choose the right friend it should the the Indians, Chinese and Muslims, they all controld brain, money and old together not the Jews.

Jews conspricy or whatever you say the fact Americans are naive to talk they are scare to death to be critical of Israel or Jews, they are same as early days Europeans afrid to talk, if one leader like Jimmy Carter comes to power that knows the facts about Jews or Ford (found of Ford motors) will be change todays Jews control of American power and the bad consequence. You can fool some time somebody you can not fool all time every body.

Choose wrong friend in long run, you run out of the game, who wins, China, - you stupid.

You can be critical of every thing from communism, terrorism, government, gays even the creator God who gave us the very knowledge but you dare not be critical of the mighty Jews people or state of Israel.

I do not understand why American's love the Jews so much that they follow all their orders blindly, get their sons die for their war, give all their money and gets nothing but the whole world yes the rest of the world including the Europeans hate them.

Americans are the real looser may be some day there would be another painful repeat of history in European Jews.

Look at the numbers:

1. Jews populatioin is only about 15 million and rest of the world over 6 billion people, what is the percentage.

2. Over 1 billion Muslims, 1 billion Indian, 1 billion Chinese.

3. Muslims sits over oil and they should control the world policy but who does it by proxy - the Jews. India has the brain power, look at US softwar industry, and China - they make every thing, yes every thing for the world.

5. In America they are about 5 million Jews but 10 million Muslims - where they are, brand them terrorist so Jews can be worshipped. China is evil without human rights, India they are half communist eat with hands, so Jews is the only friend of America.

6. 5 Billion in guns and money goes to Israel more than the rest of the world gets from the USA annually, why..

7. What America get in return, enemy of the Arabs, lost of friends in Europe, Bin Laden, 600,000 killed in Iraq (Jews wanted Saddan to be killed). 120,000 death in Afghanistan so oil pine can go to Israel from central Asia. World Trade centre death of 3000 Americans and humiliation of America around the world when their president travels.

8. What America really gets is nothing, Israel got no oil, no population like Muslim world of 1 billion consumers. China is the richest nation soon in terms of production and India the the power at the door.

9. American Jews dominated media would loss controld someday the Internet will bring the truth to every American home and the the history will repeat again as in Europe, this is sad for humanity but this about greed and drive for money. Poor America they do not understand what Europeans knew long ago, but obviously killing is not an option but they should choose the right friend it should the the Indians, Chinese and Muslims, they all controld brain, money and old together not the Jews.

Jews conspricy or whatever you say the fact Americans are naive to talk they are scare to death to be critical of Israel or Jews, they are same as early days Europeans afrid to talk, if one leader like Jimmy Carter comes to power that knows the facts about Jews or Ford (found of Ford motors) will be change todays Jews control of American power and the bad consequence. You can fool some time somebody you can not fool all time every body.

Choose wrong friend in long run, you run out of the game, who wins, China, - you stupid.

You can be critical of every thing from communism, terrorism, government, gays even the creator God who gave us the very knowledge but you dare not be critical of the mighty Jews people or state of Israel.

I do not understand why American's love the Jews so much that they follow all their orders blindly, get their sons die for their war, give all their money and gets nothing but the whole world yes the rest of the world including the Europeans hate them.

Americans are the real looser may be some day there would be another painful repeat of history in European Jews.

Look at the numbers:

1. Jews populatioin is only about 15 million and rest of the world over 6 billion people, what is the percentage.

2. Over 1 billion Muslims, 1 billion Indian, 1 billion Chinese.

3. Muslims sits over oil and they should control the world policy but who does it by proxy - the Jews. India has the brain power, look at US softwar industry, and China - they make every thing, yes every thing for the world.

5. In America they are about 5 million Jews but 10 million Muslims - where they are, brand them terrorist so Jews can be worshipped. China is evil without human rights, India they are half communist eat with hands, so Jews is the only friend of America.

6. 5 Billion in guns and money goes to Israel more than the rest of the world gets from the USA annually, why..

7. What America get in return, enemy of the Arabs, lost of friends in Europe, Bin Laden, 600,000 killed in Iraq (Jews wanted Saddan to be killed). 120,000 death in Afghanistan so oil pine can go to Israel from central Asia. World Trade centre death of 3000 Americans and humiliation of America around the world when their president travels.

8. What America really gets is nothing, Israel got no oil, no population like Muslim world of 1 billion consumers. China is the richest nation soon in terms of production and India the the power at the door.

9. American Jews dominated media would loss controld someday the Internet will bring the truth to every American home and the the history will repeat again as in Europe, this is sad for humanity but this about greed and drive for money. Poor America they do not understand what Europeans knew long ago, but obviously killing is not an option but they should choose the right friend it should the the Indians, Chinese and Muslims, they all controld brain, money and old together not the Jews.

Jews conspricy or whatever you say the fact Americans are naive to talk they are scare to death to be critical of Israel or Jews, they are same as early days Europeans afrid to talk, if one leader like Jimmy Carter comes to power that knows the facts about Jews or Ford (found of Ford motors) will be change todays Jews control of American power and the bad consequence. You can fool some time somebody you can not fool all time every body.

Choose wrong friend in long run, you run out of the game, who wins, China, - you stupid.

You can be critical of every thing from communism, terrorism, government, gays even the creator God who gave us the very knowledge but you dare not be critical of the mighty Jews people or state of Israel.

I do not understand why American's love the Jews so much that they follow all their orders blindly, get their sons die for their war, give all their money and gets nothing but the whole world yes the rest of the world including the Europeans hate them.

Americans are the real looser may be some day there would be another painful repeat of history in European Jews.

Look at the numbers:

1. Jews populatioin is only about 15 million and rest of the world over 6 billion people, what is the percentage.

2. Over 1 billion Muslims, 1 billion Indian, 1 billion Chinese.

3. Muslims sits over oil and they should control the world policy but who does it by proxy - the Jews. India has the brain power, look at US softwar industry, and China - they make every thing, yes every thing for the world.

5. In America they are about 5 million Jews but 10 million Muslims - where they are, brand them terrorist so Jews can be worshipped. China is evil without human rights, India they are half communist eat with hands, so Jews is the only friend of America.

6. 5 Billion in guns and money goes to Israel more than the rest of the world gets from the USA annually, why..

7. What America get in return, enemy of the Arabs, lost of friends in Europe, Bin Laden, 600,000 killed in Iraq (Jews wanted Saddan to be killed). 120,000 death in Afghanistan so oil pine can go to Israel from central Asia. World Trade centre death of 3000 Americans and humiliation of America around the world when their president travels.

8. What America really gets is nothing, Israel got no oil, no population like Muslim world of 1 billion consumers. China is the richest nation soon in terms of production and India the the power at the door.

9. American Jews dominated media would loss controld someday the Internet will bring the truth to every American home and the the history will repeat again as in Europe, this is sad for humanity but this about greed and drive for money. Poor America they do not understand what Europeans knew long ago, but obviously killing is not an option but they should choose the right friend it should the the Indians, Chinese and Muslims, they all controld brain, money and old together not the Jews.

Jews conspricy or whatever you say the fact Americans are naive to talk they are scare to death to be critical of Israel or Jews, they are same as early days Europeans afrid to talk, if one leader like Jimmy Carter comes to power that knows the facts about Jews or Ford (found of Ford motors) will be change todays Jews control of American power and the bad consequence. You can fool some time somebody you can not fool all time every body.

Choose wrong friend in long run, you run out of the game, who wins, China, - you stupid.

You can be critical of every thing from communism, terrorism, government, gays even the creator God who gave us the very knowledge but you dare not be critical of the mighty Jews people or state of Israel.

I do not understand why American's love the Jews so much that they follow all their orders blindly, get their sons die for their war, give all their money and gets nothing but the whole world yes the rest of the world including the Europeans hate them.

Americans are the real looser may be some day there would be another painful repeat of history in European Jews.

Look at the numbers:

1. Jews populatioin is only about 15 million and rest of the world over 6 billion people, what is the percentage.

2. Over 1 billion Muslims

3. Muslims sits over oil and they should control the world policy but who does it by proxy - the Jews.

5. In America they are about 5 million Jews but 10 million Muslims - where they are, brand them terrorist so Jews can be worshipped.

6. 5 Billion in guns and money goes to Israel more than the rest of the world gets from the USA annually, why..

7. What America get in return, enemy of the Arabs, lost of friends in Europe, Bin Laden, 600,000 killed in Iraq (Jews wanted Saddan to be killed). 120,000 death in Afghanistan so oil pine can go to Israel from central Asia. World Trade centre death of 3000 Americans and humiliation of America around the world when their president travels.

8. What America really gets is nothing, Israel got no oil, no population like Muslim world of 1 billion consumers.

9. American Jews dominated media would loss controld someday the Internet will bring the truth to every American home and the the history will repeat again as in Europe, this is sad for humanity but this about greed and drive for money. Poor America they do not understand what Europeans knew long ago, but obviously killing is not an option but they should choose the right friend it should the the Indians, Chinese and Muslims, they all controld brain, money and old together not the Jews.

Choose wrong friend in long run, you run out who wins, China, - you stupid.

"then the beginning of peaceful dialogue starts with you admitting the palestinans have a right to exist."

Palestinians have the right to exist, flourish as best they may, call on all of us to help them flourish, and define themeselves as a separate people. Which Jewish leaders have objected to that?

"and to concede that israel has interfered with their rights to exist by cordoning them off into refugee camps for 50 years."

That is not my understanding. Jenin and Nablus are cities and there are refugee camps there. I do not think Israel has forced people to stay in the camps rather than integrating themselves into the cities. Why haven't they integrated themselves into cities? Nablus seems like a well run, reasonably prosperous place.

"or at least at some point admitting that israel has not always been fair in its treatment of palestinians."

That is so. Which Jewish leaders deny that?

"or at the very least, to stop denying that they are even a race- or a cohesive body that deserves recognition."

I do not see how you can define the people you refer to as a race. Race has been used to refer to groups such as Caucasians, Blacks, and Asians based on physical differences. I think you mean ethnicity. This is from the Britannica:

"Although they are easily and often confused, race and racism must be distinguished from ethnicity and ethnocentrism. While extreme ethnocentrism may take the same offensive form and may have the same dire consequences as extreme racism, there are significant differences between the two concepts. Ethnicity, which relates to culturally contingent features, characterizes all human groups. It refers to a sense of identity and membership in a group that shares common language, cultural traits (values, beliefs, religion, customs, etc.), and a sense of a common history. All humans are members of some cultural (ethnic) group, sometimes more than one. Most such groups feel—to varying degrees of intensity—that their way of life, their foods, dress, habits, beliefs, values, and so forth, are superior to those of other groups.

The most significant quality of ethnicity is the fact that it is unrelated to biology and can be flexible and transformable. People everywhere can change or enhance their ethnicity by learning about or assimilating into another culture."

The Palestianians have developed a unique ethnicity just as the Jews have. So you could argue have New Yorkers, Brooklynites, Chicagoans, San Franciscans and others. It is a very loose term.

It would be helpful to stop talking as if the Palestinians are black and the Jews are white.

"Race, on the other hand, is a form of identity that is perceived as innate and unalterable. Ethnicity may be transient and even superficial. Race is thought to be profound and grounded in biological realities. Ethnocentrism is based in a belief in the superiority of one's own culture over others, and it too may be transient and superficial. Racism is the belief in and promotion of the racial worldview described above. Ethnocentrism holds skin colour and other physical features to be irrelevant as long as one is a member of the same culture, or becomes so. The racial worldview holds that, regardless of behaviour or cultural similarities, a member of an inferior race (who is usually perceived to be so by means of physical features) can never be accepted. Race is an invented, fictional form of identity; ethnicity is based on the reality of cultural similarities and differences and the interests that they represent."

"race." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 11 Apr. 2007 http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-234663

good dave- keep it simple.

then the beginning of peaceful dialogue starts with you admitting the palestinans have a right to exist.

and to concede that israel has interfered with their rights to exist by cordoning them off into refugee camps for 50 years.

or at least at some point admitting that israel has not always been fair in its treatment of palestinians.

or at the very least, to stop denying that they are even a race- or a cohesive body that deserves recognition.

i guess the whole process would start if at some point you admit the palestinians exist, and stop denying they are valid.

Pere,

Everyone except some of the militia and settlers sees the madness of this. Most Jews have seen that for years.

What I am trying to do is far more difficult. I am trying to get at the rationality of it. I do that by saying what my analysis shows and trying to figure out why people who are very sure, based on what to me is insufficient evidence, are the way they are.

That is why I will not supply generalizations to match anti Israel generalizations. Dershowitz and Carter are both brilliant and decent men with much skill at argument and they have been getting nowhere for years via the competing generalizations route. Note that I am not blanket quoting Pro Israel sources because they feel they have no choice but to respond to generalizations with counter generalizations.

This is Marshak's Law. Simple ways of looking at things drive complexity and nuance out of the marketplace of ideas.

Thank you Victoria...peace unto you too :}

peace to you pere', your posts have been focused and informative.

Dave I have many friends who disagree and whom I care for an respect very much...my Jewish friends and my friends who are very fundmentally in favor of Israel and you. I think you have many valid and worth while points..It is not all black and white and thats my point. I feel that a true peace will evolve when all sides of this conflict see the madness of it. But, since this is a post about Israel I have tried to stay focused on that.

I really wish you peace. Even though you and I disagree dramatically on many parts i would never wish you anything but happiness and peace. I dont see violence of hatred of others as productive.

I worry for all of our children. But I do believe that all children need better from the adults in this conflict.

this will be my last oost...Shalom and thanks for all your perspectives.

Pere,

My attempts at dialog here clearly are not working. Is there anyone anywhere who disagrees with you about Israel and you view as promoting dialog?

Dave I wish you and all those you hold important peace. I realize that divergent views are ok. Those postings were very nice. The problem that I have with this conflict is the lack of middle ground from powerful groups such as the fellowship of Christians and Jews and AIPAC etc. They seem to only project their side of the conflict. I know there are many Jewish Groups and others promoting dialog. That is the only way to resolve this conflict. it won't come with the extremes at any end of the spectrum. As to you Shalom and peace.

I hope you can criticize any government and not be labeled, freedom of expression is the way to peace. Israel has many vibrant voices reaching out, we just need to hear a balanced approach here.

"Come, Come again
Whoever you are
Whether you are infidel,idolater or wanderer
Whether you have broken your vows a hundred times
Ours is not a caravan of despair
This is the gate of hope
Come, come yet again, come"

"Our mother is love! Our father is love!
We are born from love! We are love!
All loves constitute a bridge leading to the divine love.
To love human beings means to love GOD."

"When you do things from your soul,
you feel a river moving in you, a joy.

When actions come from another section,
the feeling disappears.

Don’t let others lead you. They may be blind,
or worse, vultures. Reach for the rope
of God. And what is that?

Putting aside self-will.

Because of willfulness people sit in jail.
From willfulness, the trapped birds’ wings are tied.
From willfulness, the fish sizzles in the skillet.

Don’t insist on going where you think you want to go.
Ask the way to the Spring.

Your living pieces will form a harmony.

There is moving palace that floats through the air,
with balconies and clear water running in every part of it,
infinity everywhere, yet contained under a single tent."

Rumi

"Lord of Peace, Divine Ruler, to whom peace belongs! Master of Peace, Creator of all things!

May it be thy will to put an end to war and bloodshed on earth, and to spread a great and wonderful peace over the whole world, so that nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

Help us and save us all, and let us cling tightly to the virtue of peace. Let there be a truly great peace between every person and their fellow, and between husband and wife, and let there be no discord between people even in their hearts.

Let us never shame any person on earth, great or small. May it be granted unto us to fulfill Thy Commandment to "Love thy neighbor as thyself," with all our hearts and souls and bodies and possessions.

And let it come to pass in our time as it is written, "And I will give peace in the land, and you shall lie down and none shall make you afraid. I will drive the wild beasts from the land, and neither shall the sword go through your land.

God who is peace, bless us with peace !!!

(Attributed to Rabbi Nachman ben Feiga of Breslov, 1773-1810)"

in honor of our christian friends, i have laways loved this poem-

Saint Francis's Prayer for Peace!

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace:
Where there is hatred, let me sow love:
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
Where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master, grant that I may not
So much seek to be consoled
As to console,
To be understood as to understand,
To be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive,
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
And it is in dying that we are born
to eternal life.

Saint Francis

What about these folks? I don't know much about them. I don't think they are AIPAC approved.

"The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews was founded in 1983 to promote understanding and cooperation between Jews and Christians and to build broad support for Israel and other shared concerns. Our vision is that Jews and Christians will reverse their 2,000-year history of discord and replace it with a relationship marked by dialogue, understanding, respect and cooperation.

Based in Chicago and Jerusalem, The Fellowship operates under the leadership of Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, and is governed by an independent board of directors, people from both faith groups who share our strong belief in building bridges between the Christian and Jewish communities."

This is from the Nablus website. Why is Nablus unique?

"Nablus Municipality is currently considered one of the largest organizations in Palestine in terms of volume of services it provides, the projects it carries out, and the number of local staff it employs. Nablus Municipality is one of the major employers in Palestine and it is the main driving force behind development process of the Nablus city. Among its major accomplishments are the establishment of Child Cultural Centers, public parks, the preservation of Nablus cultural and historic heritage project namely; remodeling of old city, and the commercial center which is considered one of the economic and architectural land marks in Palestine. During this period, the city was suffering the lack of water resources crisis especially in the summer time. The municipal council was determined to take the challenge through digging water wells to meet not only the need of Nablus citizens, but it also provides water to the neighboring towns and villages."

Victoria,

Well, I was talking about the things you have been posting today and in the last few days not just the one post you wrote. And you did say:

"even when dave tries to take the conversation elsewhere-"

Which is just one of a long string of making it about me statements while you avoid the ideas I am talking about.

"dave, do you know what the 3 oaths are?"

That is from the Talmud. The Talmud is a collection of arguments about and explanations of the Mishnah and the Torah. The Mishnah recorded an oral tradition that went back to Aaron. There are many arguments and all are recorded. If your view was the only correct view, there would be no Israel. The Mishnah and Torah do not have the 3 oaths.

dave- i know for sure now you dont read my posts- heres what i wrote-

"sorry i started a thought but cant elaborate right now ill come back to it- "

i wasnt asking you anything-
i didnt criticize anything-

i was bringing up a point that i started earlier-
a continuity of thought

how on EARTH when it had nothing to do with you do you interpret that im criticizing or insulting you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Why do you think it advances your cause to continually criticize me and insult me? Are you proving to yourselves and those who think as you do that all who disagree with you are inferior? I have encountered that before. It seems like the worst possible way to try to peacefully settle anything."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

i wasnt even addressing anything to you!

where is the insult????

honestly dave- go read what i posted-

i asked you if you wanted to go from a scriptural base- you posted some very very basic scripture-

i started getting a tiny bit into it-

if you dont want to or cant do scripture- just say so!!!

mercy what are you going on about??

or if your posting something pere said- identify it!

im not pere!

conversatins arent catchall to whom it may concern

my goodness if you dont want to do scripture fine! just say so- this post makes no sense at all-

whats this all about?
"hen we get Muslims thinking they are experts on the Talmud and can reasdily understand what Jews spend lifetimes figuring out."

what kind of bigoted statement is that?

if you cant handle scripture - ok- but theres no call for any assumptions you make-

you really REALLY dont know anything about my background- at all-

i guess your philosophy is to be on the offensive so people must defend themsleves- or else pretend an injury that never happened-

either way theyre both distractions from the conversation.

get a grip dave- no one is attacking you-
and insulting someone pre-emptively is just ill mannered.

"However, Dave you seem to always turn this into a one sided dialog. Where I believe that it needs to be resolved by both parties. You always rationalize and your Bias is very evident."

That is why there are no useful discussions about these things by anyone. People agressively misread what is said to them just as you do with what I write. That forces people such as Dershowitz to make the case for Israel to deal with all the misinformation that is pushed as truth. And that feeds into the idea that these matters are simpler than they are. Then we get Muslims thinking they are experts on the Talmud and can reasdily understand what Jews spend lifetimes figuring out.

"I also find it interesting that you bash Carter and say he is an anti-Semite"

That is not true. You can not distinguish between the man and the statements he makes. Stupid statements do not show he is stupid about everything.

Victoria and Pere,

Why do you think it advances your cause to continually criticize me and insult me? Are you proving to yourselves and those who think as you do that all who disagree with you are inferior? I have encountered that before. It seems like the worst possible way to try to peacefully settle anything.

"Your hatred for the Palestinians is very evident in your posts. You deny their existence and perpetuate the party line that Israel can do no wrong."

That is Jimmy Carter bias. Those who disgree with him must hate the Palestinians. He can not conceive of the possibility that he could simply be wrong about some things.

I do not deny their existence. I question when all the Arabs who live in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel and only those Arabs came to be referred to as the Palestinians. And you have given no answer. In fact your post shows you do not even recognize that I have asked the question.

Are we going to go back and forth like this with your accusations getting wilder and wilder?

"You continue to propose that Arabs are evil and they were just squatting for 2000 years and that they could be absorbed by other..liken to ethnic cleansing....That Israel is only for Jews....forget the Christians that were once Jews or the Muslims that were also converted..."

I have not said that. You are talking to an image in your head. What widely respected Jewish leader has said that?

sorry i started a thought but cant elaborate right now ill come back to it- even when dave tries to take the conversation elsewhere-

Dt. 15:5 If you but heed the voice of the LORD, your God, and carefully observe all these commandments which I enjoin on you today, 6you will lend to many nations, and borrow from none; you will rule over many nations, and none will rule over you, since the LORD, your God, will bless you as he promised.

clearly this is not the case with israel which is millions upon millions of dollars in debt to the united states, of which it pays none back, even the interest alone amounts to millions.

The ten commandments is one of the writings that the three religions adhere to. Since you so frequently mention old testament writings I believe then ..."Thou shall not kill" is the standard we all should adhere to..And you can make a case for converting others homes...

The eviction of others from their homes is an interesting phenomena and modern day Israel is where people were displaced from their homes... as stated earlier by force or psychological means. Since evangelical Christians and Zionists claim that Israel (modern) is a biblical right; than how are they going to reconcile the fact that their actions are against other people. Thus violating the commandments that they share in common with those who they are violating.

I know that on the other side they are not holding up their part either.

However, Dave you seem to always turn this into a one sided dialog. Where I believe that it needs to be resolved by both parties. You always rationalize and your Bias is very evident. I believe in a two state solution where there is equal opportunities for both sides to thrive.

I also find it interesting that you bash Carter and say he is an anti-Semite, then you quote him ... Your hatred for the Palestinians is very evident in your posts. You deny their existence and perpetuate the party line that Israel can do no wrong. I believe in a Israel is free abd can be a home to all people. Also one that is not evolving into military state and where each of their children ( Arab and Jewish)grow into loving adults. You continue to propose that Arabs are evil and they were just squatting for 2000 years and that they could be absorbed by other..liken to ethnic cleansing....That Israel is only for Jews....forget the Christians that were once Jews or the Muslims that were also converted...

I keep saying PEACE is the answer and you keep avoiding it saying that I think my way is the only way...I reality I believe that the only way is through peace and a peace that is realistic. There seems to be open minded people in Israel and they want a better life. In the US those who want a just peace for both sides get labeled anti-
Israel a code word so anti-Semites. The problem is I love the Jewish people and I support Israel's right to exist, But,my thoughts are if is no peace for the Palestinians how can one have hope for a better future.

The ten commandments is one of the writings that the three religions adhere to. Since you so frequently mention old testament writings I believe then ..."Thou shall not kill" is the standard we all should adhere to..And you can make a case for converting others homes...

The eviction of others from their homes is an interesting phenomena and modern day Israel is where people were displaced from their homes... as stated earlier by force or psychological means. Since evangelical Christians and Zionists claim that Israel (modern) is a biblical right; than how are they going to reconcile the fact that their actions are against other people. Thus violating the commandments that they share in common with those who they are violating.

I know that on the other side they are not holding up their part either.

However, Dave you seem to always turn this into a one sided dialog. Where I believe that it needs to be resolved by both parties. You always rationalize and your Bias is very evident. I believe in a two state solution where there is equal opportunities for both sides to thrive.

I also find it interesting that you bash Carter and say he is an anti-Semite, then you quote him ... Your hatred for the Palestinians is very evident in your posts. You deny their existence and perpetuate the party line that Israel can do no wrong. I believe in a Israel that is not evolving into military state and where each of their children ( Arab and Jewish)grow into loving adults. You continue to propose that Arabs are evil and they were just squatting for 2000 years and that they could be absorbed by other..liken to ethnic cleansing....That Israel is only for Jews....forget the Christians that were once Jews or the Muslims that were also converted...

I keep saying PEACE is the answer and you keep avoiding it saying that I think my way is the only way...I reality I believe that the only way is through peace and a peace that is realistic. There seems to be open minded people in Israel and they want a better life. In the US those who want a just peace for both sides get labeled anti-
Israel a code word so anti-Semites. The problem is I love the Jewish people and I support Israel's right to exist, But,my thoughts are if is no peace for the Palestinians how can one have hope for a better future.

yes dave, were all pretty familiar with these, thats why i requested commentaries post diaspora-

this is an easy watch-

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/mediaclips/DombInterview.cfm?v=1QfgvDXsDds

dave, do you know what the 3 oaths are?

you know that god asked abraham to make a choice between gehenna and salvation for his people?

the choice of salvation carried with it an indeterminate time of dispersion which could only be rectified by god-

there are certain conditions that must be present for this to happen- the coming of mossiach and subsequent rebuilding of the temple-

this is it in a nutshell-

the diaspora was a way of protecting the jewish people from their enemies if they were concentrated physically it would be easier to decimate them, also they were spreading in their exile te words of god.

n additional factor that contributed to the negation of practical efforts to return to Zion was the updating of the Jeremian paradigm( 22 'They will be taken to Babylon and there they will remain until the day I come for them,' declares the LORD. 'Then I will bring them back and restore them to this place.') "

Footnotes: by which Jews were encouraged to be passive and await G-d’s appointed time to bring the people back from exile. Strictly speaking, there was no discouragement against individual Jews acting on the strength of their feelings and going to live out their life in “Zion.” The problem, from a theological point of view, was viewed in collective terms. The community as a whole, it was taught, was forbidden to take collective steps to return. To do so would be to rebel against G-d, whose sole decision it was, it will be remembered, to decide on the date of the deliverance and the return.

There were a number of ways that the “prohibition” against the return was explained. The most popular seems to be that invoked by the three oaths which Israel was said to have taken when they accepted the punishment of exile. The details (and the text most popularly quoted) are from the Babylonian Talmud.

What are these three oaths? One that Israel not “ascend the wall” [Rashi: together, by force]: one that the Holy One, Blessed be He, adjured Israel not to rebel against the nations of the world: and one that the Holy One, Blessed be He, adjured the nations of the world not to oppress Israel overmuch.
Bab. Talmud Ketubot 111a.

yes dave, were all pretty familiar with these, thats why i requested commentaries post diaspora-

this is an easy watch-

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/mediaclips/DombInterview.cfm?v=1QfgvDXsDds

Pere,

At times like this it seems you and Victoria occasionally post just to fill up space.

I posted what Victoria asked me to post. Why did you post what you did?

What is the plight of the Palestinians who are in exile from Palestine?

Why do so many Palestinians still live in refugee camps rather than cities and villages?

What are the chief Palestinian industries? What do the top fifty Palestinian corporations do?

Do you think it is right for the Palestinian government to hold Gil Shalit hostage and tell Israel they must free duly convicted murderers to get him back? Where is the justness to that? What norm of behavior does that fit?

"All because one group believes they are right"

It is not that simple. There are at least thirty different groups who are all sure they are right. You have an unknown number of armed Palestinian groups, several different Hamas leaderships, several Hezbollah leaderships, political parties in Israel, religious groups, governments, and advocacy groups.

So lets agree we can quote scipture...The point is that the Palistians are dispossed peoples like their cousins the Jews before them....All people should not kill...and when a bomb goes off whether it a cluster bomb or a suicide bomb people die. All because one group believes they are right...That is not part of the covenent...

Exodus 20:2-17 Deuteronomy 5:6-21
2I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 6I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
3you shall have no other gods before me. 7you shall have no other gods before me.
4You shall not make for yourself an image, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 8You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 6but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. 9You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, 10but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. 11You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
8Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 10But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. 11For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it. 12Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. 13For six days you shall labour and do all your work. 14But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. 15Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.
12Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. 16Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
13You shall not murder. 17You shall not murder.
14You shall not commit adultery. 18Neither shall you commit adultery.
15You shall not steal. 19Neither shall you steal.
16You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 20Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbour.
17You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; 21Neither shall you covet your neighbour’s wife.
you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or

Psalm 89:

[3] I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,
[4] Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.

Christians view that as a mandate for them because Jesus was a descendant of David. Jews are sure it is about them.

Pss.105
[8] He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
[9] Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac;
[10] And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:

Ezek.37
[26] Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

From Exodus:

[2] And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD:
[3] And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
[4] And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers.
[5] And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant.

[5] Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

From Leviticus:

[42] Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.
[44] And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God.
[45] But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.

From Judges:

[1] And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you.

From First Chronicles:

[15] Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
[16] Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac;
[17] And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,

This is from Chapter 17 of Genesis:

"[2] And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
[3] And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
[4] As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
[5] Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
[6] And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
[7] And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
[8] And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
[9] And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
[10] This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
[11] And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
[12] And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
[13] He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
[14] And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
[15] And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
[16] And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.
[17] Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
[18] And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
[19] And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
[20] And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
[21] But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year."

Jews view that as Brit Olam, an eternal covenant, The Qu'ran says it was actually with Ishmael and Genesis is wrong. Many Christians have held that when Jews rejected Jesus, the Covenant ended and a New Covenant was made with Christians which superseded the Old Covenant. Many Christians inculding the Pope no longer believe that. They agree that it is Brit Olam. So why should Jews give up the idea because it irks most Muslims and many Christians?

That got truncated. My first post is being held for approval.

"1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification

b : a rational ground or motive

c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact

d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE the reason for earthquakes the real reason why he wanted me to stay -- Graham Greene"

Victoria,

Your definition of reason says it must make sense to my opponents. It only must make sense to me to be a reasonable reason. However my reasons make sense to many people. If people like Dershowitz can't come up with reasons that you view as reasons, I don't think I can do better.

"1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification b : a rational ground or motive c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE "

just so were very clear-

if you disagree on any of the usages of this word speak now-

Synonyms 1. purpose, end, aim, object, objective. Reason, cause, motive are terms for a circumstance (or circumstances) which brings about or explains certain results. A reason is an explanation of a situation or circumstance which made certain results seem possible or appropriate: The reason for the robbery was the victim's display of his money. The cause is the way in which the circumstances produce the effect, that is, make a specific action seem necessary or desirable: The cause was the robber's extreme need of money. A motive is the hope, desire, or other force which starts the action (or an action) in an attempt to produce specific results: The motive was to get money to buy food for his family. 2. excuse, rationalization. 3. understanding, intellect, mind, intelligence. 10. persuade.
—Usage note The construction reason is because is criticized in a number of usage guides: The reason for the long delays was because the costs greatly exceeded the original estimates. One objection to this construction is based on its redundancy: the word because (literally, by cause) contains within it the meaning of reason; thus saying the reason is because is like saying “The cause is by cause,” which would never be said. A second objection is based on the claim that because can introduce only adverbial clauses and that reason is requires completion by a noun clause. Critics would substitute that for because in the offending construction: The reason for the long delays in completing the project was that the costs. … Although the objections described here are frequently raised, reason is because is still common in almost all levels of speech and occurs often in edited writing as well.
A similar charge of redundancy is made against the reason why, which is also a well-established idiom: The reason why the bill failed to pass was the defection of three key senators.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

so cause producing effect?
because?

so, you quoted presidents but there were no REASONS that validated their statements

their statements were simply personal opinions- which is fine for most purposes- but since we cannot agree on their intentions or even the value of their personal opinions, they remain just that- opinions without validating basis- or reason.

for the purposes of our conversation reasons and delving into intentions are the key element-

without that- everyting remains conflicting opinions-

there has to be a logical reason why an opinion is to be considered substantial.

instead of "it seems to mes" which fly past each other- the conversation could posit a-b-c-
ISTM this- because of -that.

so for instance- if you ask me why i think the jewish people temporarily lost their status-
i can tell you my sources in a logical way- you can reply to the sources and say A is wrong because- etc---

that way it is clear and direct- not muddied on drowning in misunderstandings-

this is a most important part of any discussion where 2 separate views are held-

a few months ago my husband told me aisha-(the wife of the Prophet(pbuh) was 16 or 18 when she married Muhammad(pbuh), but he didnt tell me his sources, so i didnt accept this until i researched it myself and have done so to my satisfaction so that i can present it coherently to others with a great deal of sources cited to support my statement.

something like that

thats why i requested scriptural support dave-
if you like, i can provide scriptural support to the counter of the concept that the chosen status is no longer extant- i am trying to be delicate dave-
if you want to get into scripture wars- thats alright but i prefer not to-

thats why i asked for scriptural references (past genesis- obviously- there are scriptures and commentators about the diaspora-

thats all-
i havent had a chance to look at the posts after that as ive no time right now- i just caught your question asking what references-

as i posted before-
"
i will not be satisfied if you just disagree- i thought it was a given in judaism today- none ofmy jewish friends held the belief that you do-

so if you could provide the references for that id appreciate it."

this is not an issue that can be dealt with without explicit and specific sources.

"EER is dedicated to the development of a plasma based thermal treatment technology for environmentally friendly disposal of waste materials.

EER is an Israel registered company controlled by SFK group of companies which holds 55% of EER together with Japanese and Korean associates. The remaining 45% is held by Israeli and foreign investors and three top level Russian scientists.

EER is headed by Evgeny P. Velikhov, member of Russian Academy of Sciences and Honorary Chairman Itschak Shrem, who is also chairman of SFK Group (the controlling shareholder of EER).

One of the main problems of Waste Management is the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), which along with Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste (LILRW) and Biomedical Waste (MW), is the present focus of EER's activity."

From the Library of Congress:

"Dormant War
Israelis traditionally viewed the Arab-Israeli conflict as a struggle for survival, convinced that even one military defeat would mean the end of their country. National defense became the first priority, with proportionately more human and material resources devoted to defense than in any other nation in the world. Israelis regarded major conflicts, such as occurred in 1967 and 1973, as "rounds" or battles in a continuous war. Even when it was not engaged in outright combat with its Arab enemies, Israel remained in what General Yitzhak Rabin, who became minister of defense in 1984, called a "dormant war" that, "like a volcano," could erupt with little warning into a major conflagration."

Here are some quotes to add to the mix:

""American and Israel share a special bond. Our relationship is unique among all nations. Like America, Israel is a strong democracy, a symbol of freedom, and an oasis of liberty, a home to the oppressed and persecuted. President Bill Clinton

"The survival of Israel is not a political issue, it is a moral imperative. That is my deeply held belief and it is the belief that is shared by the vast majority of the American people...a strong secure Israel is not just in Israel's interest. It's in the interest of the United States and in the interest of the entire free world." President Jimmy Carter

"My commitment to the security and future of Israel is based upon basic morality as well as enlightened self-interest. Our role in supporting Israel honors our own heritage." President Gerald Ford.

"Our society is illuminated by the spiritual insights of the Hebrew prophets. America and Israel have a common love of human freedom, and they have a common faith in a democratic way of life." President Lyndon B. Johnson

"Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom." President John F. Kennedy

"I had faith in Israel before it was established, I have in it now. I believe it has a glorious future before it - not just another sovereign nation, but as an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization." President Harry S. Truman"

I do not view those men as anyone's dupes. That does not mean we give Israel a blank check.

At this point let's look at what Dershowitz has to say:

"The United Nations tragically has become a mega bomb for bigotry against Israel. If a space alien from another planet were to come down to earth and land at the General Assembly of the United Nations, or at some American college campuses, or many an urban capital, and have to report back to the distant galaxy from which he came, he'd have to report this is a wonderful planet with great countries that love peace. Like Syria, which is on the Security Council. Or Libya, that chairs the Human Rights Commission. But there's this one country, this evil nation that's been condemned by the UN more than any other country or all other countries combined. If the spaceship landed on the Berkeley campus, all the canards and untruths about Israel--genocide, apartheid, all the claims you hear so often, would be heard. And that's the tragedy.

And that's why I had to write The Case For Israel. It's my least favorite book, I have to tell you. It's the book nobody wants to write. Nobody has to write the Case for Canada or the Case for Spain or the Case for Australia. There's so much lying on college campuses today, so many untruths, so many legalese falsities being directed against Israel. But the impetus to write the Case For Israel came when the divestiture campaign began at Harvard and Berkeley and many of our college campuses. No members of the law school faculty, nor of the medical school faculty, nor the business school signed, but many at the other schools and departments signed the petition.

What did it call for? It called for no further investments in Israeli industries. What are Israel's main industries? It's not Jaffa oranges, it's high tech, life saving medical equipment, like kidney dialysis machines. Israel per capita saves more lives than any other country in the world.

I said cutting off this industry was immoral, so I challenged one of the leading pro-divestment professors at one of the Harvard colleges to debate me in front of his students. I challenged him to debate the morality of signing the petition to divest from Israel, but not from North Korea, not Cuba, not China, not Libya, not from Iraq in those days, not the Sudan -- only Israel. This was a man who taught the Christian approaches to the Old Testament. He said to me "Professor Dershowitz, my knowledge of the Middle East ended with the death of Moses." I invited those students to see me, watch me debate him or a surrogate. When nobody showed to take his position, I set the petition on a chair as a token surrogate and we had a dialog."

That is a symbol for what we are doing here and what we are doing here in microcosm mimics what Chomsky, Carter, and Dershowitz are doing in the skies far above us. I am not sure we are doing that much worse than they are despite their cosmic brilliance.

"Israel is the only country in the Middle East in which an Arab can file a case against his country in the Supreme Court. Israel's Supreme Court is among the finest courts in the world today. It enforces the rule of law on a daily basis against inevitable abuses that occur when a nation is at war."

Lies?

"In 1989, Justice Brennan, perhaps the most liberal justice in America's court, went to Israel at the invitation of Justice Aharon Barak of the Israeli Supreme Court. Brennan said, "God forbid that terrorism should ever come to the shores of the United States. At least we in America have the model to help balance the needs of security against the needs of liberty. That model is Israel.""

Another man duped by AIPAC?

"Enough of the shouting, enough of the polemics, enough of the extremism, enough of the ignorant comparisons to Nazism or to apartheid. Enough of the thoroughly non-intellectual sloganeering. Let's have a real intellectual discussion, let's have a real conversation. Let's have a real case.

But you can't buy that case unless there's elimination of the extremist rhetoric -- this sense that Israel is demonized, de-legitimized in the world. In fact, the extreme criticism makes it hard to get the nuances of criticism of both sides. And what happens is each side gets polemical views and that doesn't make progress toward peace.

So I ask those in the progressive movement, who support feminism and civil liberties, -- the kind of political theories I've supported all my life-- to come join an effort to support Israel and support Palestine. To support a democratic Palestinian state to be sure. Take the position you want on unilateralism, or on the fence; they are issues about which reasonable people can disagree. Israelis disagree."

That seems reasonable. You would think people like Carter and Dershowitz could make it happen. But they do not. They can't even talk to each other. Some example that sets.

Victoria,

References for what? I showed you that contrary to what you have been saying over and over and over again, I have given reasons. Nor is that the first time I did so. And based on what you do when I give reasons it is clear that your repeated postings do not arise out of a desire to learn reasons. You may have heard them all before. Yet just yesterday you were insisting you have never heard any. So what is your problem with the word reasons that has created such a great fuss?

as i expressed dave- references- you are describing something i think everyone is pretty well aware of-

"Dave Marshak :

Reasons for giving Israel some aid:

Israel is a partner with us in various endeavors.

Their interests match ours.

They are a valuable trading partner.

We have made various long term commitments to Israel and it is in our interest to live up to them.

That does not address the amount. I have not studied this enough to suggest ways to fine tune that. I would guess I could make suggestions were I to study the matter.

March 21, 2007 3:48 PM"

Victoria,

The Covenant with Noah is with all people since all are descended from Noah. There are righteous people in every nation and there are Jews who are far from righteous. This is not Christianity. The righteous from all nations are praised and rewarded. And those who are not get no pass because they are Jewish.

The Covenant with Abraham is taken by Jews to be fulfilled in his descendents through Isaac and by Arabs is fulfilled through Ishmael, who they believe they are descended from. Depending on whether you are Muslim or not, The Arabs are the Chosen People or the Jews are the Chosen People.

That is in Genesis. It is a key sacred text in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It says what it says and can not be discarded or changed.

Some Christians say they are the Chosen People because God changed his mind and discarded the Jews as unworthy. That makes it seem like Jesus was a failure as a human teacher even though he was great as an object of worship. So many Christians don't buy it.

The Covenant gave Israel to the Jewish people as long as they followed the commandments. So there is a theory that Jews were driven out because they did not follow the commandments. That did not change the Covenant. Eternal means just that; and the Covenant with Abraham is eternal.

Now you can treat Genesis as Jewish nonsense and discard it. Even then it is not contemporary Jewish nonsense. The stories come from the Dawn of History and are as they are.

Jews do not attack people who do not believe they are the Chosen People. They do not burn down their homes and villages. Muslims and Christians do that with those who reject their beliefs and the practice is still very common among Muslims.

Even during the Biblical period, Jews did not attack people because they had other Gods and ignored the God of Israel. Their concern was with those who tried to wipe out the Jewish people. And that is a concern even today.

When people say Jews must give up their belief that Genesis is meaningful and correct and attack Israel based on that, Jews feel they have no choice but to defend their religion from violent attacks. And that means using violence.

The evidence that Jews are the Chosen People is simple. The Jewish Bible is the basis for Christianity and Islam. It is written in Hebrew. The people who have kept Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible alive are the Jews. Without them the Arabs would have a sacred book they could not understand and Christians would have Bibles in many languages but not Hebrew. And only Jews have carefully studied the Hebrew Bible and kept detailed records of all that they have figured out about it. Without living Jews that tradition would die out. And threats to Israel threaten that tradition. That is why many Christians support Israel.

pere' that piece by gandhi was most edifying.

dave- please take this calmly and dont feel it is an attack- i am relating to you your own religious beliefs-

are you aware that the covenant as the chosen people was, shall we say- disrupted, possibly for the time being, when the diaspora came?

i was told this in temple dave- by old men who studied all day-

i had no reason to disbelieve them.
if i have been misinformed perhaps you could provide the sources that i could re-educate myself- but i had no reason to think they were uneducated or had any ulterior motive.

i have been under the impression for many years that at tis time, all stand equally before god and there are no more favorites or chosen, but the state of ones heart and piety determine ones staus in the judgement of god.

im really not trying to get under your skin- or diminish in any way the dignity or piety of jewish people.

i will not be satisfied if you just disagree- i thought it was a given in judaism today- none ofmy jewish friends held the belief that you do-

so if you could provide the references for that id appreciate it.

its not an accusation- or meant to be in any way derogatory- im not trying to take something away from jewish people, its just what ive been told by jewish people.

if you know differently ill certainly respect it.

"but the topic is CAN YOU CRITICIZE ISRAEL WITHOUT BEIGN ANTI-SEMITIC?

all your whole point is to reduce any criticism to anti-semitism

it doesnt distract most intelligent people dave"

There is a myth that people who are intelligent about some things must be intelligent about everything. I don't see much intelligent talk about this issue. Carter's views about this subject are not very bright and I am not impressed by Dershowitz's rebuttals. They both come from an "of course I am right because I am very intelligent point of view." They are both very intelligent but they can't both be right about these issues.

You and many others are like the Irish monk you quoted earlier. You view anti-semitism as a word thst has no meaning today when applied to what happens to Jews. Even criticizing what is in Genesis and Exodus as immoral must not be construed as anti-semitic. And if it so construed, it is part of an AIPAC plot to subvert decency and truth.

"And as far as my challenge about Gaza...you avoided the question again as you do so frequently on your post. If they move they can never come back and that is what your government is counting on."

That is semantics. Giving you an answer you do not like is not avoiding the question.

When people emigrate they do not expect to come back. That is especially so when the conditions they left are awful. And a Palestinian state would include Gaza and could set its own rules for who can come and go.

Victoria,

"why is the unity of the jewish people more important than the people who were swept aside to create that unity?"

You are criticizing words you don't seem to understand.

The spiritual unity of the Jewish people does not require geographical contiguity. That should be obvious.

When Mercaz refers to assimilation, they are not talking about living next to people who are not Jewish. And today they are not really talking about intermarriage. What they are referring to is intermarriage where trhe children are not raised as Jews.

"but how you can turn such an overt and disgraceful spearatist and segregationist statement into being a victim of anti-semitism is a miracle of slippery maneuvers indeed"

Here you measure others by a measure quite different from what you judge your own group by.

What you are disgusted by has always been a fundamental tenet of Judaism. So if people are disgusted by Judaism they are right to be so and hence can not be anti-semitic? That is an absurd redefinition of the term. And what about those who think Mohammed was a nice man who wrote the Qu'ran and was not the Messenger of God? Is that okay?

"Dave your rangling of semantics is old and tiresome...In the book Arab Folk Tales translated by Iner Bushnaq it refers to Palestine in many of the stories. When Samuel Clements (Mark Twain) toured Palestine he found it a backwater ...But he mentioned it."

You use the word semantics differently than I do which is a matter of semantics. The word Palestine has been around since the Romans and derives from the Kingdom of the Philistines. The territory so defined has changed since the Romans in many ways at many times. The people living there can be construed as a separate race but that is like viewing Texans as a different race than those from Arkansas.

Victoria,

I am not sure you will ever respond to what I am writing. The style you use is to relate to a figment of your imagination as if that is me. And that style is common among foes of Israel.

"you wrote-Our connection to the Land and State of Israel and its capital Jerusalem begins first and foremost with our People's 4000-year covenant with the Divine. This covenant has imposed upon us the responsibility not only to support and defend the State of Israel but also to create in Zion an exemplary Jewish society that is a national home — democratic and pluralistic — for all Jews, secure and at peace with its Arab neighbors, committed to protecting its environment and natural resources, respecting the rights of all of its citizens and supporting all streams of Jewish practice."

That is from a website.

"and then you changed it to-

The issue is not whether folks agree with that. The issue is how hateful others find it. That has always been part of Judaism and people have always hated Jews for it. And people have felt since their hate is just, they are realistic not anti-semitic."

I wrote that.

"no dave- you just added that to stick in another antisemitc accusation-
where did you say how hateful others find it?"

There you read my mind wrongly. But alas you are sure you know what is in my mind better than I do. And that is the way Christians and Muslims are with Jews.

It irks many Christians and Muslims that Jews view themselves as the chosen people. Yet that is what Genesis and Exodus say. So it won't change. Now who put Christians and Muslims in charge of the Jews? Who told Christians and Muslims both liberal and not that they have an important mission to teach the Jews what Genesis and Exodus say, chastise them, admonish them, and generally knock themselves out trying to get Jews to do what Christians and Muslims want them to do? And how could I convince many Jews that Christian and Muslim attitude is not anti-semitic?

Little did he anticipate the horrors in store for Jewish people in the 1940's but it is further proof that there were people living in Israel/Palistine.

Israel has a right to exixt in freedom and peace. All citizens of the world do. The questiomn is how and when; and I beleive that when Israel and it's arab citizens have a just and fair peace it will happen. As long as you deny the existance of each other than you are doomed. No should ever deny the suffering of the Jewish people in Europe or the Arab lands. However, to deny that Palistinians by any name are not suffering is perpetuating the same mentality. Ethnic cleansing is when you force someone out of their homes by psychological or physical force. The people of Gaza lived in rental and small villages and were forced out by numerous things ...the blame should be shared with a few greedy arabs and a force of zionism. But the reality is they were removed or fleed in fear.

Mahatma Gandhi on ! Palestine written in 1938

The Jews In Palestine

By Mahatma Gandhi

Published in the Harijan
26-11-1938.

Several letters have been received by me, asking me to declare my views
about the Arab-Jew question in Palestine and the persecution of the Jews in
Germany. It is not without hesitation that I venture to offer my views on
this very difficult question.

My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South
Africa. Some of them became lifelong companions. Through these friends I
came to learn much of their age long persecution. They have been the
untouchables of Christianity. The parallel between their treatment by
Christians and the treatment of untouchables by Hindus is very close.

Religious sanction has been invoked in both cases for the justification of
the inhuman treatment meted out to them. Apart from the friendships,
therefore, there is the more common universal reason for my sympathy for
the Jews. But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice.

The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me.
The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews
have hankered after return to Palestine.

Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country
their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?
Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their
national home. The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of
the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French.

If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being
forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled?
Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the
national home affords a colorable justification for the German expulsion of
the Jews. But the German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel
in history. The tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler seems to have
gone. And he is doing it with religious zeal. For, he is propounding a new
religion of exclusive and militant nationalism in the name of which any
inhumanity becomes an act of humanity to be rewarded here and hereafter.

The crime of an obviously mad but intrepid youth is being visited upon his
wholerace with unbelievable ferocity. If there ever could be a justifiable
war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany to prevent the
wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do
not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is,
therefore, outside my horizon or province.

But if there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is
being committed against the Jews, surely there can be no alliance with
Germany. How can there be alliance between a nation, which claims to stand
for justice and democracy and one, which is the declared enemy of both? Or
is England drifting towards armed dictatorship and all it means?

Germany is showing to the world how efficiently violence can be worked when
it is not hampered by any hypocrisy or weakness masquerading as humanitarianism.It is also showing how hideous, terrible and terrifying it looks in its nakedness.Can the Jews resist this organized and shameless persecution? Is there a way to preserve their self-respect, and not to feel helpless, neglected and forlorn? I submit there is. No person who has faith in a living God need feel helpless or forlorn. Jehovah of the Jews is a God more personal than the God of the Christians, the Mussalmans or the Hindus, though as a matter of fact, in essence, He is common to all and one without a second and beyond description. But as the Jews attribute personality to God and believe that He rules every action of theirs, they ought not to feel helpless.

If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I
would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German might, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this I
should not wait for! the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance, but
would have confidence that in the end the rest were bound to follow my
example.... ...

And now a word to the Jews in Palestine. I have no doubt that they are going
about it in the wrong way. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a
geographical tract. It is in their hearts. But if they must look to the
Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under
the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the
aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the
goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart.

The same God rules the Arab heart who rules the Jewish heart... They will
find the world opinion in their favor in their religious aspiration. There are
hundreds of ways of reasoning with the Arabs, if they will only discard the
help of the British bayonet. As it is, they are co-sharers with the
British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not
defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence
in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment
upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong,
nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of
overwhelming odds.

Let the Jews who claim to be the chosen race prove their title by choosing
the way of non-violence for vindicating their position on earth. Every
country is their home, including Palestine, not by aggression but by loving
service. A Jewish friend has sent me a book called The Jewish Contribution
to Civilization by Cecil Roth. It gives a record of what the Jews have done
to enrich the world's literature, art, music, drama, science, medicine,
agriculture, etc. Given the will, the Jew can refuse to be treated as the
outcast of the West, to be despised or patronized. He can command the
attention and respect of the world by being the chosen creation of God,
instead of sinking to the brute who is forsaken by God. They can add to
their many contributions the surpassing contribution of non-violent action.

now dave, you have said that you are a jewish man, right?

so i find it confusing that your first reason for supporting israel is that the evangelicals do.

are you an evangelical?

do you follow their position on everything?

you just might be an evangelical then.

or you just follow it on israel?

that would be just jumping on the bandwagon then-

either way- its still not YOUR reason-
unless youre saying you agree with the evangelicals on this issue- which doesnt really make sense-

it was certainly a jewish issue before it was an evangelical position

so which is it?

heres how it works-

someone posits a query-

then you answer
then you support it with reasoning, logic and sources as to WHY you hold this position

you on the other hand, just argue about the definitions of words, i guess you think that it will distract from the original question being completely unanswered-

but it doesnt

it rather clarifies your inablity to frame a cohesive answer

so are you evangelical, or not?

you wrote-Our connection to the Land and State of Israel and its capital Jerusalem begins first and foremost with our People's 4000-year covenant with the Divine. This covenant has imposed upon us the responsibility not only to support and defend the State of Israel but also to create in Zion an exemplary Jewish society that is a national home — democratic and pluralistic — for all Jews, secure and at peace with its Arab neighbors, committed to protecting its environment and natural resources, respecting the rights of all of its citizens and supporting all streams of Jewish practice."

and then you changed it to-

The issue is not whether folks agree with that. The issue is how hateful others find it. That has always been part of Judaism and people have always hated Jews for it. And people have felt since their hate is just, they are realistic not anti-semitic."

no dave- you just added that to stick in another antisemitc accusation-
where did you say how hateful others find it?

i think this is the first time it has occurred to you how others would view this-

so youre saying segregation has always been a part of judaism?

the issue obviously isnt how others view it-

clearly it doesnt matter how anyone else feels

but how you can turn such an overt and disgraceful spearatist and segregationist statement into being a victim of anti-semitism is a miracle of slippery maneuvers indeed

the issue is dave-

look at the proof of the laws in israel

they support your stated intention

"MERCAZ USA sees Zionism as an invaluable tool for strengthening Jewish identity and combating assimilation. It calls for linking Jewish
communities throughout the Diaspora with Israel through tourism, Jewish education, Hebrew language study, "people-to-people" partnerships, short-and long-term Israel programs and Aliyah.

the centrality of Israel in the life and consciousness of thee Jewish People and the unity of the Jewish People wherever they may live."

why is the unity of the jewish people more important than the people who were swept aside to create that unity?

it is not at all as you claimed-

That has always been part of Judaism and people have always hated Jews for it. And people have felt since their hate is just, they are realistic not anti-semitic."

it is NOT ANTISEMITIC to be upset when people say their speparatism and segregation -

it is something innately unjust to think that others should understand it as some kind of entitlement as it is stated here-

in islam (and america) there is no such 'entitlement' based on race and religion

there are actually laws against it dave

but i know you wont address this issue
you wont address the laws of segregation of israel

instead youll try to avoid the subject altogether and go off topic

but the topic is CAN YOU CRITICIZE ISRAEL WITHOUT BEIGN ANTI-SEMITIC?

all your whole point is to reduce any criticism to anti-semitism

it doesnt distract most intelligent people dave

Dave your rangling of semantics is old and tiresome...In the book Arab Folk Tales translated by Iner Bushnaq it refers to Palestine in many of the stories. When Samuel Clements (Mark Twain) toured Palestine he found it a backwater ...But he mentioned it. Your own Zionist pioneers recognized that their dreams of changing the desert into an Eden was going to be a challenge because of the number of people living there; Asher Ginberg(1891) wrote "we abroad used to think that Eretz Israel was almost totally desolate....but the truth is ...that throughout the country it is hard to find fields that are not sowed". The Jews who were snowed by the concept that it was land without people where shocked when the began to move there and find people (Ron David, 1993,1996)

So Dave it is like saying that just because they were a little country ( and country wasn't cool) they had not being living there. They were poor farmers and villagers who had lived there for 2,000 years and were the Canaanites, gentiles and Jews of the bible. Some of them converted and some stayed.

Just because colonial powers came in and changed the names of the countries (just like the UN did for Israel: changing Palestine to Israel) doesn't make it a land of non people.

And as far as my challenge about Gaza...you avoided the question again as you do so frequently on your post. If they move they can never come back and that is what your government is counting on.

Dave your rangling of semantics is old and tiresome...In the book Arab Folk Tales translated by Iner Bushnaq it refers to Palestine in many of the stories. When Samuel Clements (Mark Twain) toured Palestine he found it a backwater ...But he mentioned it. Your own Zionist pioneers recognized that their dreams of changing the desert into an Eden was going to be a challenge because of the number of people living there; Asher Ginberg(1891) wrote "we abroad used to think that Eretz Israel was almost totally desolate....but the truth is ...that throughout the country it is hard to find fields that are not sowed". The Jews who were snowed by the concept that it was land without people where shocked when the began to move there and find people (Ron David, 1993,1996)

So Dave it is like saying that just because they were a little country ( and country wasn't cool) they had not being living there. They were poor farmers and villagers who had lived there for 2,000 years and were the Canaanites, gentiles and Jews of the bible. Some of them converted and some stayed.

Just because colonial powers came in and changed the names of the countries (just like the UN did for Israel: changing Palestine to Israel) doesn't make it a land of non people.

And as far as my challenge about Gaza...you avoided the question again as you do so frequently on your post. If they move they can never come back and that is what your government is counting on.

Pere and Victoria:

When did the Palestinians become a people apart from other Arabs? Who did that? Was it Turkey, Britain, the UN, or Israel? How do you distinguish a Palestinian from a Jordanian or Lebanese? The ancestors of the people you refer to as Palestinians were Egyptians and Jordanians.

Can you point me to Palestinian literature and art from before 1948? Most of what is available is about the oppression of Palestinians by Israel. Did Israel create the Palestinian people?

Victoria:

"why would your opinion be based on the opinions of evangelical christians?"

It is not as I have explained.

"youre so focused and thinskinned that you are missing the point"

Why is focused bad and unfocused good?

Thinskinned is a common word anti-semites have applied to Jews who do not like the way they are treated by them.

"also you are obviously skimming or skipping what i post"

Well, you keep saying I have not written what I have written. And you are posting the same things over and over again.

""MERCAZ USA sees Zionism as an invaluable tool for strengthening Jewish identity and combating assimilation."

jews cant assimilate with others?

a muslim would never make such an elistist and exclusionary statement and expect anyone to validate it"

The issue is not whether folks agree with that. The issue is how hateful others find it. That has always been part of Judaism and people have always hated Jews for it. And people have felt since their hate is just, they are realistic not anti-semitic.

Muslims kill people who convert. They do not want their children to become Christians as the result of marriage.

Palestinians are concerned about maintaining their distinct identity as a people separate from all others. That is why they want a homeland with a right of return to it. It just happens that their homeland has other people living in it.

No one has ever successfully undone what has happened in history. Here folks want to recreate the Kingdom of the Philistines which disappeared more than three millenia ago but this time with Arab Philistines.

I don't follow the reasoning that leads to numerous posts with the same things in them.

Pere:

"When you don't criticize oppression you become part of it."

That applies to people who refuse to admit there is anti-semitism.

"You forfeit your values and ideals to hold on to a piece of real estate at the cost of your children dn their children."

We have people who want to get land they left or lost many years ago back. No one else is trying to do that. And they are destroying their lives and the lives of their children to do that.

Victoria:

"besides what i perceive as an emotional attachment indoctrinated into children before they can make a logical distinction"

What has led you to be so sure you can read many people's minds?

"dave- you really avent read anything ive posted have you?"

That is more mind reading.

"you ARE aware that ive made many posts that were written by other people?"

I have referred to those people as your team. You appear to have not understaood that. But that may be a rhetorical choice you are making.

"i am not the one who said israel is racist
the united nations did"

That is a Fallacy of Composition. On one day, the majority of representatives in the UN General Assembly approved a resolution which said that. That resolution has been repealed.

The problem with that is that it is a definition of racism that was created for the sole purpose of attacking and demeaning Israel. Such definitions make it impossible to talk peacefully about thse issues because you can not refute a definition.

"all mankind is equal in my religion dave"

And in others. But distinctions are made.

this is what the Prophet(pbuh) clearly stated in his last speech-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

all mankind is equal in my religion dave

and the scariest thing of all is- you say this as if you expect it to be an acceptable thing for everyone-

like everyone will look at that and say- 'o yes, the jewish people are gods favorites and chosen people so of course they have the RIGHT to segregate even though we fight segregation and FIGHT FOR ASSIMILATION of everyone else.

wow- you really think that is valid dont you?
you really thought that was a conversation stopper- as if it should be obvious to everyone that jews should be above assimilation.

wow

FACTS ABOUT ISRAELI POLICY
למאמר בעברית

THESE ARE PRESENT LAWS IN ISRAEL

* 95% of Israel's lands (which is mostly owned by Palestinian refugees) is open for development to Jews only?

* Israeli-Palestinian citizens live almost in segregated communities (or ghettos) because development is strictly limited outside their villages? Ironically, the word "ghetto" was invented to describe the living conditions of Eastern European Jews in Tsarist Russia!

* For just being "Jewish" you gain an automatic citizenship in Israel? Plus tens of thousands of dollars in subsidies too.

* Palestinian Muslims or Christians refugees, who were born in the country and later expelled, cannot gain Israeli citizenship? Of course, unless they convert to Judaism first!

* Pretending to be Jewish in Israel is punishable by law with up to one year's imprisonment? On the other hand, if you pretend to be a Muslim or Christian the law does you no harm!

* Close to 4 million Palestinian Muslims and Christians are being subjected to Israeli laws that are different than the laws governing the 4.5 million Israeli Jews? Is this a "democratically" elected apartheid, or not, that is the question?

* In the occupied West Bank there are "Jewish Roads" and "Non-Jewish Roads"?

* Israel issues national identify cards where the religion of the card holder is clearly shown in bold type?

* Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza drive vehicles with license plates that have different coloring than the cars driven by Israeli settlers?

* Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza hold ID cards that are of different colors than the cards held by Israeli settlers?

* The only form of Judaism recognized by the "Jewish state" is Orthodox Judaism, so most US Jews could not get married in Israel. Furthermore, the only conversion to Judaism recognized is Orthodox, so most US converts aren't Jewish enough.

* Just prior to the 1948 war, Jews owned under 7% of Palestine's land, and to increase their share after the war, they passed the "Absentees' Law" which dispossessed the Palestinian majority land owners who later became "absent". What is even more tragic was the passage of an oxymoron law, called "Present Absentees' Law," which dispossessed the Palestinian-Israeli citizens who became internal refugees in Israel. It is worth noting that the internal Jewish refugees were not dispossessed as a result of this racist law.

* Israeli democracy is a facade for "Jewish Democracy?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*only jews can buy (95%) of land in israel
*any jew can be a citizen and get money if they
move there
* different laws, roads, id,(with the religion printed in bold) license plates different colors for jews and everyone else

can you imagine if in america white people had different color id cards and only christians could buy land?

and there were SEPARATE ROADS? for white people and everyone else?

and the scariest thing of all is- you say this as if you expect it to be an acceptable thing for everyone-

like everyone will look at that and say- 'o yes, the jewish people are gods favorites and chosen people so of course they have the RIGHT to segregate even though we fight segregation and FIGHT FOR ASSIMILATION of everyone else.

wow- you really think that is valid dont you?
you really thought that was a conversation stopper- as if it should be obvious to everyone that jews should be above assimilation.

wow

FACTS ABOUT ISRAELI POLICY
למאמר בעברית

THESE ARE PRESENT LAWS IN ISRAEL

* 95% of Israel's lands (which is mostly owned by Palestinian refugees) is open for development to Jews only?

* Israeli-Palestinian citizens live almost in segregated communities (or ghettos) because development is strictly limited outside their villages? Ironically, the word "ghetto" was invented to describe the living conditions of Eastern European Jews in Tsarist Russia!

* For just being "Jewish" you gain an automatic citizenship in Israel? Plus tens of thousands of dollars in subsidies too.

* Palestinian Muslims or Christians refugees, who were born in the country and later expelled, cannot gain Israeli citizenship? Of course, unless they convert to Judaism first!

* Pretending to be Jewish in Israel is punishable by law with up to one year's imprisonment? On the other hand, if you pretend to be a Muslim or Christian the law does you no harm!

* Close to 4 million Palestinian Muslims and Christians are being subjected to Israeli laws that are different than the laws governing the 4.5 million Israeli Jews? Is this a "democratically" elected apartheid, or not, that is the question?

* In the occupied West Bank there are "Jewish Roads" and "Non-Jewish Roads"?

* Israel issues national identify cards where the religion of the card holder is clearly shown in bold type?

* Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza drive vehicles with license plates that have different coloring than the cars driven by Israeli settlers?

* Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza hold ID cards that are of different colors than the cards held by Israeli settlers?

* The only form of Judaism recognized by the "Jewish state" is Orthodox Judaism, so most US Jews could not get married in Israel. Furthermore, the only conversion to Judaism recognized is Orthodox, so most US converts aren't Jewish enough.

* Just prior to the 1948 war, Jews owned under 7% of Palestine's land, and to increase their share after the war, they passed the "Absentees' Law" which dispossessed the Palestinian majority land owners who later became "absent". What is even more tragic was the passage of an oxymoron law, called "Present Absentees' Law," which dispossessed the Palestinian-Israeli citizens who became internal refugees in Israel. It is worth noting that the internal Jewish refugees were not dispossessed as a result of this racist law.

* Israeli democracy is a facade for "Jewish Democracy?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*only jews can buy (95%) of land in israel
*any jew can be a citizen and get money if they
move there
* different laws, roads, id,(with the religion printed in bold) license plates different colors for jews and everyone else

can you imagine if in america white people had different color id cards and only christians could buy land?

this is an specially troubling form of reasoning-

"MERCAZ USA sees Zionism as an invaluable tool for strengthening Jewish identity and combating assimilation."

jews cant assimilate with others?

a muslim would never make such an elistist and exclusionary statement and expect anyone to validate it

its invalid

combat assimilation?

are the rest of us too beneath jewish people for them to mix with us?

you dont see the superiority complex that engenders such a statement?

can you imagine if i used that as an excuse to not sell a house to an african american? because im white?

if i said - im combatting assimilation and will only sell to whites-

ot wouldnt sell a house to a jew because im muslim?

and said i want to keep my neighborhood pure and dont want my kids marrying theirs? (which of course in islam is allowed as it is truly an egalitarian non racist religion)

can you imagine the lawsuits? or the general outrage?

combat assimilation- equals exactly segregation

so segregation is different if jewish people want it?

jewish people have the right to segregate even if it means they steal someone elses land to do it?

wow

you have just described the supposed democracy of israel

wow

dave- you really avent read anything ive posted have you?

you ARE aware that ive made many posts that were written by other people?

i am not the one who said israel is racist
the united nations did

i refer back to the original question - on the first reason you posted-

why would your opinion be based on the opinions of evangelical christians?

i dont understand your connection

youre so focused and thinskinned that you are missing the point

also you are obviously skimming or skipping what i post

even though you posted some reasons- you will not elaborate on them-

there are kurds who are dispossessed so why should a whole country be displaced so that jewish people can have a feeling of community?

are israelis worth more than the people they kicked out?

why arent they nicer to palestinians?

they werent bothering anyone anywhere-

its not their responsibility god decide to disperse the jewish people-

still no why as to your statement that youre following the evangelists?

youre not an evangelist

why should that be a reason for you or anyone? (except evangelists)

this is deeply illogical and counterintuitive

Here is something for folks to talk about:

"MERCAZ USA sees Zionism as an invaluable tool for strengthening Jewish identity and combating assimilation. It calls for linking Jewish
communities throughout the Diaspora with Israel through tourism, Jewish education, Hebrew language study, "people-to-people" partnerships, short-and long-term Israel programs and Aliyah.

Conservative/Masorti Judaism was the first of the modern religious movements to embrace Zionism and has steadfastly remained at the forefront of the effort to promote its values: the centrality of Israel in the life and consciousness of thee Jewish People and the unity of the Jewish People wherever they may live.

Our connection to the Land and State of Israel and its capital Jerusalem begins first and foremost with our People's 4000-year covenant with the Divine. This covenant has imposed upon us the responsibility not only to support and defend the State of Israel but also to create in Zion an exemplary Jewish society that is a national home — democratic and pluralistic — for all Jews, secure and at peace with its Arab neighbors, committed to protecting its environment and natural resources, respecting the rights of all of its citizens and supporting all streams of Jewish practice."

That is the Jewish counterpart to the Presbyterian Church's position. How should folks who find it detestable be described?

"and while you say youve printed reasons on the past you have not- just saying youve done it doesnt cover the fact that you havent-"

This is my problem with the summaries those who don't like Israel present. What I have written is here. But you won't see it. So how dependable can your research be on more complex matters where all of the evidence is not readily available to you?

Look at the way you carry on about why Republicans support Israel. Why not look at the other things I said?

"i just dont think they are GOOD or ethical reasons at all"

That criteria won't be met by any reasons to support Israel. Folks are too sure they are right and have all the answers. But many other folks are just as sure they are right and there are more of them. So saying the same things over and over can not work.

"how can i develop symapthies for israel if no one has any defense from a human and moral and ethical standpoint?"

There are many defenses. Folks who don't like Israel are sure they are all wrong.

Think about what you and they are really saying. It is no secret that most Jews support Israel. Folks are sure they have no human, moral, or ethical reasons for doing so. That is a negative way of viewing Jews that was old when the phrase anti-semitic was invented. And yet folks who think that way are outraged if anyone views that way of thinking as anti-semitic. That is because they define anti-semitism as something that used to happen to Jews long ago but does not happen now.

"if police shoot someone in queens it has no bearing on the policies of israel- when they put up a question on police brutality or racism in america-(actually they just did) we can discuss it there"

One of the charges you cite is that Israel is racist and practices Apatheid. So what you view as racism and apartheid is relevant to my point that you and others have redefined those terms to make them fit Israel. You also feel that everyone should be far more concerned about what Israel does than about what other countries do. So how you view things in your own neighborhood is relevant.

I still do not understand why so many people who do not like Republicans blame Jews for what they do.

i certainly HAVE NOT said i cant see the reasons we support israel- ive stated many times im well aware of them- i just dont think they are GOOD or ethical reasons at all (by we i mean america)

and while you say youve printed reasons on the past you have not- just saying youve done it doesnt cover the fact that you havent-

ive searched your posts looking for subtle reasons i may have missed-and to date youve only posted quite recently.

i have asked for your personal reasons over and over and over again-

and you always change the subject-

ive been asking for your personal WHY-

and you still havent answered the why-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
your reason is that christian evangelicals believe that the jews should be back in israel-

so- why should that be YOUR reason?

youre not evangelical

why would your reasons be dependent on what evangelicals think?

because everyone ays so isnt a personal reason-

why DOES your opinion rest on what evangelicals do?

you may have a reason dave- you may think that they have a strong moral fibre and wouldnt support something immoral- i dont knwo your reasons-

that is why i ask why?
to gain another perspective

how can i develop symapthies for israel if no one has any defense from a human and moral and ethical standpoint?

that is all ive been asking you for a long time
and it really is incongruous to me that someone has a strong support for something but cannot define it-

that is the only question ive really asked you-

for instance- if every muslim in the world said that murder is okay- i still would go against the crowd and say it is not.

you get me?

the majority isnt a substitute for considerate examination of ones own conscience-

i am very willing to see things form the ethical standpoint of the israeli supporter-

i just cant find one- if you have one, tell me about it-

and deflecting criticism by pointing out the rotten actions of others- still doesnt change the facts-

if police shoot someone in queens it has no bearing on the policies of israel- when they put up a question on police brutality or racism in america-(actually they just did) we can discuss it there

so im wondering how the opinions of evangelists drives your own personal reasoning process to support israel as an individual.

just the why
for understanding

i certainly HAVE NOT said i cant see the reasons we support israel- ive stated many times im well aware of them- i just dont think they are GOOD or ethical reasons at all (by we i mean america)

and while you say youve printed reasons on the past you have not- just saying youve done it doesnt cover the fact that you havent-

ive searched your posts looking for subtle reasons i may have missed-and to date youve only posted quite recently.

i have asked for your personal reasons over and over and over again-

and you always change the subject-

ive been asking for your personal WHY-

and you still havent answered the why-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
your reason is that christian evangelicals believe that the jews should be back in israel-

so- why should that be YOUR reason?

youre not evangelical

why would your reasons be dependent on what evangelicals think?

because everyone ays so isnt a personal reason-

why DOES your opinion rest on what evangelicals do?

you may have a reason dave- you may think that they have a strong moral fibre and wouldnt support something immoral- i dont knwo your reasons-

that is why i ask why?
to gain another perspective

how can i develop symapthies for israel if no one has any defense from a human and moral and ethical standpoint?

that is all ive been asking you for a long time
and it really is incongruous to me that someone has a strong support for something but cannot define it-

that is the only question ive really asked you-

for instance- if every muslim in the world said that murder is okay- i still would go against the crowd and say it is not.

you get me?

the majority isnt a substitute for considerate examination of ones own conscience-

i am very willing to see things form the ethical standpoint of the israeli supporter-

i just cant find one- if you have one, tell me about it-

Victoria,

Sometimes you say you can't see any reasons we support Israel. And sometimes you ask for my reasons. The reasons I have given that you refer to have been posted by me many times before.

The only reason you address is the most powerful one. Most traditional Christians strongly support Israel. Those Christians who do not are an outraged minority. But they are far more outraged about gay rights than they are about Israel. Jews have nothing to do with that unless you choose to blame Jews for Christianity.

Curiously Americans who are obsessed about Israel's racism are not as concerned about the racism they see all around them in the US. You are in Queens. What do you think about the Sean Bell matter and the way the city lets the police deal with it?

ok, well you say youre an analytial guy dave - so lets start from your reasons that you finally posted-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

well, as for number 1 reason-

because the evangelicals want to force gods hand and push the apocalypse up so that jesus(ata) can come again-

isnt this a little bit exclusivist?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

your reason is that christian evangelicals believe that the jews should be back in israel-

so- why should that be YOUR reason?

youre not evangelical

why would your reasons be dependent on what evangelicals think?

while you appear to be taking the high rod now dave, are you suggesting that we change the conversation from criticism of israel to proposing a plan for peace?

because we never really did figure out the part about the reasons for israel yet- as a matter of fact- since feb 21 ive been trying to get you to post any reasons at all and that just happened yesterday-

did you ant to finish that conversation?

perhaps you could elaborate on the 'why" of your reasons.
(actually that has been my question all along)

dave- no one here is shouting.

we are expressing opinions and backing those opinions up with logical sources.

i have truly been trying to find what it is about israel (besides what i perceive as an emotional attachment indoctrinated into children before they can make a logical distinction) that is so deserving of the overhwelming attention and aid and sympathy america has given her.

i have been asking this question for years-

i cant begin to have more compassion for zionists until one of them shows me some reason to-

if you have compelling reasons dave- i am the first to be happy to hear them- but you dont seem to have a strong reason or reasoning process-
so i fill in my own until you supply it.

im not sure what to think about the evangelicals you mentioned-

i stated what their thinking is- its no secret at all- but i do see the incredible injustices perpetuated for half a century (actually it happened long before) on the palestinians, and to me it is a blight on the rest of humanity that they sit complicitly silent and allow this to happen, let alone live in a country where the taxes i pay go to support a government that abuses people so.

and my sympathies naturally lie with the oppressed.
and there are many many many jews who agree with this.

if i were jewish would that make my voice more valid?

i dont really believe so- but self criticism or even examination is lacking in these discourses-

the arab summit just came up with the plan again- to return to pre-1967 borders-

what is so hard about that?

i personally have moved so many times in my life that they almost equal my years.

the last settlers that had to evacuate got a nice 250,000 dollar compensation- no one is suggesting people give up generations on a piece of land- this is all recent history-

in my life i have many many times not advanced myself because it meant i i would do it at someone elses loss-
i dont expect anyone to do anything i would not do myself.

so dave- i guess for some reason youre with the evangelists- this doesnt make sense to me but its your reason-

i keep suggesting topics to have them rejected-

what is wrong with the pre-1967 borders?

"Can you justify why one group of people should be forced to live in the most densely populated piece of real estate on earth?"

Gaza is not a prison. People are not forced to live there.

There are plenty of victims on each side.

Peace is not about the side you disagree with surrendering to those you approve of. People must stop trying to bull their way through. That is where reason comes in. Creating special definitions of common words and insisting they are the only definitions is no road to peace.

So we have to get beyond people shouting back and forth about matters of definition. That means more careful discussion and fewer broad generalizations. I am trying to show the way to that here with no success.

Can you justify why one group of people should be forced to live in the most densely populated piece of real estate on earth? where water is controlled by another group of people? That travel and families are separated by a "wall" and that collective punishment is imposed on families by an army with Tanks and Helicopter Gun Ships. Is this what our G-d is going to justify? Why do people become terrorists? What drives children to give up their innocence and blow themselves up? Killing more innocents. This thread was about criticism of Israel and some of you chose to perpetuate the problem and ignore the solution .

Peace and freedom for every human being is the only solution. When you don't criticize oppression you become part of it. You forfeit your values and ideals to hold on to a piece of real estate at the cost of your children dn their children. This conflict is about two groups of people that have lost sight of their values and priorities. They have lost the love of mankind and have become entrenched in the politics of destruction. Enough, enough....you can try to justify and revise history for any purpose. But, in the end nothing rationalizes violence, greed and control.

For peace sake we all have to come together and solve the problems not keep things moving in the same direction.

Dave and Victoria both of you are of strong conviction. Both of you could be part of the solution. I would like to see if either one of you could have empathy for the victims. I also would say Dave could you live for 50 years in Gaza?

Can you justify why one group of people should be forced to live in the most densely populated piece of real estate on earth? where water is controlled by another group of people? That travel and families are separated by a "wall" and that collective punishment is imposed on families by an army with Tanks and Helicopter Gun Ships. Is this what our G-d is going to justify? Why do people become terrorists? What drives children to give up their innocence and blow themselves up? Killing more innocents. This thread was about criticism of Israel and some of you chose to perpetuate the problem and ignore the solution .

Peace and freedom for every human being is the only solution. When you don't criticize oppression you become part of it. You forfeit your values and ideals to hold on to a piece of real estate at the cost of your children dn their children. This conflict is about two groups of people that have lost sight of their values and priorities. They have lost the love of mankind and have become entrenched in the politics of destruction. Enough, enough....you can try to justify and revise history for any purpose. But, in the end nothing rationalizes violence, greed and control.

For peace sake we all have to come together and solve the problems not keep things moving in the same direction.

Dave and Victoria both of you are of strong conviction. Both of you could be part of the solution. I would like to see if either one of you could have empathy for the victims. I also would say Dave could you live for 50 years in Gaza?

Victoria,

Are you finally willing to concede that I have been giving reasons why we support Israel?

"also i notice your conspicuous silence and non response to all the republican candidates and their relationship to AIPAC and israel"

What is that relationship? Most Jews vote for Democrats. AIPAC is rightly viewed as a collection of people who are close to Israel. And many Christians care deeply about the security of Israel. There are at least ten times as many Christians who support Israel as there are Jews in total. And it is not because they all like and respect Jews.

I guess you also take this seriously:

"28-Year Career CIA Official Says 9/11 An Inside Job"

That is the man you have just quoted with approval as an expert.

DAVE MARSHAK'S REASONS WHY THE US SHOULD SUPPORT ISRAEL

Christians especially evangelical Protestants think Jews should be back in Israel.

We look at Israel with its robust democracy and enterprising spirit and see people who are doing the kinds of things we like people to do. So we help them out.

The money spent for Israel balances the money others spend against Israel. It is based on the fact that a war has been going on against Israel for almost 60 years; sometimes it is very hot and sometimes it is cold but it has never stopped.

Israel is very creative in its business zone and we like nations that are good at business, enterprise, creating new technologies, running things well, and solving issues among themselves peacefully using the tools of Democracy.

We think a peaceful Middle East, where the nations are more like what I said about Israel in the prior paragraph, is good for us and good for humanity. And we think our views about how to achieve that make sense.

Posted April 4, 2007 11:01 AM STARHAWKS BLOG

okay- lets start with reason number 1-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" Christians especially evangelical Protestants think Jews should be back in Israel."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ok- evangelists and right wingers want to push the apocalypse up and force gods hand into the return of jesus-

thats a good reason!

just pulls at your heartstrings doesnt it-

well, it certainly asnswers the only important question, "Is it good for israel?"

also notice how hes speaking about iran.
Iran? dave didnt you say israeli opinion wont push american into a war with iran?
yes you did-
but here he is assuring AIPAC that if president he will certainly coincide in their interests to control iran- but theyre not related-no no-

the same man who told an audience nobody is suffering more than the palestinians now seems to have turned his back on them and any other enemies of israel-
if theyre enemies of israel- theyre enemies of the united states-

although no one has actually ever said WHY this is so-

actually its been my question to you dave which youve sidestepped with alacrity-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DOES THE ISRAELI TAIL WAG AMERICAN DOG?

By Kathleen and Bill Christison

A quarter century ago, the executive director of AIPAC —the American Israel Public Affairs Committee—established an analytical unit inside the organization to write in-depth advocacy papers for policymakers. The year was 1981, the president was Ronald Reagan, and AIPAC had just lost a hard-fought battle in Congress over the sale of AWACS surveillance aircraft to Saudi Arabia. The AIPAC leader was an energetic former congressional aide named Thomas Dine, who used the setback to build AIPAC into a formidable political force. Over the next few years, Dine quadrupled AIPAC’s grassroots membership as well as its budget and aggressively expanded contacts with Congress and policymakers. He set out to supply politicians with analyses geared toward advancing Israeli interests, in the stated belief that anyone who wrote papers read by policymakers would effectively “own” the policymakers.

This was a seminal moment in the decades-long growth of the lobby’s influence on US Middle East policy, often to the detriment of US national interests. Many have characterized the relationship between what the United States does in the Middle East and what the lobby wants it to do as a case of the Israeli tail wagging the US dog. Israel and its US supporters, although constituting the junior partner in the relationship, are seen as virtually dictating policy to whatever administration and Congress are in power. There are myriad examples of this dynamic, most notably Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which dragged the US into a disastrous intervention, and Israel’s invasion of the West Bank in 2002, during which Prime Minister Ariel Sharon openly and repeatedly defied President George Bush’s demand for a withdrawal. Others maintain that the tail-wagging is the other way around: that the United States, as the superpower, patron of Israel, and its major aid donor, is unmistakably the senior partner and the dog that wags the tail. The question, therefore, is which is the accurate assessment, or is the cynical view of Israeli commentator Michel Warschawski correct, that “there is neither a dog nor a tail, but one global war of re-colonization, and one aggressive monster with two ugly heads”?

Silence Broken

Despite the growing power of the Israel lobby, and the growing convergence of US and Israeli efforts toward global and regional Middle East domination, public debate over the size and substance of the lobby’s role in US policymaking was almost non-existent until two political scientists, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard University, issued an 81-page report in March 2006 analyzing lobby strength. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science, and Walt, Belfer Professor of International Affairs, are leading proponents of the realist school of foreign policy, which argues that states act to further military and economic power rather than pursue idealism and ethics. Their report sparked widespread interest when it was published in abbreviated form in the London Review of Books. Defining the lobby broadly as “the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction,” Mearsheimer and Walt conclude that the thrust of US policy in the Middle East is overwhelmingly the result of the lobby’s activities. They observe that, while other lobbies and interest groups have also demonstrated an ability to skew policy, “no lobby has managed to divert US foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US and Israeli interests are essentially identical.”

The report aroused instantaneous and vocal opposition from the very individuals whom the authors identify as members of the lobby. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a vociferous advocate of Israel, called the authors “liars” engaging in “crass bigotry” and likened their arguments to neo-Nazi propaganda, filled with “thinly veiled charges of Jewish control of American thought” reminiscent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Abraham Foxman and his Anti-Defamation League (ADL) charged that the report’s main thesis “is the embodiment of classic, anti-Jewish conspiracy theory.”

Most criticism from Israel’s strongest advocates fails, however, to address the principal points of the Mearsheimer-Walt study: that influential elements in the United States—non-Jews as well as Jews—who have as a primary objective the advancement of Israeli interests have gained undue influence over US Middle East policy and use this influence to tilt policy toward Israel in ways that are contrary to US national interests. Instead, critics argue off the point, raising straw men that distract from the report’s main thesis.

The accusation that Mearsheimer and Walt are “anti-Semitic” is the charge most commonly heard from supporters of Israel across the political spectrum. Not coincidentally, it is also a line of attack long used by the lobby to silence and indeed attack anyone who dares question Israeli policies or the United States’ close ties to Israel. The question of anti-Semitism was addressed during a major debate in New York in September that pitted Mearsheimer and two allies against a former Israeli official and two policymakers from the Clinton administration, Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk. These three opponents of Mearsheimer, although clearly supporters of Israel, are generally regarded as centrists, neither particularly hard-core like Dershowitz nor rightwing, but all three echoed Dershowitz in charging that the report “lowers itself to the level of anti-Semitism” or “has connotations of anti-Semitism,” simply because it discusses the role of some Jews in positions of power and influence.

This debate around anti-Semitism is a diversion from the main issue and is undoubtedly intended as such. The New York panel spent fully one-third of its allotted time examining whether Mearsheimer and Walt are anti-Semitic before getting to any substantive analysis of the report’s conclusions and evidence. Criticism of former President Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid follows the same pattern. Critics charge poor scholarship or hint at anti-Semitism because Carter uses the term “apartheid” to describe Israel’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. Many, including the Democratic Party leadership, have criticized the book, but few have provided evidence to support their charges or seriously examined the evidence behind Carter’s thesis.

A member of the New York panel who spoke in support of the Mearsheimer-Walt report, New York University professor Tony Judt, has written about the crippling effect that Americans’ induced fear of being labeled anti-Semitic has had on public discourse about anything relating to Israel and ultimately on policy. During the panel discussion, he highlighted the phenomenon by observing that, although there are “hundreds of distorting lobbies” in the US, the Israel lobby is the only one that not only acts energetically in pursuit of its cause, “but acts constantly and very effectively to silence criticism of its cause.” In a similar vein, Mearsheimer observed in an interview with Mother Jones that the main reason the strong affinity between the US and Israel continues is the absence of open and candid discussion about the relationship. There would be far less sympathy for Israel, he said, if Americans knew what Israelis are doing in the occupied territories. “In essence, America’s present relationship with Israel could not withstand public scrutiny.”

Jimmy Carter’s book makes a major effort to provide more scrutiny, but its success is so far uncertain. Scott Ritter, who worked closely with Israel as a military intelligence officer and as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq, reiterates both Judt’s and Mearsheimer’s observations in his new book Target Iran. While many nations maintain active lobbies in the US, he writes, none has “the scope and clout” of the Israel lobby and none operates in its “brazen manner.” Ritter foresees a potentially catastrophic US-Israeli confrontation with Iran and believes the only way to avoid this will be by bringing the nature of the US-Israeli relationship into the national discourse, fundamentally re-examining why the US operates in “continued national impotence as another nation, Israel, dictates national security policy for all America.”

In a 2003 critique of Israel and the U.S.-Israeli relationship in the New York Review of Books, Judt touched on what Mearsheimer and Walt later laid out as their principal thesis. Judt wrote that Israel continued “to mock its American patron” by building illegal settlements even as the US was pushing the “Roadmap” peace plan calling for a freeze on settlement construction. Israel had reduced the powerful president of the United States, he said, to a “ventriloquist’s dummy, pitifully reciting the Israeli cabinet line.” Its behavior “has been a disaster for American foreign policy.” The United States’ unconditional support for Israel “is the main reason why most of the rest of the world no longer credits our good faith.”

James Abourezk knows the lobby well. A US senator from South Dakota from 1972-1978, Abourezk says, from his experience in Congress, that “the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear”—fear that “anyone who does not do what Israel wants done” will be defeated by the lobby. Abourezk reinforces the point about the lobby’s efforts to silence. “Even one voice is attacked,” he writes, “on grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the press will have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as well. Any journalists or editors who step out of line are quickly brought under control by well organized economic pressure against the newspaper caught sinning.” Jimmy Carter has described a similar phenomenon in recent commentaries, noting that AIPAC’s “extraordinary lobbying efforts” have silenced all debate in policymaking councils, in Congress, and in the media about Israeli policies.

Abourezk describes pressure tactics that were already in full swing before AIPAC set out to “own” policymakers, and Carter has made it clear that the lobby’s stranglehold on discourse and on decisionmaking has tightened. The pro-Israeli tilt that has, to one degree or another, been characteristic of most administrations and most Congresses since Israel’s creation was clearly not Dine’s invention or a phenomenon that emerged only in the 1980s. But Dine institutionalized the process, strengthening it significantly.

In 1984, in addition to the internal analytical unit, AIPAC spun off another body, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), that remains a pre-eminent think tank—one that has placed its analysts in policymaking jobs in several administrations. Dennis Ross, who was the senior Middle East policymaker in the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, came from WINEP and returned there after leaving government service. Martin Indyk, an original member of AIPAC’s analytical unit and WINEP’s first director, entered a senior policymaking position in the Clinton administration from there. Mearsheimer and Walt correctly describe both men as situated “at the core of the lobby.”

This assertion addresses a critical aspect of the lobby question by emphasizing the reality that the lobby has in recent decades actually become a part of various administrations. The lobby is also not confined to the formal Jewish-American organizations such as AIPAC and the ADL and think tanks like WINEP and JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, but also includes numerous individuals who work on Israel’s behalf and encompasses the very large fundamentalist Christian right. The Christian right strongly supports Israel’s continued control over the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem as the essential prerequisite to the so-called Millennium, when they believe Jesus Christ will reappear. During the last several years in particular, the Christian right has used its vast numbers to lobby both the administration and Congress in support of Israel’s policies and in opposition to any proposal that would require Israeli concessions.

The kind of blunt pressure on decisionmakers that Abourezk describes is only one way in which the organized lobby operates. The bond between Israel and the US has always had its grounding as much in soft emotions as in the hard realities of geopolitical strategy. Over the years since Israel’s creation, there has been a pervasive atmosphere in which Israel is simply assumed to be so close to the US, its interests so closely intertwined with American interests, that it is accepted almost as a part of the US.

The lobby reinforces this sentiment, channeling it into institutional ways of involving ordinary Americans in supporting Israel. Jeffrey Blankfort, a northern California radio host and long-time commentator on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and other Middle East issues, points out, for instance, that 1,700 unions in the US own more than $5 billion of Israel bonds. This effectively obliges the unions to support Israel, Blankfort believes, making the American labor movement a part of the lobby. It is one reason that the organized left in the United States has opposed making the Palestine issue part of the anti-war movement. Many states and universities also invest in Israel bonds, as well as in Israeli companies, giving these local governments and institutions an interest in supporting Israel’s policies in order to keep the Israeli economy going.

The pervasiveness of the lobby’s influence makes Tony Judt’s reference to the US president as a “ventriloquist’s dummy” particularly apt. As Walt pointed out in a Mother Jones interview, no matter what Israel does, the United States continues to support it. “They continue to build settlements even though every president since Lyndon Johnson has thought that was a bad idea. They spy on us routinely. They’ve given or sold American military technology to other countries. Also…they have conducted a wide variety of human rights violations, and yet none of those activities ever slows down American support.” For the last several decades, AIPAC has frequently involved itself directly in the legislative process, writing legislation relating to the Middle East and pushing a series of anti-Arab, pro-Israeli resolutions that state the stance of the Senate and the House on various issues, such as Israel’s construction of the separation wall and Israel’s summer 2006 attack on Lebanon. AIPAC often boasts that it vets and exerts influence over presidential candidates. During the 2004 presidential campaign when Howard Dean issued a mild and seemingly non-controversial call for an “even-handed” US policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict, he was roundly condemned by the lobby and by fellow Democrats, and he quickly dropped the call. Long-serving congressmen who deviate are targeted for electoral defeat. In the 1980s, Representative Paul Findley and Senator Charles Percy, who had each served multiple terms in Illinois, were defeated through the efforts of AIPAC after both spoke out in favor of negotiating with the PLO. More recently, Georgia’s Cynthia McKinney has twice been the target of AIPAC’s electoral interference.

The list goes on. Israel and its lobby have been the policy initiators, the US the follower, in Israel’s 1967 war, its 1982 invasion of Lebanon, its 2002 invasion of the West Bank, its 40-year settlement-construction enterprise in the occupied Palestinian territories, its disproportionate attacks on Palestinians, its assault on Lebanon. The scope of the lobby’s infiltration of government policymaking councils has been unprecedented during the current Bush administration, and there is strong evidence that neo-conservatives inside the administration—whose ties to Israel’s right wing are undeniable—were the architects of the invasion of Iraq and of the administration’s push to “transform” the Middle East and spread “democracy” throughout the region. Mearsheimer and Walt assert that the Iraq war was “at least partly intended to improve Israel’s strategic position”—a reality that would seem to be confirmed by the fact that some of these same neo-cons authored a strategy paper, entitled “A Clean Break,” in the mid-1990s for then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, laying out a plan for attacking Iraq that was later pushed when the neo-cons entered the Bush administration. The strategy was designed explicitly to assure Israel’s regional dominance, to undermine the Oslo peace process, and to relieve Israel of pressure to make concessions to the Palestinians.

One of the authors, David Wurmser, remains in government as Vice President Richard Cheney’s Middle East adviser; the others, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, were closely involved in Iraq war planning as, respectively, an adviser to the Pentagon and an undersecretary of defense. Almost all the other neo-cons, both Jews and non-Jews, have also compiled long records of advocacy on behalf of Israel. These include Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, and their cheerleaders on the sidelines such as William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Norman Podhoretz, the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, and numerous rightwing, pro-Israeli think tanks in Washington.

In response to the lobby’s pressure on legislators and policymakers, the US has given Israel massive amounts of military and economic aid over the years. Mearsheimer and Walt cite statistics from the US Agency for International Development indicating that between 1976 and 2003, the US gave Israel a total of $140 billion in aid, in constant 2003 dollars. One economist, Thomas Stauffer, who has long tracked aid to Israel, put the figure much higher in 2002, estimating a total of $240 billion in the preceding 30 years, adjusted to current dollars. Israel now receives an automatic $2-3 billion annually in grant aid, mostly military, in addition to large increments of additional aid to compensate for the cost to Israel of such actions as the Lebanon war and the Gaza withdrawal.

Defining the National Interest

The truly important part of the debate over the lobby’s power swirls around the issue of national interests—what constitutes national interests, who determines them, and whether real national interests are harmed by the lobby. A group of commentators and analysts on the left who are highly critical of Israel’s policies have nonetheless been dismissive of the notion that the lobby has particular influence over policy. Their arguments center on the issue of what actually constitutes the US national interest. Noam Chomsky has frequently indicated that Middle East policy is determined largely by what he calls the “tight state-corporate linkage” where domestic power is concentrated—in other words, the military-industrial complex working in cooperation with the government, whose special interests, Chomsky believes, ultimately define US national interests. The Israel lobby has some impact on determining policy in Chomsky’s estimation, but to a far lesser extent and generally only insofar as the lobby’s interests conform to corporate-government interests.

Chomsky and the other left critics of the lobby study essentially believe that US policy has always been directed at the advancement of US imperial and corporate interests, and that Israel, far from leading the US into harmful policies and foreign adventures, has always done the US bidding. The US would pursue its imperial objectives even without Israel, and it has pursued these in areas outside the Middle East, such as Chile, Indonesia, Central America, and elsewhere, without benefit of any lobby. The Israel lobby, in this view, functions as merely a handy adjunct to US policy, not an agent with any control or particular influence.

One thing this argument ignores, however, is that the lobby and its close ties to US arms makers strengthen the ability of the military-industrial complex to control what are defined as US national interests. The Israel lobby holds unquestionable sway over many individual congressmen and executive branch officials, including in the White House, making it difficult for anyone to influence the alleged national interests of the US in ways that the lobby might feel weakened Israel’s uniquely special relationship with the US. Any debate involving this taboo subject, even indirectly, would almost certainly be quashed before it started, buried under paeans for Israel from both Republicans and Democrats.

Afif Safieh, the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization Mission in Washington, makes another point. He calls the approach of Chomsky and others on the left a “mechanistic” view that does not allow for the fact that each situation has its own specificity, the specificity in this case being that the junior partner can often “hijack” and “monopolize” decisionmaking on Middle East issues. The left’s argument comes from a kind of determinism that assumes US policy has rarely if ever deviated from a clearly laid-out imperial strategy designed to promote corporate interests.

But simply because the US overthrew a government deemed inimical to American business interests in Chile or supported a dictator in Indonesia where the oil industry had interests does not prove that whenever Israel has attacked Arab countries, as with Egypt in 1967 and Lebanon in 1982, it was acting to serve the United States or was, as Chomsky has alleged, performing a “huge service to the US-Saudis-Energy corporations by smashing secular Arab nationalism.” Israel in no way serves to ensure US access to or control over the Middle East’s oil resources, nor does it work in conjunction with the oil industry.

There is no denying the intricate interweaving of the US military-industrial-financial complex with Israel’s military, industrial, and financial interests, as Chomsky and others on the left contend, but rather than a relationship in which Israel does the bidding of the US corporate-government conglomeration, in reality the entanglement is much more one between two independent players. And the lobby essentially functions to sustain and manipulate the entanglement. Blankfort maintains that the influence of the lobby “is actually underestimated. Not only does it keep Congress in thrall to its demands on issues pertaining to Israel and the Middle East in general, it also serves, less conspicuously, as a powerful lobbying force for maintaining America’s high levels of military spending and for integrating the Israeli arms industry with that of the US.” This integration, Blankfort says, “goes a long way to explain why there has been no significant opposition to the annual military budget from any sector of Congress.”

Israel and its lobby work hand in glove with the US arms industry to advance their combined, usually compatible interests. The relatively few powerful, wealthy families that dominate the Israeli arms industry are just as interested in pressing for aggressively militaristic US and Israeli foreign policies as are the CEOs of US arms corporations. As globalization has progressed, so have the ties of joint ownership and close financial and technological cooperation among the arms corporations of the two nations grown ever closer. The relationship is symbiotic, and the lobby cooperates intimately to keep it alive; lobbyists can go to many in Congress and tell them credibly that if aid to Israel is cut off, thousands of arms-industry jobs in their districts will be lost. The lobby does not simply passively support the desires of the military-industrial complex. It actively twists arms in Congress and the administration to perpetuate acceptance of certain “national interests” that many Americans believe is wrong.

A Two-Headed Monster

As Tony Judt noted, much of the rest of the world now “no longer credits our good faith.” Strong US support for Israel has long roiled Arab public opinion, but since the collapse of the peace process and the start of the Palestinian intifada and Israel’s harsh crackdown in September 2000, opinion polls in Arab and Muslim countries have repeatedly shown strong and growing distrust of the United States, linked principally to US support for Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians and more recently to the Iraq war. Hostile attitudes reach into the 70-80 percent range in many Arab countries. Similar, although not as strong or pervasive, distrust of the US emerges in polls in Europe. The growing anti-US sentiment resulting from the close US relationship with Israel is a principal emphasis in the Mearsheimer-Walt report. The authors point out at the opening of their report that Bush administration policies, heavily influenced by the Israel lobby, have helped produce a “resilient insurgency in Iraq, a sharp rise in world oil prices, and terrorist bombings in Madrid, London, and Amman.” The United States’ “unwavering” support for Israel, they write, has “inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized US security.” They believe the US has actually set aside its own security to advance the interests of another state.

The obvious result has been more terrorism against the US and its allies. Osama bin Laden’s videos and taped statements from the 1990s talk about the Palestinians and his anger with the US because of its alliance with Israel. His anger and that of other radical Islamists is on behalf of Muslims who have been killed and exploited by the US, Israel, and the West for decades, and Palestinians are perhaps the most prominent among these. His anger is shared by millions of the oppressed, and he can attract the radicals among them to his struggle on the basis of his stance as a defender of Palestinians and all oppressed Muslims. This is a danger to the United States, arising directly from the strong US-Israel tie and the lobby’s strenuous efforts to sustain it, that cannot be underestimated.

The tragedy of the present situation is that it has become impossible to separate Israeli from alleged US interests—that is, not what should be real US national interests, but the selfish and self-defined “national interests” of the political-corporate-military complex that, in conjunction with the lobby, dominates the Bush administration, Congress, and both major political parties. The specific groups that now dominate the government are the globalized arms, energy, and financial industries, and the entire military establishments, of the US and of Israel—groups that have quite literally hijacked the government and stripped it of most vestiges of democracy. The “aggressive monster with two ugly heads” that Michel Warschawski speaks of is a reality.

This convergence of manipulated “interests” has a profound effect on US policy choices in the Middle East. If the United States is unable to distinguish the world’s or its own real needs from those of another state and that state’s lobby, then it simply cannot say that it always acts in its own best interests. In the face of the massive human rights violations being committed against Palestinians today, the failure to recognize this reality is where those who belittle the lobby’s power and accept US Middle East policy as simply an unchangeable part of a longstanding strategy are particularly dangerous.

Bill Christison is a former senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence Officer and as Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis.

Kathleen Christison is a former CIA political analyst and has worked on Middle East issues for 30 years. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession.
« Inside America’s powerful Israel lobby AIPAC, Israel’s Intransigence Criticized by a Prominent Jew »

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

also i notice your conspicuous silence and non response to all the republican candidates and their relationship to AIPAC and israel

but i saved the best for last

wait til you see the democrats

any comments on what is postd dave?

or just another blithe dismissal wothout even reading or considering the text?

"you are right dave- the tentacles of aipac are far reaching- you didnt know theyve been courting the christian right for some time?"

They are smart, knowledgable and persuasive. Is that a crime in your view? They do not control the Christian Right and the Christian Right is waiting for Jesus to return before they move to Israel.

"nobody can figure out what youve said dave-

all you do is blithely dismiss all comments-

you dont address anything specifically- at all"

That is the problem with critics of Israel who cry about how AIPAC blocks discussion. When people try to discuss things with them, they get the results I am getting. So it winds up being people shouting in each others faces in the name of peace while people who desire sensible and careful discussion are ignored.

this article was written the day after obama said this-

Obama told the Muscatine-area party activists that he supports relaxing restrictions on aid to the Palestinian people. He said they have suffered the most as a result of stalled peace efforts with Israel.

"Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people," Obama said while on the final leg of his weekend trip to eastern Iowa.

"If we could get some movement among Palestinian leadership, what I'd like to see is a loosening up of some of the restrictions on providing aid directly to the Palestinian people," he added."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
seems like hes being symapthetic to palestinians and doesnt it?

obama is young and not so wise in the ways of getting elected in america-

overwhelming critical response from the jewish communities forced him to suddenly revise this obviously pro-palestinian statement to a more acceptable pro-israel message-

first it was revised thusly-

"Correction: March 15, 2007, Thursday An article yesterday about competition for Jewish support between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama incorrectly described Mr. Obama's views about the culpability for stalled peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis. Mr. Obama blames Hamas, which controls much of the Palestinian government, for the stalled peace talks; he does not blame Israel."

O- that makes more sense- its the palestinians OWN FAULT that they are suffering!
is that realy what he said?

no- what he really said is nobody is suffering more than the palestinian people- but ok, well pretend he meant they created their own suffering-

now watch how he completely turns around in a scant few days-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: Our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy," he added. "That will always be my starting point."

Obama said: "We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli prime minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States."

The Illinois senator also called for continued American military assistance to Israel. "We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs," he said.

Obama added that he was concerned about the Palestinian unity government accord.

Turning to Iran, the presidential hopeful called for direct engagement with the Islamic republic over its nuclear program.

"We need the United States to lead tough-minded diplomacy," he said. "This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War."

"Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions," Obama continued. "It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs. It would mean full implementation of U.S. sanctions laws."

Obama blamed what he called the Administration's failed strategy in Iraq for strengthening the Iranian position, placing "Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in greater peril."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
but if thats not strong enough theres more-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTE: Obama's speech was largely written by Mark Lippert, Obama's Senate foreign policy adviser, and Dan Shapiro, a Middle East specialist, now a lobbyist, who is an Obama campaign foreign policy adviser. Shapiro recently was a deputy chief of staff for Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and handled international affairs for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). He also served on the National Security Council under former President Bill Clinton.]

Thank you so much for your kind introduction and the invitation to meet with you this morning.

Last week, this event was described to me as a small gathering of friends. Looking at all of you here today; seeing so many of you who care about peace in this world; who care about a strong and lasting friendship between Israel and the United States, and who care about what's on the next page of our shared futures, I think "a small gathering of friends" fits this crowd just right.

I want to begin today by telling you a story.

Back in January of 2006, I made my first trip to the Holy Land. It is a place unlike any other on this earth ­ a place filled with so much promise of what we truly can be as people; a place where we've learned how in a flash, violence and hatred and intolerance can turn that promise to rubble and send too many lives to their early graves.

Most will travel to the holy sites: the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Dome of the Rock or the Western Wall. They make a journey to be humbled before God. I too am blessed to have seen Israel this way, up close and on the ground.

But I am also fortunate to have seen Israel from the air.

On my journey that January day, I flew on an IDF helicopter to the border zone. The helicopter took us over the most troubled and dangerous areas and that narrow strip between the West Bank and the Mediterranean Sea. At that height, I could see the hills and the terrain that generations have walked across. I could truly see how close everything is and why peace through security is the only way for Israel.

Our helicopter landed in the town of Kiryat Shmona on the border. What struck me first about the village was how familiar it looked. The houses and streets looked like ones you might find in a suburb in America. I could imagine young children riding their bikes down the streets. I could imagine the sounds of their joyful play just like my own daughters. There were cars in the driveway. The shrubs were trimmed. The families were living their lives.

Then, I saw a house that had been hit with one of Hezbollah's Katyusha rockets.

The family who lived in the house was lucky to be alive. They had been asleep in another part when the rocket hit. They described the explosion. They talked about the fire and the shrapnel. They spoke about what might have been if the rocket had come screaming into their home at another time when they weren't asleep but sitting peacefully in the now destroyed part of the house.

It is an experience I keep close to my heart. Not because it is unique, but because we know that too many others have seen the same kind of destruction, have lost their loved ones to suicide bombers and live in fear of when the next attack might hit. Just six months after I visited, Hezbollah launched four thousand rocket attacks just like the one that destroyed the home in Kiryat Shmona, and kidnapped Israeli service members. And we pray for all of the service members who have been kidnapped: Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev, and Ehud Goldwasser, and I met with his family this week. I offered to help in any way I can.

It is important to remember this history-that Israel had unilaterally withdrawn from Lebanon only to have Iran supply Hezbollah with thousands of rockets.

Our job is to never forget that the threat of violence is real. Our job is to renew the United States' efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision. Our job is to do more than lay out another road map; our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region.

That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point. And when we see all of the growing threats in the region: from Iran to Iraq to the resurgence of al-Qaeda to the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah, that loyalty and that friendship will guide me as we begin to lay the stones that will build the road that takes us from the current instability to lasting peace and security.

It won't be easy. Some of those stones will be heavy and tough for the United States to carry. Others with be heavy and tough for Israel to carry. And even more will be difficult for the world. But together, we will begin again.

One of the heavy stones that currently rest at the United States' feet is Iraq. Until we lift this burden from our foreign policy, we cannot rally the world to our values and vision.

As many of you know, I opposed this war from the beginning ­ in part because I believed that giving this President the open-ended authority to invade Iraq would lead to the open-ended occupation we find ourselves in today.

Now our soldiers find themselves in the crossfire of someone else's civil war. More than 3,100 have given the last full measure of devotion to their country. This war has fueled terrorism and helped galvanize terrorist organizations. And it has made the world less safe.

That is why I advocate a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq to begin no later than May first with the goal of removing all combat forces from Iraq by March 2008. In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability.

My plan also allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain and prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for international terrorism and reduce the risk of all-out chaos. In addition, we will redeploy our troops to other locations in the region, reassuring our allies that we will stay engaged in the Middle East. And my plan includes a robust regional diplomatic strategy that includes talking to Syria and Iran ­ something this Administration has finally embraced.

The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all that we have asked them to do and more. But a consequence of the Administration's failed strategy in Iraq has been to strengthen Iran's strategic position; reduce U.S. credibility and influence in the region; and place Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in greater peril. These are not the signs of a well-paved road. It is time for profound change.

As the U.S. redeploys from Iraq, we can recapture lost influence in the Middle East. We can refocus our efforts to critical, yet neglected priorities, such as combating international terrorism and winning the war in Afghanistan. And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran. Iran's President Ahmadinejad's regime is a threat to all of us. His words contain a chilling echo of some of the world's most tragic history.

Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth. But we know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60 years, it is time to deny the deniers.

In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done. Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric.

The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest that could fuel greater instability in the region-that's not just bad for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more dangerous and unpredictable place. Other nations would feel great pressure to accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran's backing would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran could spread this technology around the world.

To prevent this worst-case scenario, we need the United States to lead tough-minded diplomacy.

This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran's major trading partners. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs. It would mean unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. It would mean full implementation of U.S. sanctions laws. And over the long term, it would mean a focused approach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our own alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down.

We must also persuade other nations such as Saudi Arabia to recognize common interests with Israel in dealing with Iran. We should stress to the Egyptians that they help the Iranians and do themselves no favors by failing to adequately prevent the smuggling of weapons and cash by Iran into Gaza.

The United States' leverage is strengthened when we have many nations with us. It puts us in a place where sanctions could actually have a profound impact on Iran's economy. Iran is highly dependent on imports and foreign investment, credit and technology. And an environment where our allies see that these types of investments in Iran are not in the world's best interests, could help bring Iran to the table.

We have no quarrel with the Iranian people. They know that President Ahamadinejad is reckless, irresponsible, and inattentive to their day-to-day needs which is why they sent him a rebuke at the ballot box this fall. And we hope more of them will speak out. There is great hope in their ability to see his hatred for what it is: hatred and a threat to peace in the region.

At the same time, we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza. And when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel's legitimate right to defend itself. Last summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel. By using Lebanon as an outpost for terrorism, and innocent people as shields, Hezbollah has also engulfed that entire nation in violence and conflict, and threatened the fledgling movement for democracy there. That's why we have to press for enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which demands the cessation of arms shipments to Hezbollah, a resolution which Syria and Iran continue to disregard. Their support and shipment of weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which threatens the peace and security in the region, must end.

These are great challenges that we face. And in moments like these, true allies do not walk away. For six years, the administration has missed opportunities to increase the United States' influence in the region and help Israel achieve the peace she wants and the security she needs. The time has come for us to seize those opportunities.

The Israeli people, and Prime Minister Olmert, have made clear that they are more than willing to negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will result in two states living side by side in peace and security. But the Israelis must trust that they have a true Palestinian partner for peace. That is why we must strengthen the hands of Palestinian moderates who seek peace and that is why we must maintain the isolation of Hamas and other extremists who are committed to Israel's destruction.

The U.S. and our partners have put before Hamas three very simple conditions to end this isolation: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce the use of violence; and abide by past agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

We should all be concerned about the agreement negotiated among Palestinians in Mecca last month. The reports of this agreement suggest that Hamas, Fatah, and independent ministers would sit in a government together, under a Hamas Prime Minister, without any recognition of Israel, without a renunciation of violence, and with only an ambiguous promise to "respect" previous agreements.

This should concern us all because it suggests that Mahmoud Abbas, who is a Palestinian leader I believe is committed to peace, felt forced to compromise with Hamas. However, if we are serious about the Quartet's conditions, we must tell the Palestinians this is not good enough.

But as I said at the outset, Israel will have some heavy stones to carry as well. Its history has been full of tough choices in search of peace and security.

Yitzhak Rabin had the vision to reach out to longtime enemies. Ariel Sharon had the determination to lead Israel out of Gaza. These were difficult, painful decisions that went to the heart of Israel's identity as a nation.

Many Israelis I talked to during my visit last year told me that they were prepared to make sacrifices to give their children a chance to know peace. These were people of courage who wanted a better life. And I know these are difficult times and it can be easy to lose hope. But we owe it to our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, and to all those who have fallen, to keep searching for peace and security -- even though it can seem distant. This search is in the best interests of Israel. It is in the best interests of the United States. It is in the best interests of all of us.

We can and we should help Israelis and Palestinians both fulfill their national goals: two states living side by side in peace and security. Both the Israeli and Palestinian people have suffered from the failure to achieve this goal. The United States should leave no stone unturned in working to make that goal a reality.

But in the end, we also know that we should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli Prime Minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States.

We must be partners ­ we must be active partners. Diplomacy in the Middle East cannot be done on the cheap. Diplomacy is measured by patience and effort. We cannot continue to have trips consisting of little more than photo-ops with little movement in between. Neither Israel nor the U.S. is served by this approach.

Peace with security. That is the Israeli people's overriding wish.

It is what I saw in the town of Fassouta on the border with Lebanon. There are 3,000 residents of different faiths and histories.

There is a community center supported by Chicago's own Roman Catholic Archdiocese and the Jewish Federation of Metro Chicago. It is where the education of the next generation has begun: in a small village, all faiths and nationalities, living together with mutual respect.

I met with the people from the village and they gave me a tour of this wonderful place. There was a moment when the young girls came in and they played music and began to dance.

After a few moments, I thought about my own daughters, Sasha and Malia and how they too could dream and dance in a place like this: a place of renewal and restoration. Proof, that in the heart of so much peril, there were signs of life and hope and promise-that the universal song for peace plays on.

Thank you.

you are right dave- the tentacles of aipac are far reaching- you didnt know theyve been courting the christian right for some time?

although lets not make any mistake about it- while they let the christians imagine they will have a part and place in the promised land- christians will not be allowed-
but you know what? most christians dont seem to be aware of this aspect of returning to israel-

but it doesnt matter, you know why?
christian prophecy demands that they kill the jews once they occupy the city of god-

so we have 2 groups who have a joined interest in making israel strong- both intending to exclude or defeat the other when its accomplished-

lovely!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Inside America's powerful Israel lobby

AIPAC's three-day summit included fiery evangelical oratory, adoration for Dick Cheney -- and new plans for going after Iran.
Editor's note: This story has been corrected since it was first published.

By Gregory Levey

Vice President Dick Cheney delivers remarks Monday at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in Washington.

March 16, 2007 | WASHINGTON -- At the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee this week in Washington, a conservative Christian couple from eastern Tennessee told me that their son had decided to join the Israeli army. It was one of many surreal moments during the three-day gathering hosted by AIPAC, the lobbying group devoted to ensuring close U.S.-Israel ties that remains extraordinarily influential in Washington. "We just love God, and we just love Israel," the couple beamed, when I asked why they had come to the conference.

Amid an energized and at times almost circuslike atmosphere, just about everyone in attendance shared two main preoccupations: the 2008 U.S. presidential election and confronting Iran. And this year's conference saw record attendance: more than 6,000 people, coming from every state in the country and exceeding last year's crowd of around 5,000. Many of them were American Jews, of course, but the evangelical Christian community also made a strong showing. For those feeling apocalyptic about the turmoil in the Middle East, pastor John Hagee was there to greet them. Of the many prominent speakers at the conference, Hagee got one of the most enthusiastic receptions.

"The sleeping giant of Christian Zionism has awoken!" Hagee proclaimed, taking the microphone at the opening dinner reception on Sunday. The electrified crowd -- most of it Jewish -- roared in support, pounding on the tables. Hagee went on to declare the United Nations a "political brothel" and asserted that Israel must never give up land. He agreed with Israeli writer Dore Gold that granting part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians would be "tantamount to turning it over to the Taliban." And, after rebuking Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he led the crowd in a chant of "Israel lives!" urging them to "shout it from the mountaintops!"

During Hagee's oratory, an AIPAC delegate sitting near me said, "I'm going to vote for him instead of McCain."

AIPAC, whose own literature notes that it has been described by the New York Times as "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel," has been highly successful in building strong relationships with both U.S. political parties. This year's conference was attended by everyone from Vice President Dick Cheney to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (and other 2008 presidential contenders), as well as former CIA director James Woolsey. Leaders from Congress were there, as were numerous officials from the State Department and White House.

On Monday morning, Cheney got a warm reception and forceful applause for familiar speech lines, such as his assertion that the "only option" against terrorists is to "go on the offensive." Many rank-and-file members of AIPAC seemed to be spoiling for military action against Iran -- "We have to do to them what we did to Saddam," one delegate told me -- but AIPAC's leadership remained strikingly circumspect about it. No AIPAC leaders mentioned war with Iran in the speeches, receptions or panel discussions I attended, and very few of the prominent outside speakers did either. At times this put them at odds with the grass-roots delegates; Marvin Feuer, AIPAC's director of policy and government affairs, was verbally attacked by a conference attendee as "weak" when he downplayed military options against Iran during a Q&A session.


Yes No
Yes No

Yes No

But AIPAC leaders are pushing for a different kind of offensive against Iran: a new program of sanctions much harsher than any prior one imposed through the United Nations. The plan, which one panelist called a "quiet campaign" to strike at Iran on the financial battlefield, would include increased pressures on foreign allies who do business with Iran, a U.S.-wide campaign of divestment, and other measures intended to put crippling economic pressure on the Islamic republic. Sarah Steelman, the state treasurer of Missouri, described how she has worked to restrict the state's investments in companies that do business with Iran, and urged AIPAC members to lobby their own state governments to institute similar policies. Steven Perles, a lawyer, explained how it was possible to tie up the assets of the Iranian government and financial institutions by engaging them in lawsuits for their funding of terrorist groups.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has for some time been pushing for such efforts, and in a closed-door briefing during the conference he said that they could prove fatal to Iran: "Fewer and fewer companies will enter Iran. More and more will leave. Investment dollars and the technology it buys will dry up. The lifeline of a hated regime will be cut, its future imperiled."

In addition to the many panels at the conference, which often felt akin to pep rallies, delegates also attended "lobbying labs," where AIPAC staff schooled them on how to effectively persuade their congressional representatives to follow AIPAC policies. These sessions were not open to the media, nor even mentioned on the schedule of events distributed to members of the press. But AIPAC leaders repeatedly urged delegates to attend them. And on Tuesday, the organization deployed its army of lobbyists to push for new sanctions against Iran, which are contained in a new bill called the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, introduced by Democrat Tom Lantos and Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

When the thousands of lobbyists descended on Capitol Hill, they were greeted by nearly every U.S. senator and more than half the members of the House of Representatives -- approximately 500 meetings were held between AIPAC representatives and members of Congress on Tuesday alone. In addition to pushing for the sanctions plan, the goal was to showcase the strength of AIPAC and establish more ties for future communication and lobbying.

Next page: "I'd really like to see Obama in person, but Hillary is better for Israel"

nobody can figure out what youve said dave-

all you do is blithely dismiss all comments-

you dont address anything specifically- at all

now you are imagining that we are here trying to resove the problem of israel/palestine?
who ever said that?

even here you dont address even one single point made- you just counter with a 'no it isnt-'

thats not a discussion- thats just someone with their eyes closed shaking their head back and forth to every proof shown them-

just absolute denial and when that wears out, then attacks on personalities.

so i guess now the point is to show you that AIPAC does have political power in america-

People who happen to think the same about some issues do not because of that operate as an organized unit or power bloc. And if you choose to define a power bloc which includes Dick Cheny, it will be powerful but not Jewish. Since the people lumped together as a power bloc have their own ideas based on their own political inclinations, it is absurd to view them as examples of the power of AIPAC.

The problem of the argument here for the vast power of AIPAC is that it is a matter of how the folks arguing for the view that AIPAC has enormous power have defined their terms. If someone supports Israel that shows the power of AIPAC in their view.

It seems to me that if someone agrees with my reasoning, that would be seen by those who view AIPAC with awe as an example of the power of AIPAC not the power of my reasoning.

I on the other hand think that if people think what I say makes sense and what those who disagree with what I say on this forum does not, it would show the power of my words and reasoning not the power of AIPAC. But there is no way to resolve that issue.

see dave, its a little more than a few people who make some simplistic flawed reasoning and then try to fit the pieces together to justify their anti-semitism - i think thats what you believe-

pere' gave some extraordinary information there-

no one is just saying things out of some paranoid delusion dave-

there is a real power bloc that is at work and real people in it-

What do William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, and Robert Kagan have in common? Yes, they are all die-hard hawks who have gained control of U.S. foreign policy since the 9/11 attacks. But they are also part of one big neoconservative family -- an extended clan of spouses, children, and friends who have known each other for generations.

Neoconservatives are former liberals (which explains the "neo" prefix) who advocate an aggressive unilateralist vision of U.S. global supremacy, which includes a close strategic alliance with Israel. Let's start with one of the founding fathers of the extended neocon clan: Irving Kristol. His extensive resume includes waging culture wars for the CIA against the Soviet Union in the early years of the Cold War and calling for an American "imperial" role during the Vietnam War. Papa Kristol, who has been credited with defining the major themes of neoconservative thought, is married to Gertrude Himmelfarb, a neoconservative powerhouse on her own. Her studies of the Victorian era in Britain helped inspire the men who sold Bush on the idea of "compassionate conservatism."

The son of this proud couple is none other that William Kristol, the crown prince of the neoconservative clique and editor of the Rupert Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard. In 1997, he founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a front group which cemented the powerful alliance between right-wing Republicans like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, Christian and Catholic Right leaders like Gary Bauer and William Bennett, and the neocons behind a platform of global U.S. military dominance.

Irving Kristol's most prominent disciple is Richard Perle, who was until Thursday the Defense Policy Board chairman, is also a "resident scholar" at the American Enterprise Institute, which is housed in the same building as PNAC. Perle himself married into neocon royalty when he wed the daughter of his professor at the University of Chicago, the late Alfred Wohlstetter -- the man who helped both his son-in-law and his fellow student Paul Wolfowitz get their start in Washington more than 30 years ago.

Perle's own protege is Douglas Feith, who is now Wolfowitz's deputy for policy and is widely known for his right-wing Likud position. And why not? His father, Philadelphia businessman and philanthropist Dalck Feith, was once a follower of the great revisionist Zionist leader, Vladimir Jabotinsky, in his native Poland back in the 1930s. The two Feiths were honored together in 1997 by the right-wing Zionist Organization of America (ZOA).

The AEI has long been a major nexus for such inter-familial relationships. A long-time collaborator with Perle, Michael Ledeen is married to Barbara Ledeen, a founder and director of the anti-feminist Independent Women's Forum (IWF), who is currently a major player in the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill. Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and another neo-con power couple -- David and Meyrav Wurmser -- co-authored a 1996 memorandum for Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu outlining how to break the Oslo peace process and invade Iraq as the first step to transforming the Middle East.

Though she doesn't focus much on foreign-policy issues, Lynne Cheney also hangs her hat at AEI. Her husband Dick Cheney recently chose Victoria Nuland to become his next deputy national security adviser. Nuland, as it turns out, is married to Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol's main comrade-in-arms and the co-founder of PNAC.

Bob's father, Donald Kagan, is a Yale historian who converted from a liberal Democrat to a staunch neocon in the 1970s. On the eve of the 2000 presidential elections, Donald and his other son, Frederick, published "While America Sleeps," a clarion call to increase defense spending. Since then, the three Kagan men have written reams of columns warning that the currently ballooning Pentagon budget is simply not enough to fund the much-desired vision of U.S. global supremacy.

And which infamous ex-Reaganite do the Kagans and another leading neocon family have in common? None other than Iran-contra veteran Elliott Abrams.

Now the director of Near Eastern Affairs in Bush's National Security Council, Abrams worked closely with Bob Kagan back in the Reagan era. He is also the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, long-time editor of the influential conservative Jewish publication Commentary, and his wife, Midge Decter, a fearsome polemicist in her own right.

Podhoretz, like Kristol Sr., helped invent neo-conservatism in the late 1960s. He and Decter created a formidable political team as leaders of the Committee on the Present Danger in 1980, when they worked with Donald Rumsfeld to pound the last nail into the coffin of detente and promote the rise of Ronald Reagan. In addition to being Abrams' father-in-law, Norman Podhoretz is also the father of John Podhoretz, a columnist for the Murdoch-owned New York Post and frequent guest on the Murdoch-owned Fox News channel.

As editor of Commentary, Norman offered writing space to rising stars of the neocon movement for more than 30 years. His proteges include former U.N. ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick and Richard Pipes, who was Ronald Reagan's top advisor on the "Evil Empire," as the president liked to call the Soviet Union. His son, Daniel Pipes, has also made a career out of battling "evil," which in his case is Islam. And to tie it all up neatly, in 2002, Podhoretz received the highest honor bestowed by the AEI: the Irving Kristol award.

This list of intricate, overlapping connections is hardly exhaustive or perhaps even surprising. But it helps reveal an important fact. Contrary to appearances, the neocons do not constitute a powerful mass political movement. They are instead a small, tighly-knit clan whose incestuous familial and personal connections, both within and outside the Bush administration, have allowed them grab control of the future of American foreign policy.

JIm Lobe

"nancy went to israel last week and got her marching orders and march she does-

well, it is what it is- but youve offered no rebuttal.
complaints about how i pesent the case-

and your rebuttal is that i cant "prove' if theyre operating out of self intereset or fear?

no one said fear dave- self interest is strong enough

politicians generally know which side their bread is buttered on."

I do not view that as reasoned argument. Nancy Pelosi got her marching orders from whom? Who gave them? AIPAC is people. Who told her what to do and what did they say? People are falling all over themselves trying to be Nancy Pelosi's friends right now.

People say look at all the support there is for Israel. It can not be reasonable. So it must be AIPAC and wealthy Jews at work. What are the mechanisms by which these very different folks get together, make up their minds, and give every national politician orders?

dave im not sure what to even call your responses-

you make a point (as opinion unsubstantiated)
and i answer that point and substantiate it with many posts-

at some time you either say- no youre wrong and this is my proof- and then provide it-

or you say- hmm you make a good point but i disagree here- and do so-

but all you do is make a ridiculou cartoon out of what i say- restate it incorrectly and in strange absolutist terms-

and still manage to never address the point-

and then after all the proof- you demand proof for intangibles like someone s intention!

point- counterpoint
proof- counterproof

see how that works?

assertion- proof provided
response?
ridiculous lampooning and mischaracterization of the assertion in extreme inflammatory style-

ok dave- whatever works for you

actually dave i havent said anythin one way or the other-

what ive done is presented a body of easily obtainable information -

you are free to do so also-

i didnt say youre a tool of aipac dave- what a ridiculous assertion that would be indeed-

this is your entire statement dave-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"That is mysticism. We now have a fictional AIPAC Caucus. And they do AIPAC's will unasked as if they have a mental channel to AIPAC and do its will. AIPAC is a collection of individuals who sponsor dinners and other events. They do not control the world. Nor do all Jews do what they want.

Nancy Pelosi is a very tough individual with good sense. She and the Democratic Party do not follow AIPAC as if it is a ruling clique.

Why can't we get rid of the mysticism and slogans so we can talk sensibly about what actually is.

April 3, 2007 2:48 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

while making dramatic overstatements like-"They do not control the world. Nor do all Jews do what they want."
may seem reasonable- that is not what i implied or ever said-

you are coming to these conclusons on your own-

if that is your conclusion, fine- but as i never ever put words in your mouth- nor dramatically overstate your position in any way- its not only zero response- its kind of tricky-

no, my posts were a response to your statement that nancy is an independent woman-
indeed she is dave and the elections are still a year away, and theres always 2012-

and while bush complains about her going to syria as an unwise move- anyone with half a brain can see that his complaint is really that she is forcing herself into the center od world attention and gaining credit as a world player, and upstaging bush-

now isnt it strange that bush should so weakly bleat his opposition, but as the president of the free world does nothing whatsoever to stop it?

what could he do? why dave, alot!
he could trump her trip by sending a bigger world player, thus distracting attention from her- but he doesnt.

nancy went to israel last week and got her marching orders and march she does-

well, it is what it is- but youve offered no rebuttal.
complaints about how i pesent the case-

and your rebuttal is that i cant "prove' if theyre operating out of self intereset or fear?

no one said fear dave- self interest is strong enough

politicians generally know which side their bread is buttered on.

so your only response-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You say I and anyone else who speaks well of Israel and denies your certitudes about Israel is influenced by or a tool of AIPAC? Then you list everyone who likes APIAC as having been forced to do so out of fear of them. Hence you convert people with common interests into examples of the dominance of AIPAC. You have not shown that people like Pelosi and Brownback are insincere and operationg out of fear.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
is false-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"You say I and anyone else who speaks well of Israel and denies your certitudes about Israel is influenced by or a tool of AIPAC?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

absolutely not i said no such thing EVER

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Then you list everyone who likes APIAC as having been forced to do so out of fear of them. Hence you convert people with common interests into examples of the dominance of AIPAC."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

no, i listed everyone who speaks publicly to aipac issues to aipac- theres a difference- i cant say if they like aipac or not- i also posted several articles by people who have expressed outright fear of the power if aipac- like the senator.

there is also no evidence as to whwether their interests are the same-

actually this is a complete turnaround for nancy pelosi whose been outright against war, with aipac she has changed the much touted iraqi war funding bill unrecognizable-

you are surmising this from the information given-

i made no such statements

you came also to this conclusion on your own from the info provided

interesting

ok

"more likely hone in on some microscopic sentence and distract the conversation in a new misleading direction

i notice you werent able to find any insult on my part, as you didnt post any- but manners are still manners dave."

You say I and anyone else who speaks well of Israel and denies your certitudes about Israel is influenced by or a tool of AIPAC? Then you list everyone who likes APIAC as having been forced to do so out of fear of them. Hence you convert people with common interests into examples of the dominance of AIPAC. You have not shown that people like Pelosi and Brownback are insincere and operationg out of fear.

predictably dave will appear, not acknowledge anything whatsoever, or more likely hone in on some microscopic sentence and distract the conversation in a new misleading direction- whioch when asnwered will also be unacknowledged,

or--- just copy and post what has been printed with arbitrary dismissals and not a verified reason in the bunch-

lets see which it will be today-

i wont ven mention that you just ignored my greeting as if i didn tmake it- o wiat- i did mention it, didnt i.

and your complaint about me is that i--pester?

i notice you werent able to find any insult on my part, as you didnt post any- but manners are still manners dave.

id say your assessment that me posting my opinions constitutes pestering to you is highly subjective

really dave this is just shooting fish in a barrel- just give me any name of anyone running for president and wel see what their relationship to aipac is-

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES SPEAK-

````````````````````
SEN. SAM BROWNBACK: Thank you in your energy. Thank you in your prayers. Thank you for standing with Israel in this difficult time. I close with noting that the recently elected Prime Minister of Israel addressed a joint session of Congress about a month or so ago. And he spoke there, and I sat as I listened to him give an eloquent speech, uniting speech, thinking to myself, the United States doesn't have a closer partner in the world than Israel today. And it is true. And it's important for us, when our friend is in difficulty, Israel, that we stand by them in this difficult time. Thank you for being here. God bless you all. God bless the United States of America. And God bless the Israeli people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
next

newt gingrich speech to aipac-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Every year our enemies grow stronger and bolder.

None of this is a secret.

Achmadinejad the current leader of the Iranian dictatorship asserts in public on television “we must defeat the Anglo-Saxons and eliminate Israel from the face of the earth” and goes on to assert “it is easy to imagine a time in the near future when Israel and the United States will no longer exist.”

Two or three nuclear weapons on Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem would be a second Holocaust and could occur at any time
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
just a snippet- you get the drift-

next

rudolph giuliani-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
politics.
He threw Arafat from the Lincoln center hall during a show because he knew Arafat was one of the most murderous Islamic terrorist’s leaders.
He denied Saudi Arabian donation by a Saudi prince that criticized Israel and US~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
next

john mccain
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
June 20, 2001

TALKING POINTS OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN - AIPAC SUMMER SEMINAR SERIES

Thank you. I am honored to be here to exchange views on our shared aspiration of security for the people of Israel.

AIPAC is critical to realizing this ambition. AIPAC's support for Israel, and your involvement in its work, are never more important than when Israel is at risk.

The current crisis, and the threat of broader conflict in the region, underscore the importance of America's bedrock commitment to Israel and her people.

Sadly, many Palestinians share an opposite goal - forcing Israel to succumb to extremist Palestinian demands and putting Israel's existence at risk by violent means

Oslo was premised on the notion that Israel and the Palestinians could live together. Now that hopes for peaceful coexistence, and negotiations for permanent peace, have been dashed by the bitter failures of the last eight years, a new realism has infused Israeli policy towards the Palestinians.

In addition to her moral commitment to Israel's security, America must provide Israel with whatever military equipment and technology she requires to defend herself, above and beyond what we supply today if necessary. Our support for Israel must intensify, as threats to Israeli security have intensified.

No more moral equivalence in dealing with the parties. No more pressure on Israel to make concessions that are simply pocketed by the Palestinians and countered with violence against innocent civilians.

We also need to better address the threat posed by Israel's neighbors. I have called for a policy of "rogue state rollback," a new Reagan Doctrine in which American policy toward rogue regimes, including states implacably hostile to the existence of Israel, is premised on supporting forces within and outside those countries dedicated to the overthrow of ruling dictators and the liberation of their peoples.

We must also renew the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. Terror as a tool of state policy cannot stand.

We must do a better job of countering the proliferation of high-tech weaponry and components to Israel's neighbors by Russia, China, and North Korea.

President Bush discussed Russian technology transfers to Iran at length with President Putin in their summit meeting last week, and I hope concrete action by the Russians will follow.

Congress is currently considering renewal of the Export Administration Act, which governs exports of sensitive technologies with both civilian and military applications. Friends of Israel must work to ensure that Congress does not unduly ease export restrictions, as some seek to do, to prevent dangerous American technologies from ending up as components of weapons systems deployed against Israel.

Israel and the United States have worked together to successfully develop the Arrow theater missile defense system, which offers protection against Iraqi Scuds. We are now jointly developing an improved version of Arrow to protect Israel against the missile threat from Iran. We should continue and expand this collaboration to defend Israel against missiles fired by hostile neighbors.

Congress and the Administration should also reassess the composition of our aid to Egypt. We have an obligation to provide assistance to Egypt under the Camp David Accords, and we will stand by it.

But we should consider giving more economic aid than military assistance to Egypt. This would directly benefit Egypt's people and encourage stability.

The people of America and Israel share a historic obligation to promote freedom of worship overseas and fight religious persecution wherever it exists. In many countries, religious minorities pay a terrible price for their beliefs. We should do what we can as a nation to defend their right to worship freely.

Most important to advancing our interests and values in the Middle East is leadership. I am confident the new Administration will articulate a coherent and forceful policy to safeguard Israel and defend our interests in the region.

America's unequivocal support for Israel  not evenhandedness, not moral equivalence, not winking at Palestinian violence  is the best guarantor of peace in the Middle East. We must restore vision and moral clarity to a situation that has brought Israel to the brink of an abyss of domestic terrorism and regional war.

Thank you for being here. AIPAC's work on behalf of America and Israel is valuable and important. With friends like you, Israel, and American interests in the Middle East, are well served. Thank you.
####

i think that is pretty solidly clear, dont you?
notice the date on that dave-

next-
tom tacredo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With our current immigration policies, "We are risking the development of a bilingual nation and a multicultural nation, which is almost an oxymoron," Tancredo has said. "It is very difficult to maintain something like that, especially [under] the kind of threat situation we're in today with fundamentalist Islam" (OneNewsNow.com,February 12, 2007).

The battle against immigration, says Tancredo, is part of the global war on terrorism. "The very survival of Western Civilization is at risk," Tancredo has warned; he believes "we are in a clash of civilizations" (cited on the teamtancredo.com website).

Formerly a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, Tancredo now calls for a troop deployment to Afghanistan and other locations where the U.S. global war on terrorism is being waged. He says that the civil war in Iraq between Sunnis and Shiites is a process of establishing equilibrium between the deep schisms in Islam and that there is no need for the U.S. military to referee this bloody process.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
his issues are really immigration- but anyone with half a brain can tell the phrase clash of civilizations is sam huntingtons anti-muslim tirade-

im getting tired-

i imagine this is enough for now-
next the democrats

I think we need to take the mysticism out of AIPAC and look at the facts.

"All who care about peace in the Middle East are grateful for your strength and wisdom in guiding AIPAC."

AIPAC has a lot of bright people who know much about Israel, the United States and the world. Some view them as evil while many others think they are wise. People heed those they deem wise. And they have various and complex reasons for deeming them wise. Nancy Pelosi has known the person she is talking to for many years.

"Californians, North and South, are proud of your great leadership at AIPAC."

Nancy Pelosi is an expert about what Californians think.

"“The people of Israel long for peace and are willing to make the sacrifices to achieve it. We hope that peace and security come soon – and that this moment of opportunity is not lost. As Israel continues to take risks for peace, she will have no friend more steadfast than the United States.

“In the words of Isaiah, we will make ourselves to Israel ‘as hiding places from the winds and shelters from the tempests; as rivers of water in dry places; as shadows of a great rock in a weary land.’

“The United States will stand with Israel now and forever. Now and forever.”"

I am sure Nancy was sincere. Her seat is and was very safe.

There is an obvious cause and effect confusion in the minds of those who think AIPAC controls what people like Nancy Pelosi say and think. She and others pay attention to AIPAC because they support Israel and are sure that is the right thing to do. They do not support Isreal because they are afraid of AIPAC, financially beholding to AIPAC, or prone to obey.

but let nancy speak for herself-

````````````````````````````````````````````

Nancy Pelosi Delivers Speech to
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
From Official Website of
Nancy Pelosi House Democratic Leader 23may2005

nancy pelosi

Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee at their 2005 Policy Conference tonight. Pelosi discussed the relationship between the United States and Israel and the continued effort for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Below are her remarks:

“Thank you, Amy Friedkin, my dear friend for so many years. Californians, North and South, are proud of your great leadership at AIPAC. And to Bernice Manocherian, President of AIPAC, thank you. All who care about peace in the Middle East are grateful for your strength and wisdom in guiding AIPAC. As a native of Baltimore, I take special pride of your incoming President, Howard Friedman, who will continue in the tradition of outstanding leadership at AIPAC.

“I also want to acknowledge all of the students who are here. It is great to see so many young people taking such an interest in public affairs, especially on one of the critical issues of our time: peace in the Middle East.

“This spring, I was in Israel as part of a congressional trip that also took us to Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. One of the most powerful experiences was taking a helicopter toward Gaza, over the path of the security fence. We set down in a field that belonged to a local kibbutz. It was a cool but sunny day, and the field was starting to bloom with mustard. Mustard is a crop that grows in California, and it felt at that moment as if I were home.

“And then we were told that the reason we had to land in that field, as opposed to our actual destination, was because there had been an infiltration that morning, and they weren’t sure how secure the area was. And that point alone brought us back to the daily reality of Israel: even moments of peace and beauty are haunted by the specter of violence.

“While in Israel, we met with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Vice Premier Shimon Perez. From them and from other leaders, we heard something I had not heard in a long time: cautious optimism. This was an attitude quite different from the one that confronted us when I spoke to AIPAC two years ago.

“One thing, however is unchanged: America’s commitment to the safety and security of the State of Israel is unwavering. America and Israel share an unbreakable bond: in peace and war; and in prosperity and in hardship.

“Prime Minister Sharon’s leadership of Israel at this crucial time has been remarkable. He has brought Israel through an extremely challenging period, and now he has made the difficult decision that it is in Israel’s national security interest to disengage from Gaza.

“In the next few months, Israeli settlers will be evacuated entirely from Gaza and from four settlements in the northern West Bank. This courageous decision is gut-wrenching for Israel.

“Israel’s decision can be a decisive milestone on the road to peace. If the Palestinians agree to coordinate with Israel on the evacuation, establish the rule of law, and demonstrate a capacity to govern, the world may be convinced that finally there is a real partner for peace.

“Any progress on the Roadmap for Peace must be based on real change on the ground, as evidenced by the establishment of an accountable, and reconstituted Palestinian security force that prevents terrorism, not promotes it.

“Fortunately, Palestinian Authority President Abbas is no Yasir Arafat. He has condemned terrorism in Arabic, stating that it prolongs the day that the Palestinian goal of statehood can be achieved, and, at least as significant, stating that terrorism is immoral. He has begun to restructure the security services. All that is commendable.

“But he has not removed Arafat’s corrupt cronies from positions of power, nor has he moved to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. That is, I am sorry to say, cause for concern. President Abbas has said his goal is to establish the rule of law, but he has done nowhere near enough to realize that vision, and now he is confronted with a huge challenge: by the end of summer, Israel will be out of Gaza.

“Can Gaza become a pilot case for self-government for a Palestinian state? Or will it become a terrorist haven, a launching pad for rockets into Israel?

“President Abbas must act, for his own good, against those he must know are his enemies and are the enemies of the aspirations of the Palestinian people.

“The United States, just as Israel, wants to see him succeed. That is why I was so pleased when President Bush dispatched Jim Wolfensohn to help with the Gaza withdrawal. It is why I supported additional aid to the Palestinians in the Emergency Supplemental bill that recently passed Congress.

“There are those who contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. This is absolute nonsense. In truth, the history of the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been: it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist.

“The greatest threat to Israel’s right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran. For too long, leaders of both political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it has plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology.

“Proliferation represents a clear threat to Israel and to America. It must be confronted by an international coalition against proliferation, with a commitment and a coalition every bit as strong as our commitment to the war against terror.

“The people of Israel long for peace and are willing to make the sacrifices to achieve it. We hope that peace and security come soon – and that this moment of opportunity is not lost. As Israel continues to take risks for peace, she will have no friend more steadfast than the United States.

“In the words of Isaiah, we will make ourselves to Israel ‘as hiding places from the winds and shelters from the tempests; as rivers of water in dry places; as shadows of a great rock in a weary land.’

“The United States will stand with Israel now and forever. Now and forever.”

source: http://democraticleader.house.gov/press/releases.cfm?pressReleaseID=999 17nov2006

all i did was google nancy pelosi and aipac- there are pages of this


Published on Friday, May 27, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
Nancy Pelosi Gives a Pep Talk to AIPAC
The Democratic leader in her own words
by Mark Gaffney

Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s recent speech to the Israeli-American lobby (AIPAC) ought to be a clarion call for peace activists. Her address did not contain any big surprises. But it is, nonetheless, remarkable for its transparency. The speech (see below for the text) affords a up-close look at what Pelosi thinks about Israel, the Palestinians, the Mideast, and nukes.

It’s worth a look too because Pelosi’s beliefs on these matters are not a departure. Most of the Democratic Party leadership espouse similar ideas. The bipartisan voting record of Congress in recent years on Mideast issues proves this to be the case. Remember, this is the party that’s supposed to represent the grassroots, i.e., we the people. So what is the Democratic leader of the House doing, anyway, giving a pep talk to the second largest lobby in Washington? Indeed, to the lobby of a foreign power? It’s a question more Americans ought to be asking.

Most of the speech is the same old stuff. I draw your attention only to several points:

Pelosi denies that the key issue is Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza --- at a stroke repudiating numerous UN Security Council Resolutions that the US voted for and supposedly still supports. But clearly, that’s no longer the case, and hasn’t been for many years.

The real issue, she states, is the survival of Israel. This is the familiar mantra by which anything and everything becomes possible. Only, there's a minor catch: The statement isn’t true and hasn’t been since probably 1949.

If nothing else, Pelosi is well-versed. She recites another familiar line, the one about how there was no partner for peace until Arafat expired, when light suddenly came flooding in. Pelosi makes it clear that in her view the Palestinian leader Abbas’ real job is to serve as policeman for Israel. Evidently, his legitimacy largely depends on this. Looking after the best interests of his own people comes in a distant second.

But her most revealing statements concern nuclear proliferation, and they show why the Democrats (who don’t get it) are no improvement over the Republicans (who always get it wrong). In fact, the Democrats may be even more dangerous, precisely because there is still the perception in the land, however mistaken, that the Democrats are the party of enlightened ideas. I would be willing to bet that most registered democrats are not aware of how extreme their elected Democratic representatives are on these key issues. Nor can most thus have a true sense of how dire the situation is.

According to Pelosi, the biggest danger to Israel today comes from Iran, whose nuclear ambitions, though still unproved, also threaten the US. Her perspective contains the seed of ominous things to come, because, after all, something will have to be done about Iran, right? Yes, and soon.

Meanwhile, Pelosi manages to overlook Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians, which undoubtedly is the greatest danger to Israel, by far, and comes from within. Nor does she mention Israel’s massive nuclear, chemical and biological weapons arsenal. But her statements additionally contain the tacit and troublesome assumption that the only people in the region who matter are Israelis and Americans. Everyone else, virtually the entire population of numerous countries, though no less imperiled by nuclear weapons (arguably even more so), simply don’t count in this calculus. In fact, Pelosi’s remarks are implicitly racist for this reason.

The shocker, though, also near the end, is where Pelosi takes the US and Israeli nuclear monopoly in the region for granted, as if this were a good and necessary thing. The purpose of the NPT in her view is to shut down the rogue proliferators, who by definition are always those other guys, never us. It’s the stuff of which nuclear nightmares are made. I would also bet that the vast majority of people who live in the Mideast take sharp issue with Pelosi’s thinking, and probably have a bone to pick with her about where the actual threat lies.

George Washington, our founding father, who warned against entangling alliances, must be turning over, about now. But don’t take my word for it. Read Pelosi’s speech (which follows) and draw your own conclusions.

Mark Gaffney is the author of Dimona: the Third Temple?, a pioneering 1989 book about Mordechai Vanunu and the Israeli nuke program. Mark’s latest book is Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes. Mark can be reached for comment at mhgaffney@sbcglobal.net

this is todays news- also where did i get these stories?
right on yahoo email-
an excerpt-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In
Israel, Pelosi said she would tell Syrian leaders that Israel will talk peace with them only if Syria stops supporting Palestinian militants. She has said she will also talk to the Syrians about Iraq, their role in neighboring Lebanon and their support for Lebanon's Hezbollah militants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nancy Pelosi: The AIPAC Girl

Patrick J. Buchanan
V dare
Wednesday, March 21, 2007

If George W. Bush launches a pre-emptive war on Iran, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will bear full moral responsibility for that war.

For it was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on Iran.

Pelosi's capitulation came in the Appropriations Committee.

What went down, and why?

"Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy," wrote The Associated Press' David Espo and Matthew Lead.

"Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview there is a widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which ... has expressed unremitting hostility to the Jewish state.

"'It would take away perhaps the most important tool the U.S. has when it comes to Iran,' she said of the now-abandoned provision.

"'I don't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize in a civilized way,' said Gary Ackerman of New York." [ Dems abandon war authority provision, March 12, 2007]

According to John Nichols of The Nation, Pelosi's decision to strip the provision barring Bush from attacking Iran without Congress' approval "sends the worst possible signal to the White House."

"The speaker has erred dangerously and dramatically," writes Nichols. Her "disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to come."

Nichols does not exaggerate.

If Bush now launches war on Iran, he can credibly say Congress and the Democrats gave him a green light. For Pelosi, by removing a provision saying Bush does not have the authority, de facto concedes he does have the authority.

Bush and Cheney need now not worry about Congress.

They have been flashed the go sign for war on Iran.

Pelosi & Co. thus aborted a bipartisan effort to ensure that if we do go to war again, we do it the constitutional way, and we do it together.

Nothing in the provision would have prevented Bush, as commander in chief, from responding to an Iranian attack or engaging in hot pursuit of an enemy found in Iraq. Nor would the provision have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. It would simply have required him to come to Congress—before launching all-out war.

Now Pelosi has, in effect, ceded Bush carte blanche to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. It's all up to him and Cheney.

For this the nation elected a Democratic Congress?

Why did Pelosi capitulate? Answer: She was "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)," writes Nichols.

The Washington Times agrees as to who bully-ragged Nancy into scuttling any requirement that Bush come to the Hill before unleashing the B-2s on Arak, Natanz and Bushehr:

"Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received a smattering of boos when she bad-mouthed the war effort during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the Democratic leadership, responding to concerns from pro-Israel lawmakers, was forced to strip from a military appropriations measure a provision meant to weaken President Bush's ability to respond to threats from Iran."[Foreign policy adrift? March 19, 2007]

This episode, wherein liberal Democrats scuttled a bipartisan effort to require Bush to abide by the Constitution before taking us into a third war in the Middle East, speaks volumes about who has the whip hand on Capitol Hill, when it comes to the Middle East.

Pelosi gets booed by the Israeli lobby, then runs back to the Hill and gives Bush a blank check for war on Iran, because that is what the lobby demands. A real candidate for Profiles in Courage.

As for the presidential candidates, it is hard to find a single one willing to stand up and say: If Bush plans to take us into another war in the Mideast, he must first come to Congress for authorization. And if he goes to war without authorization, that will be impeachable.

All retreat into the "all-options-are-on-the-table" mantra, which is another way of saying, "It's Bush's call."

The corruption of both parties is astonishing. Republicans used to be the party of the Constitution: "No more undeclared wars! No more presidential wars!"

Democrats used to be the party of the people. The people don't want this war. They don't want another. The Jewish community voted 88 percent for Democrats in November, and 77 percent oppose Iraq.

So says Gallup. Yet, just because the Israeli lobby jerked her chain, the leader of the Peoples' House has decided she and her party will leave the next war up to Bush.

Sam Rayburn must be turning over in his grave.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````

I KNOW, I WATCHED THESE PROCEEDINGS LAST WEEK ON CSPAN

dave said-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Nancy Pelosi is a very tough individual with good sense. She and the Democratic Party do not follow AIPAC as if it is a ruling clique.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ineresting dave- then how do we account fr this?

JERUSALEM - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) will tell Syrian leaders when she visits Damascus this week on a trip criticized by the Bush administration that
Israel will only engage in peace talks if
Syria stops supporting Palestinian militants, Israel said Sunday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The message came during Pelosi's meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during the Israel part of her Mideast tour.

"Pelosi is conveying that Israel is willing to talk if they (Syria) would openly take steps to stop supporting terrorism," Olmert's spokeswoman Miri Eisin said.

Israel and Syria are sworn enemies, though peace talks came close to success in 2000 before breaking down. Israel charges that Syria-based Palestinian militants are directing violence against it from the
West Bank and Gaza.

Washington also considers Syria a sponsor of terror and had asked Pelosi not to visit Damascus.

Pelosi said Sunday she will raise the issue of two Israeli soldiers captured by the Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah and a third captured by Palestinian militants last year with Syrian President Bashar Assad when she meets with him. The delegation met with the families of the three soldiers during the visit to Israel.

On Sunday night, Pelosi spoke at a dinner in the parliament building, and told Israeli lawmakers that the U.S. remains strongly behind their country.

"Americans have many political differences, but we stand united with Israel now and always," she said.

The meeting took an hour, twice as long as planned, and delayed Israel's Cabinet meeting, Eisin said. Olmert and the delegation talked "extensively" about a Saudi peace plan, dormant since 2002 and relaunched last week at an Arab League summit.

Olmert has welcomed the plan, which calls for a recognition by all Arab states of Israel in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from territories captured in 1967 as a "revolutionary change." But he has expressed reservations, as well.

Pelosi told Olmert there is strong bipartisan support in the United States for demands that the Hamas-led Palestinian government moderate its stance toward Israel before international sanctions against it are lifted, Eisin said.

She reiterated that point in her speech to the parliament, saying she is "concerned that the new Palestinian government, some of the people in the government, continue to remain committed to the destruction of Israel." However, a majority of Palestinians and Israelis support a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
she said.

Pelosi's visit to Israel is her second trip to the Middle East since she took over leadership of the House in January. Other representatives traveling with Pelosi and Ellison include Democrats Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record) and Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record) of California, Louise Slaughter of New York and Nick Rahall (news, bio, voting record) of West Virginia, and Ohio Republican David Hobson (news, bio, voting record).

independent huh?

trotting over to syria to deliver the israeli message?

yes dave- youre right, pelosi has been independent, but even she cannot withstand the pressure of aipacs influence on congress to go against israel in any thing- instead she is the messenger girl for israel

thats all youve got?

saying it doesnt exist?

not much of a rebuttal dave

"A group I call the AIPAC Caucus, which routinely does the bidding of AIPAC even if unasked, lobbied Nancy Pelosi hard to remove language from the Iraq military appropriations bill which would've compelled Bush to come to Congress for authorization before using force against Iran."

That is mysticism. We now have a fictional AIPAC Caucus. And they do AIPAC's will unasked as if they have a mental channel to AIPAC and do its will. AIPAC is a collection of individuals who sponsor dinners and other events. They do not control the world. Nor do all Jews do what they want.

Nancy Pelosi is a very tough individual with good sense. She and the Democratic Party do not follow AIPAC as if it is a ruling clique.

Why can't we get rid of the mysticism and slogans so we can talk sensibly about what actually is.

that was me- its called verifying with substantiation - providing resources
there are pages and pages and pages of this-

aipac influence on american policy?
yes it exists dave and they exert enormous power

this is just a small start

aipac pushing america into war with iran?

there seems to be no question of it
any comments?

nday, March 19, 2007
AIPAC Democrats
Inside America's powerful Israel lobby

Before and after the dinner, the presidential candidates and their colleagues from Congress schmoozed with the AIPAC delegates. Circulating through the crowd, Joe Biden made sure his presence was registered. "Hi, I'm Joe Biden!" he said repeatedly, adding several times, "I've been hanging out with AIPAC for years!"

Following the dinner, Clinton and Obama held competing dessert receptions in the conference center -- in rooms about 25 yards apart -- both eager to highlight their pro-Israel credentials.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Correspondent

WASHINGTON - United States Senator Barack Obama, a Democrat from Illinois who is competing for his party's presidential nomination, told Haaretz on Thursday that the United States should help protect Israel from its "dangerous" enemies.

"My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," he said.

"Israelis want more than anything to live in peace with their neighbors, but Israel also has real - and very dangerous - enemies," Obama said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Two of the leading Democratic candidates for president will compete head-to-head tonight for money and support from the same pro-Israel group.

Senator Clinton and John Edwards are scheduled to appear at a dinner for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee at the Marriott Marquis in Times Square.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
on israel, america and aipac george soros

One explanation is to be found in the pervasive influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which strongly affects both the Democratic and the Republican parties.[2] AIPAC's mission is to ensure American support for Israel but in recent years it has overreached itself. It became closely allied with the neocons and was an enthusiastic supporter of the invasion of Iraq. It actively lobbied for the confirmation of John Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations. It continues to oppose any dialogue with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas. More recently, it was among the pressure groups that prevailed upon the Democratic House leadership to drop the requirement that the President obtain congressional approval before taking military action against Iran. AIPAC under its current leadership has clearly exceeded its mission, and far from guaranteeing Israel's existence, has endangered it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Ynet (Israel) http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-3355786,00.html Israeli billionaire and media mogul Haim Saban is at the top of the list of donors to political campaigns in the US. Fox Network revealed over the weekend that Saban has donated approximately US $13 million to various candidates. According to the report, Saban, a close friend of the Clintons, is one of the major donors to the Democratic Party, though he has also contributed to Republican candidates, including President George Bush and Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
an excerpt from the posted link-

With respect to the positions of several administrations on the question of Israel, there are two things that bring them into line: One is pressure from members of Congress who bring that pressure resulting in the demands of AIPAC, and the other is the desire on the part of the President and his advisers to keep their respective political parties from crumbling under that pressure. I do not recall a single instance where any administration saw the need for Israel's military power to advance U.S. imperial interests. In fact, as we saw in the Gulf War, Israel's involvement was detrimental to what Bush, Sr. wanted to accomplish in that war. They had, as you might remember, to suppress any Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be destroyed by their involvement.

So far as the argument that we need to use Israel as a base for U.S. operations, I'm not aware of any U.S. bases there of any kind. The U.S. has enough military bases, and fleets, in the area to be able to handle any kind of military needs without using Israel. In fact I can't think of an instance where the U.S. would want to involve Israel militarally for fear of upsetting the current allies the U.S. has, i.e., Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. The public in those countries would not allow the monarchies to continue their alliance with the U.S. should Israel become involved.

the link-
a us senator speaks
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/pg-abourezk.html

Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place
AIPAC Democrats Give Bush Free Hand to Attack Iran

March 17, 2007 at 10:39 pm · Filed under Mideast Peace, Politics & Society

This is a real head-scratcher. After the wringer the Bush Administration has put America through in our Iraq debacle–all the lies, the end-arounds, the waste of treasure and human lives–you'd think Congressional Democrats would've learned a lesson. You'd think Congress would be falling all over themselves to prevent another misadventure in Iran. Not so. A group I call the AIPAC Caucus, which routinely does the bidding of AIPAC even if unasked, lobbied Nancy Pelosi hard to remove language from the Iraq military appropriations bill which would've compelled Bush to come to Congress for authorization before using force against Iran. I always mistakenly thought one of Congress' roles was to act as a check on the executive branch when it overstepped its prerogatives. Preventing an Iran military debacle would seem to be a perfect example of the wise use of Congressional power to check Bush.

Reps. Gary Ackerman, Susan Berkley and Eliot Engel didn't think so according to the neocon publication, the New York Sun:

Two Democratic congressmen…intervened with…Nancy Pelosi to preserve President Bush's authority to use military force in the gathering showdown with Iran.

The Democratic leadership had introduced language in a $100 billion bill to fund military operations in Iraq. The language would have required Mr. Bush to seek congressional approval before expanding military operations to Iran.

But in the past week, Ms. Pelosi removed the clause after a group of conservative and pro-Israel Democrats threatened to vote against the appropriations package if it included the provision tying the president's hands.

One of those members, Rep. Eliot Engel, a Democrat from New York, said yesterday he counted between 20 and 27 members who would have voted against the funding measure if it included the Iran language. Rep. Gary Ackerman, another Democrat of New York, said he thinks the dissenters had even more votes.

These statements by Engel and Ackerman represent precisely the type of muddled thinking which tied Democrats up in knots in 2003 when they largely acquiesced to Bush in the vote to approve military action against Saddam:

While I do not support any military action against Iran, I do believe everything needs to be on the table in order for them to calculate that they have to modify their behavior."

…Mr. Ackerman said he made a political and policy argument in favor of withdrawing the Iran language. "Most people think it would be a bad idea to attack Iran. Those of us who have thought it out, also think it is a bad idea to take it off the table," he said.

We know how this president operates. If you show weakness and refuse to stand head to head with him when he rattles sabers, he will assuredly take you for everything you're worth if he needs to. If Bush has any serious thought in his mind of attacking Iran (and you know that he does), this will be considered a green light by him. And after the smoke clears over Iran's nuclear facilities and Engel and his colleagues start scratching their heads and wondering what just happened, Tony Snow will be telling Fox News that this vote encouraged the president to stand tall against Iran. Then who will you have to blame Messrs Engel and Ackerman??

Did AIPAC specifically lobby for this? They didn't have to. AIPAC talking points are inscribed inside the brains of the AIPAC Caucus. They know what AIPAC would want without even having to be told:

When asked Aipac's role, Mr. Engel said, "When I objected no one from Aipac had spoken to me." Mr. Ackerman yesterday said, "The leadership of Aipac thought the U.S. position would be better served without the Iran language. I don't know they were lobbying anyone on this though."

The sole ray of hope is Sen. Jim Webb's Senate bill which requires legislative approval for military action:

Senator Webb…said he has won backing for his measure from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and would likely seek to attach his legislation as an amendment to a spending bill now moving through Congress to fund the Iraq war."

Let your senators know that you support the Webb amendment. Don't let the AIPAC Caucus lead us any closer to war with Iran than we already are.

you cant get elected to the presidency in america if you dont have aipac support-http://www.aipac.org/2785_2859.asp

HAPPY PSSOVER TO MY FRIEND IN THE GREAT PACIFIC NORTHWEST-

(THATS YOU DAVE,HEE HEE)

"Can you identify any significant issue on which Israeli and American interests diverged and in which AIPAC used its considerable lobbying clout to promote the position that favored America's interests?"

This is worth looking at because it is typical.

The notion that a lobbying group must look for things contrary to its position is odd. The point of a lobbying group is to ably represent a large group of people with common interests.

The notion of Fifth Column is different. It works as additional soldiers for a country operating in another country the parent country wants to take over.

I see no similarity but you think they are obviously similar. And you have a test.

I do not know much about AIPAC. It is widely respected as an organization which keeps in close touch with Israel, the American Jewish Community and politicians from all parties. So people who care about Israel trust it and those who want to know what people who care for Israel think look to AIPAC for advice.

Compare that to the NRA. It keeps in touch with gun manufacturers and people who own guns. It provides useful advice. The power comes from the number of Americans who prize their ownership of guns.

In the case of AIPAC, the organization is Jewish. However that does not mean it depends only on Jews for influence. Its influence comes from the fact that it speaks for Americans who care about Israel, many of whom are Christians. So it is not an example of the vast power Jews have and it is not a Fifth Column acting against American interests.

Now the truly interesting issue is why folks who are sure AIPAC controls our foreign policy to our great detriment and is a Fifth Column have issues with being viewed as anti-semitic. It brings to mind such issues as why many people exaggerate the power of 15 million Jews, why they demonize Israel, and why they are sure there would be peace in the Middle East without Israel or with a Muslim controlled Israel.

Dave,

I note that in an earlier post you lamented the idea that people would think of AIPAC as a "Fifth Column" for Israel. My question is: Why shouldn't it be thought of that way?

[I don't have the time to read all of your posts, so I apologize in advance if you've already responded to this issue.]

Can you identify any significant issue on which Israeli and American interests diverged and in which AIPAC used its considerable lobbying clout to promote the position that favored America's interests?

If not, isn't AIPAC (despite the "America" part of its name) an organization set up within the US primarily to promote Israel's interests, not America's--in other words, a "Fifth Column"?

Thanks in advance if you have helpful information.

"i havent yet made a perjorative statement about you dave"

We use the word pejorative differently.

The problem when people use words differently is that quoting dictionaries seldom resolves the issue.

"that is why i posted all the remarks youve made to me- so that you would realize how unnecessary they are to respectful dialogue-"

Well, that goes to how to talk about what we each have written. The extracts don't show who I was referring to and what I was referring to. I pointed out that they were not all about you. Clearly you do not believe that. And you do tend to repeat what you said over and over. That is the problem with the marchers with placards. They say the same simple things over and over. All kinds of people do that.

You do not feel anyone could construe what you are posting as goading and pestering?

there are many places to talk about world peace- if you want to focus on one issue about israel- that is fine-

i havent yet made a perjorative statement about you dave- if you think i have copy it and prove it or clearly state you were mistaken- there can be no discussion under clouds of any apprehension-

that is why i posted all the remarks youve made to me- so that you would realize how unnecessary they are to respectful dialogue-

there is a pointed and specific statement
it requires a specific and on point answer

if i have made some statement that is rude or offensive i will certainly own up to it- as i have done so in the past when i felt i was impolite or unkind in any way- and without any direction from anyone- i try to catch myself-

so there you have it- i dont allow myself to be disrespected in real life so i cannot allow myself to be so in cyberspace as this is also real

"well, only one post wasnt specifically addressed to me dave-"

Which only shows I was responding to what you posted.

"youve taken alot of space explaining why you DONT have reasons- but still have a view unsupportd by reasons."

That moves down complexity into something simple, manageable, and completely wrong. So why do it? I simply do not view things as being as simple as you do.

Responses to how you look at me and talk about me are necessarily about you as are comments on the processes you follow. And of course many of your posts are about me not the quality of the air in Israel.

So why not explain why it is useful to view Israel as racist and genocidal from the point of view of advancing world peace? You do not have to talk about how the way I think about things differs from yours in a pejorative way.

well, only one post wasnt specifically addressed to me dave- and that was pointed out- the rest are addressed to me - if you believe they are all deserved criticisms or putdowns- go with it.

as i have asked for any specific comment from you addressing very focused and specific points-

vague is the exact definition-

if you formed your views in childhood then they are firmly entrenched-
it was never my intention to change your mind- only to find out what is IN your mind and i must admit- i still havent a real idea of why you support israel from any angle- as its never been explained-

youve taken alot of space explaining why you DONT have reasons- but still have a view unsupportd by reasons.

that to me is the definiton of vagueness-

and in substitute for substantive or logical discourse, now you simply post insults or misleading and false representations and that is too much for me-

the fact that you are justifying words of a questionable tone indicates that you feel it is okay to get personal - for the sake of this discussion - it is not.

i have been sensitive to never once portray you in a demeaning or caricature like manner-
so i do expect the same in return or at least acknowledgement that i t may be innappropriate or overstated.

at its core- it is unfair
peace

I see this kind of use of out of context remarks all of the time among those who make broad generalizations which they are sure any smart, decent person can see are true.

"here are 2 posts back to back- where did you get the idea i am a german?
no one mentioned nazis or compared them to jews- but you present it as being my view"

I was referring to the German bishops visit to Germany. Every post I write does not refer to you. Moreover much of what you post are quotes from other people and my responses are to them.

Clearly you can find sentences which can not be understood without their context. I am not writing a series of one liners.

""The "natives" would have a religion which conflicted with Judaism and really would be blacks."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
racism is ok now? what does that mena theyd be black? thats the 2nd time youve used that term- do you consider blacks sencond class?"

The Palestinians were referred to by one of your authors as natives like blacks. Indigenous people has the same meaning as native. The Roman province Palestine was named for the Philistines, a war-like people with an imperial tradition the Romans could relate to. Of course the Arabs are not Philistines. The Jews followed the Philistines. The Samaritans who were there from that time on were Jewish. And Arabs, who came after Mohammed, are not blacks. But that makes no difference to those who insist Israel is:

Racist

An apartheid state

Genocidal

Those are generalizations which falsely simplify extremely complex issues. Talking about them in true or false terms gets everyone nowhere.

"also i see that the page and pages and pages of research and posts addressed to you have never even been read by you-"

How can you know that?

"ive given you plenty of time to develop a reasoning process for your beliefs-"

I developed one when I was a kid that has served me well in many situations. And I have been continually refining it.

"if you dont have a clarified and cohesive one now you probably never will"

I will never please some people who have certitudes that can not be shaken.

"simply put- i cant make a synopsis of your views as they are so vague-"

Complex and nuanced is not the same as vague. Vague to me refers to an absence of specifics. Your problem is that I insist on looking at specifics rather than talk back and forth about high level generalizations which no one can resolve issues about.

im going to paste some of the responses youve given me dave- you look at it as a body and tell me the point-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
However it is a long way from that to viewing Jews as worse than Nazis.

Posted March 14, 2007 4:22 PM

Posted on March 14, 2007 16:22
Dave Marshak:

"One would think that anyone coming from Germany and possessing the slightest bit of sensitivity would not be so cavalier in tossing out comparisons of Jews with Nazis.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

here are 2 posts back to back- where did you get the idea i am a german?
no one mentioned nazis or compared them to jews- but you present it as being my view

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
more mischaracterizations and usage of language that was never uttered by me
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Palestinian sources who are fighting the good fight against what they seem to think is evil so inhuman as to be Satanic.

The goverments of Israel and the United States, which if not guided by Satan are deemed to be wholly untrustworthy by the folks who read and write these books."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"You have been asking me why we give aid to Israel. I have tried to explain that it is not a Vast Jewish Conspiracy."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
no one said it was dave- more inflammatroy words you put in my mouth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~