Brazil and Mexico aren't occupied, like Palestine, South Africa, and Northern Ireland (depending on your point of view). The US was occupied once, but we somehow got through it with some tea parties and creative non-violence... My whole point is that there was nothing wrong with being a "fair broker" in this issue, but one-sided support will only perpetuate the problem. To give a case in point about our media exposure, cnn.com this morning had nothing on the front page about the US veto of the UN resolution condemning Israel for supporting assassination, while the edition.cnn.com (international site) had the lead story as "Middle East Outrage at US Veto." The rebuttals from my statements have been personal attacks (puss, astoundingly stupid, and dumbass). That is why it's not worth my time to read this anymore.
The quality goes in before the name goes on. Liberty blithering snipped, but I couldn't help but notice you glossed over this. The declassified NSA documents are by far the most convincing evidence I've seen. That, and the sheer lunacy of the premise. The Israelis didn't want the Americans to know about an alleged POW massacre, so naturally they sank a freaking spy ship and forced the US to cover it up. If the Zionists have that much power, why not simply force the US to cover up the POW massacre? Pollard did much, much less damage than Hanson and Ames, and he's in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison anyway. You think we don't spy on Israel? What kind of ship was the Liberty, again? As far as foreign media - on Israel, they are dodgier than Tommy Lasorda. You're the one guy in Washington who can? I'm honored. Fixed. In case you missed it - and you did - your assertion of rational, intelligent discourse evaporated the minute you started yapping about genocide. You're a crank. Good riddance. EDIT - so of course, he responds.
Better yet, try out the Israeli press. Much more balanced than ours, seriously. Still, you do at first tend to overstate the lobbyist influence at the expense of "U.S. interests." (Of course, there's no such thing--the term refers to "corporate interest.") The lobby is powerful, no doubt, but even without them, the capitalists still would have chosen the same side. Anyway, check out this (gasp!) pretty even-handed op/ed from Thomas Friedman. He often tends to oversimplify complex issues, and he's being proven wildly off-the-mark regarding Iraq--embarrassingly so--but regarding Israel/Palestine, he often has some pretty perceptive points. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/o...Opinion/Editorials and Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists "Rather than create the outlines of a two-state solution, this wall will kill that idea for Palestinians, and drive them, over time, to demand instead a one-state solution — where they and the Jews would have equal rights in one state. And since by 2010 there will be more Palestinian Arabs than Jews living in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza combined, this transformation of the Palestinian cause will be very problematic for Israel. If American Jews think it's hard to defend Israel today on college campuses, imagine what it will be like when their kids have to argue against the principle of one man, one vote."
Hideous take, really. If there's one thing I learned in the MEChA debate, is that immigrants shouldn't settle en masse and demand to take over the government. Or, to turn it around, there are more Americans than Canadians, so let's annex Canada. One man, one vote! Friedman has also given license for China to oppress Tibet and invade Taiwan. Nice work, Tom. Oh, and Israeli Arabs do have equal rights. West Bank and Gaza Arabs don't, of course. But then, neither did Southern Confederates after the Union came to town. Cry me the Jordan, is my vote.
Dolemite: "because i believe the largest Jewish population on the planet lives in the US and they are a very powerful lobby group. " The problem with this statement is not the assertion that there are powerful Jewish lobby groups which might be influencing government policy. It's the implication that the Jewish population of the US ARE a "very powerful lobby group." Hello? Many, many American Jews are deeply upset with Sharon and the Israeli policies toward the Palestinians. Many more than that don't really give a *#*#*#*#. It becomes anti-semitism when you imply that the US's alleigance to Israel is simply a result of our having too many damn heebs around. If your complaint is with a particular lobby, then take it up with them. Don't blame the entire population of U.S. Jews, who are really not a voting block in any meaninful sense.
Dude what are you TALKING about. Have you ever worked in politics? Seriously. I have run campaigns at all levels as well as lobbied and while African-Americans and Hispanics are important consituents for DEMOCRATIC candidates they exert no where near the influence AIPAC and the Jewish community does on all politicians regardless of their party. Have you ever been to AIPAC offices in D.C.? I have and let me tell you their operation is impressive as hell. (Also it is scarey as hell the security you have to go through to get in there - tells you something about the conflict they are engaged in). The Jewish community and lobby contributes serious campaign cash to both parties - in far greater quantities than African-Americans or Hispanics. This all translates into a consistent U.S. policy of supporting Israel. This is not "anit-semitic" it is just political reality.
????? How is the Canada/America relationship AT ALL analogous to the Palestine/Israel one? Seriously, Dan, you're not this stupid. And Tibet?? In any case, you can't be serious with the moral relativism in this second paragraph. All told, a totally glib post with absolutely zero intelligent analysis of Friedman's essay.
And if you don't trust Finnegan, what about a former U.S. congressman? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/102-8031043-5887366?v=glance&s=books
This fact doesn't help your cause - it hurts it. Aid to Egypt is (in part) because of Israeli pressure, not Egyptian. Israel wants to both reward them for the peace treaty and to keep the current secular government in charge instead of the wildly popular fundamentalist groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood.
Okay, so because one population hates and detests the other, and has a larger population, they get to invade and take over in the name of democracy? Have you run that by Northern Ireland lately? Friedman's take was as dumb as a glass anvil. If anything, it's worse than what I said, because it's another way of demanding the "right of return." If Arabs in Israel proper end up outvoting the Jewish population, well, that will be a development we can deal with down the road. It'll probably be pretty ugly, especially depending on whether they decide to try to reinstate the status Jews had back in the good old days. But turning the place over to West Bank and Gaza militants would be asking for a massacre. If there's one thing that I'm tired of, it's this idea that there's absolutely no reason why Israel would have a military presence in the West Bank and Gaza. On the one hand, every one of these groups keeps yapping about their civil uprising and how they will drive the Jews into the sea, and then they act all surprised when Israel takes them at their word. At least the Confederates didn't say "Hey, they're SHOOTING at us!" and pass resolutions saying that Federalism=racism. Fighting a civil war means never having to say you're sorry. I didn't even GET to the point where Israel had to somehow justify itself to college campus activists. Or that demanding reunification (or whatever they would call it) with Israel proper would be the absolute towering height of hypocrisy from people allegedly demanding their independence from Israel in a "two-state" solution. Of course, I've believed all along that the Palestinians have had a one-state solution, along Judenrein lines, in mind from the beginning, and the past few years have been *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#ting for Western benefit.
Um, spejic, don't we want that too? Regardless of what we think of Israel? The offensive implications in all of this are 1) The only people who could support Israel are Jews and Neo-Cons, 2) Jews only care about Isreal and want Sharon to have carte blanche in the region, 3) Jews vote as a block solely based upon the respective candidate's position on Israel, and 4) Israel isn't really worth having as an ally because the Jews here in America are too bothersome. It's self-freaking-evident that you and others on this thread (I'm looking at you, Dolemite) are making exactly those arguments whether you know it or not.
It's neither anti-semitic or political reality, just a simplistic view of American politics. AIPAC is influential and American Jews definitely help Israel, but this only partly explains America's pro-Israel stance.
Granted - AIPAC is not the only reason we support Israel, didn't mean to give that simplistc impression I did want to clear up though the misconception that somehow AIPAC and the politcally active American Jewish community are not one of the more powerful political consitituency groups on the Hill.
While I agree with you on most issues Dan I have to take issue with you on this point. The point isn't whether Pollard did as much damage as Hansen or Ames. The point is that he did this damage with the full cooperation and complicity of Israeli intelligence. The Israelis may have turned some of the information Pollard gave them to the Soviets: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/pollard_em.htm "Seven former U.S. secretaries of defence, some of whom are Jewish, also demanded Pollard remain in prison for life. After years of denials, Israel finally admitted Pollard, a U.S. Navy civilian analyst, was not a "rogue agent," as it originally claimed, but a spy for Israeli intelligence. Pollard caused enormous damage to U.S. national security. He gave Israel top-secret U.S. military intelligence and diplomatic codes; names of nearly 100 U.S. agents in the Mideast, who were then "turned" by Israel; NSA code-breaking techniques and targets; intercepts of foreign communications; and U.S. war-fighting plans for the Mideast. According to CIA sources, Pollard provided Israeli intelligence with names of important American agents inside the former Soviet Union and Russia who had supplied information on East Bloc weapons and war plans. How the agents' names were linked to the secrets they supplied - a major breach of basic intelligence security - remains a mystery. Some of the enormously sensitive secrets stolen by Pollard may have been either sold, or bartered, by Israel to the Soviet Union. A number of key CIA agents in the East Bloc were allegedly executed as a result of Pollard's spying. The KGB likely gained access to top-secret U.S. codes - either directly from Israel, or through spies in Israel's government. In short, Pollard's treachery caused one of the worst security disasters in modern U.S. history. FBI investigators discovered Pollard was being directed to steal specific secret data by a senior administration official, known as "Mr. X." But the White House, unwilling to stir up a domestic political storm, quashed the investigation. To my knowledge, three previous cases of high-ranking U.S. government officials caught passing top-secret information to Israel have been similarly hushed up. Two were senior defence department officials under Ronald Reagan, one a top state department official in a previous administration. None was prosecuted. With remarkable chutzpah, Israel, which receives up to $5 billion in U.S. aid annually, refuses to return documents stolen by Pollard, or allow U.S. intelligence to debrief Mossad agents who ran Pollard in order to learn the full extent of the disaster. While Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu kept calling for Pollard's release on "humanitarian" grounds, he refused to free prisoner of conscience Mordechai Vanunu, now serving 18 years in solitary confinement in Israel for telling a British newspaper about Israel's nuclear arsenal." We most certainly spy on Israel. The difference is that we most certainly didn't turn over any sensitive Israeli security information to Syria, Iraq, or Iran. We should expect better from an ally.
This is so bogus it boggles the mind that anyone could believe it. Whether Pollard desreves to be in jail for life is a fair quesiton, but the Soviet stuff is rubbish.
Here's a little info on the guy who wrote that article: Eric S Margolis "Eric Margolis was born in New York city and is a graduate of Georgetown and New York Universities. Mr Margolis is an author, columnist, and broadcaster; often commenting on Middle East, South Asia, and Islamic affairs. He is a contributing Foreign Editor to the Toronto Sun newspaper, a widely published syndicated columnist, and often appears on Canadian television broadcasts. He is affiliated with several organizations including International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, England and the Institute of Regional Studies based in Islamabad, Pakistan." Yeah I'm sure a guy like this would ruin his reputation by making sh!t up about Israel giving information to the Soviets. Gimmie a break. His information came from CIA sources and is part of the reason why so many members of our intelligence community are so adamant about not letting Pollard out of prison.
LOL, you left out paragraph two (which I'll include for completeness' sake): The KGB connection to the Pollard case is total bunk. Pollard did steal an insane amount of information, but there's zero evidence any of this reached the KGB. http://cnn.com.tr/2003/LAW/09/02/pollard/ Perhaps one of those "CIA sources" was Aldrich Ames himself.
It's not anti-semitic if it's stated the way you did. But most people follow it up with an anti-Israel tirade about "genocide", "supporting oppressors" and "the freedom & liberation of the Palestinian people" (which to some means the destruction of the state of Israel). It's easy to see the vitriol behind the simple "we give too much $ to Israel" statements.
Who is that "some?" To you? And what is this rabidly anti-Semitic Rabbi babbling about? http://www.mediaed.org/btf/Ascherman/index_html Here's another Rabbi who seems to disagree with you, manny. Editor of "Tikkun," Rabbi Michael Lerner. http://www.mediaed.org/btf/Lerner/index_html
Ah, Rabbi Michael Lerner. The same man, IIRC, who was forbidden from speaking at an anti-Iraq war rally by the anti-Israel group organizing the rally. No prizes for guessing why he was dis-invited.
Israel is hurting its security by heavily protecting the settlements. Is there anything wrong with building its wall on the '67 borders and telling the settlers, you're in or you're out, but don't expect much from us out there, we're safe in here. The wall around Gaza has helped stem off (in fact nearly entirely cut off) the flow of suicide bombers; such a wall would likely do the same at the West Bank. But building the wall and encompassing Palestinian land will just inflame passions even more. Or is the idea of a Greater Israel that strong that Israel is willing to compromise its security for such an ideal?
I'm not sure what you're implying, Alex, and I didn't remember the particulars of that brouhaha myself, so here's a quick recap: 1) One of the organizers was ANSWER, apparently an organzation run by the Worker's World Party. 2) Lerner has been critical of their connections to No. Korea, Milosevic, and their lack of condemnation of Saddam. 3) They didn't ask him to speak at their rally. Out of curiosity, what answer were you hinting at when you refused to offer prizes for guessing why he was not asked?