 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000 time: 07:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by uh Clem
Typical. Criticize the Israel lobby's influence in Washington and you're Julius Streicher.
When Henry Jackson (who was as goyish as lutefisk) was Senator from Washington, one of his staff people passed classified info from the National Security Council to Israel. The staffer was Richard Perle, now the Bush regime's Psycho-In-Chief on the Middle East. Perle was never disciplined nor fired.
You may think that it's your country's right to stay in the occupied territories as long as it likes. I disagree. But either way, I don't want my country assisting Israel in that endeavor. Believe it or not, that doesn't turn me into some who believes in the Protocols, so take your smears and stuff 'em. |
hi ,
we are not in any "occupied teritories" , .....
if next week canada invades the state of NY and holds it for twenty years and the US takes it back , would it then be justified 30 years later for canada to say the US has no right there , ......
no , it would not be , the same counts for Israel , ....
we have given back all the land we ever held that does not belong to us , .....
have a nice day from the liberated territories 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
uh Clem
|
 |
Born in the US; damned if I know where I live now
Nov 1999 time: 23:26
|
|
My cute shot at Israeli politics was taken from Israeli sources. I assumed you had a sense of humor. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
quote: why would they be loyal to the Israel? is it because they're Israeli agents? |
Yeah, that's it, fine, whatever.
Cut the crap, Azazel.
I criticized Israel for its invasions & occupations of its neighbors. You implied that if I didn't also criticize Syria, I'm displaying an anti-Semitic double standard.
This is the new fallback position for Israel's apologists: you can't critcize Israel unless you also criticize someone who's as bad or worse.
(So if Kim Jong Il summarily arrests and executes 100000 political dissidents, while John Ashcroft summarily arrests and executes only 50000 political dissidents, I'd be giving away my anti-Bush Administration bias if I criticized Ashcroft without denouncing Kim at least as much. Right.)
In the US media, Israel used to be almost beyond serious criticism or even analysis. Over the years that's become increasingly untenable, so Israel's apologists have a new doctrine: yes, you may criticize Israel, but only on those grounds or for those reasons which Israel allows.
Needless to say, this is not a long list.
So, yeah, I can say Israel invades & occupies, etc, but I must add "but so does Syria!" or I'm guilty of the dreaded anti-Semitism.
Well, let me explain something here: blow it out your butt. I'll criticize Israel whenever I think it's warranted, which is not infrequently.
BTW, I also happen to believe that the alliance between the US & Israel (or their most militaristic factions) is only part of the problem that the US has in the Arab/Muslim world, and not necessarily the worst. It certainly wasn't the "reason" for 9-11, as a relative suggested to me a day or two after the attacks.
But it doesn't help obviously.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000 time: 07:26
|
|
quote:
uh Clem and Azazel, without doing any thorough analysis on this, I believe our pro-Israel tilt began in '56
|
ahh, 56', the year when there was a detailed plan to invade my city with a U.S. marine brigade.... *dreams*
quote:
I criticized Israel for its invasions & occupations of its neighbors. You implied that if I didn't also criticize Syria, I'm displaying an anti-Semitic double standard.
|
I never said or implied that your double standard was anti-semitic.
quote:
This is the new fallback position for Israel's apologists: you can't critcize Israel unless you also criticize someone who's as bad or worse.
|
Oh no, but I find something fundamentally skewed, when the amount of attention Israel gets overall by various "Anti war" movements, and their peacetime predecessors, is unproportionately high, in relation to real damage done. All those brutal, deadly regimes get no mention whatsoever in the "non-corporate" news.
quote:
In the US media, Israel used to be almost beyond serious criticism or even analysis. Over the years that's become increasingly untenable, so Israel's apologists have a new doctrine: yes, you may criticize Israel, but only on those grounds or for those reasons which Israel allows.
|
"new doctrine", "Israel allows"?
quote:
Well, let me explain something here: blow it out your butt. I'll criticize Israel whenever I think it's warranted, which is not infrequently
|
Go ahead. I never had any problem with that.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:
quote: Yeah, that's it, fine, whatever.
|
You still haven't got me an alternative answer, so I'll assume that my given option suits you.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:26
|
|
Interesting sidebar here....
I do think for many people in Washington Israel is very important. Tha is not the same as saying that Israel controls the US, but it is important to note that Israel holds a very central place in the "issues" of several consittuencies in a way that no other state holds: for example, obviously Mexicans in the Us care about US-Mexico policy, but that care applies only to Mexicans..and since Mexicans don't really expect anyting too dramatic to happen to Mexico the concern is Ussualy muted. That does not hold for Israel: there at at least 2 significant constituencies, American Jews, and American evangelicals for who the security of Israel is one of the top three concerns..Jews for nationalisitc and family reasons, Evangelicvals cause they need Israel for the world to end...and then their salvation. This does mean that the lobby for Israel is very strong in Washington, stronger than the lobby for any other state, any other..be it the UK, China, whatever. Becuase of this the Israeli lobby has gathered this aura, which they both try to get rid off, cause they correctly view it as helping anti-semites, and try to nurture a little, to get legislation they want. This aura is what causes so many to think that the US bends over backwards for Israel..and honestly, what other state would think they can demand that someone who spied for them..and who's espionage might have lead to the deaths of sevral agents, should be let go cause he was spying against the US for Israel,not some enemy state? We should remember, of course, that that it one fight the Isrsel lobby would never win, just like they could not stop AWACS and F-15's to the Saudis.
As for Ned's point: I think the turning point came in 1967, not 56. Until 1967 the US was still trying to stop Israel from getting nukes (damn French and their helping nuclear proliferation in the ME! ). It was Israel's victory in 1967 that really tilted geenral US opinion towards Israel, not 1956.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|