RE: Pardalis: "anti-semitic garbage"

[Darth Rotor]

I'm still reading and will Google it up - but I get the strong impression that if this article is true, the US system is pretty much undermined if not overthrown by a foreign country in terms of Middle-East politics.

Is that correct?

Hyperbole is rarely correct.

Thanks for the Happy 4th.

DR

 

[Oliver]

Hyperbole is rarely correct.

Thanks for the Happy 4th.

DR

Well, basically this is what both articles describe. The Harvard Article even names it this way, even if I didn't read the whole article yet:

Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries is based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperativs. As we show below, however, neither of those explanations can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States povides to Israel.

Instead, the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the “Israel Lobby.” Other special interest groups have managed to skew U.S. foreign policy in directions they favored, but no lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical.

Source: http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/.../rwp_06_011_walt.pdf

 

[gumboot]

I just want to throw in a totally crazy theory here...

Regarding the Israel Lobby in the USA...

How do others feel about this alternative?

The Israeli Lobby is not controlling US foreign policy, it's just that people in the USA believe Israel has a right to exist, and are willing to offer their support in maintaining that existence.

How's that for an alternative?

-Gumboot

 

[Oliver]

I just want to throw in a totally crazy theory here...

Regarding the Israel Lobby in the USA...

How do others feel about this alternative?

The Israeli Lobby is not controlling US foreign policy, it's just that people in the USA believe Israel has a right to exist, and are willing to offer their support in maintaining that existence.

How's that for an alternative?

-Gumboot

What day is today? Annual Fairytale day?

Maybe you read the Articles Darth Rotor linked to. I don't know how much of it is true - and I'm still reading. But maybe you like to share your opinion about it.

 

[gumboot]

What day is today? Annual Fairytale day?

Maybe you read the Articles Darth Rotor linked to. I don't know how much of it is true - and I'm still reading. But maybe you like to share your opinion about it.

Do you think the notion of a country thinking Israel deserves to exist is so unrealistic as to be deemed a fairy tale?

-Gumboot

 

[Darth Rotor]

Do you think the notion of a country thinking Israel deserves to exist is so unrealistic as to be deemed a fairy tale?

-Gumboot

Depends upon which "people" of the 300,000,000 million in America believe "Israel has a right to exist." (Right or wrong, Israel exists, crafted in blood and iron.) Plenty of folks in the US don't necessarily take that position, and many don't give a crap about any kind of foreigners, to include Israelis.

Others do.

DR

 

[Oliver]

Do you think the notion of a country thinking Israel deserves to exist is so unrealistic as to be deemed a fairy tale?

-Gumboot

Would you mind to follow the discussion?

And to answer your question:
No. ...But pretty close if the Articles are true.

Well, unless you think that official explanations like in case of Iraq should never be considered as being fairytales - out of patriotism (AKA: Lack of skepticism).

 

[Texas]

Hyperbole is rarely correct.

Thanks for the Happy 4th.

DR

I seems counter-intuitive to me that Israel wanted us take out Iraq instead of Iran.

 

[Gurdur]

I seems counter-intuitive to me that Israel wanted us take out Iraq instead of Iran.

Eh?
Iraq has actually sent troops into Israel (1948), sent money to the families of suicide bombers till Iraq was invaded, and actually rocketed Israel (Iraq1 war). Iran only came into the game very late in the day, and only through proxies. Saddam Hussein was a far greater potential threat to Israel than Iran was right up till when Iraq was invaded.

As for lobbying:
ssheeeeeeeeeesh, every man and his dog has an official lobby in Washington. It's hardly any secret that the neocons made a special point of the alliance with Israel; but you could just as easily claim that therefore the bloody Brits are controlling Washington policy, since the Special Relationship between the USA and the UK is still very much on the agenda.

Actually, it's a shame that the bloody Brits aren't controlling Washington policy; they could hardly do worse than the present incumbants.

 

[Oliver]

I seems counter-intuitive to me that Israel wanted us take out Iraq instead of Iran.

You just confirmed that you didn't read the articles about it:

Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but Iran is widely seen as their most dangerous enemy because it is the most likely to acquire nuclear weapons. Virtually all Israelis regard an Islamic country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons as a threat to their existence. ‘Iraq is a problem . . . But you should understand, if you ask me, today Iran is more dangerous than Iraq,’ the defence minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, remarked a month before the Iraq war.

Source: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

I don't know if it's true but maybe you can comment on in based on your knowledge and experiences.

The other Article is this one from two Harvard Guys but it's pretty long, so I cannot comment on it yet:

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Researc.../rwp/RWP06-011

 

[gumboot]

Depends upon which "people" of the 300,000,000 million in America believe "Israel has a right to exist." (Right or wrong, Israel exists, crafted in blood and iron.) Plenty of folks in the US don't necessarily take that position, and many don't give a crap about any kind of foreigners, to include Israelis.

Others do.

DR

But as long as the politicians do, the US will support Israel. My issue, which Oliver totally misses as per usual, is that the relevance of a powerful lobby assumes that lobby is making the government do things it would never otherwise do.

Yes, there's a strong Israeli lobby in the US. Yes the US supports Israel. But if the government has already decided Israel deserves to exist, and needs the US's support, that Israeli lobby is irrelevant.

-Gumboot

 

[Texas]

Eh?
Iraq has actually sent troops into Israel (1948), sent money to the families of suicide bombers till Iraq was invaded, and actually rocketed Israel (Iraq1 war). Iran only came into the game very late in the day, and only through proxies. Saddam Hussein was a far greater potential threat to Israel than Iran was right up till when Iraq was invaded.

As for lobbying:
ssheeeeeeeeeesh, every man and his dog has an official lobby in Washington. It's hardly any secret that the neocons made a special point of the alliance with Israel; but you could just as easily claim that therefore the bloody Brits are controlling Washington policy, since the Special Relationship between the USA and the UK is still very much on the agenda.

Actually, it's a shame that the bloody Brits aren't controlling Washington policy; they could hardly do worse than the present incumbants.

Iran's "proxy" strategy actually holds more danger to Israel than Saddam's almost non-existent army. I don't believe Isael was felt partularly threated by Iraq after the first Gulf War.

It is amusing that the term "Neo-Con" has taken on the meaning of American Zionists.. The genesis of the Neo-Con movement came with the so-called Red Diaper Babies that became disillusioned with their parents radical leftist ideas . The real American Zionists are the religious right. It is my opinion that the embrace of Israel by the Religious right has had more than a little impact on how the left views Israel today. It is a bit like the friend of my friend makes my friend my enemy.

 

[gumboot]

Would you mind to follow the discussion?

And to answer your question:
No. ...But pretty close if the Articles are true.

Well, unless you think that official explanations like in case of Iraq should never be considered as being fairytales - out of patriotism (AKA: Lack of skepticism).

I am following the discussion. You, however, don't appear to be. How would my patriotism ever lead me to blindly swallow the "official explanation" for the Iraq war?

You do know that "patriotism" does not mean "loyalty to the USA" yes?

Does the article provide evidence that the US government is supporting Israel against its will?

-Gumboot

 

[Gurdur]

Iran's "proxy" strategy actually holds more danger to Israel than Saddam's almost non-existent army. I don't believe Isael was felt partularly threated by Iraq after the first Gulf War.

You're wrong; Israel paid a great deal of attention to future possible threats from Iraq.

It is amusing that the term "Neo-Con" has taken on the meaning of American Zionists..

Not with me, and not with most people.

When I say "neocons", I MEAN neocons, and usually only the self-described neocons in the USA, though you will find a couple of home-grown neocons in the UK and Australia.

I do NOT mean "Jews", "Zionists" or "Rutabagas". So you should keep that in mind.

The genesis of the Neo-Con movement came with the so-called Red Diaper Babies that became disillusioned with their parents radical leftist ideas .

The Trotskyists who became neocons largely come from a different grouping than the one you refer to.

The real American Zionists are the religious right. It is my opinion that the embrace of Israel by the Religious right has had more than a little impact on how the left views Israel today. It is a bit like the friend of my friend makes my friend my enemy.

Possibly, but that's a long argument. Certainly, the more extreme Religious Right make very very very strange allies for Israel.

 

[Texas]

You just confirmed that you didn't read the articles about it:




I don't know if it's true but maybe you can comment on in based on your knowledge and experiences.

The other Article is this one from two Harvard Guys but it's pretty long, so I cannot comment on it yet:

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Researc.../rwp/RWP06-011

The portion you quoted is more or less what I said in the first place.

 

[Texas]

You're wrong; Israel paid a great deal of attention to future possible threats from Iraq.

Not with me, and not with most people.

When I say "neocons", I MEAN neocons, and usually only the self-described neocons in the USA, though you will find a couple of home-grown neocons in the UK and Australia.

I do NOT mean "Jews", "Zionists" or "Rutabagas". So you should keep that in mind.

The Trotskyists who became neocons largely come from a different grouping than the one you refer to.

Possibly, but that's a long argument. Certainly, the more extreme Religious Right make very very very strange allies for Israel.

I am curious, as to your definition of Neo-Con and and its origins.

 

[Oliver]

I am following the discussion. You, however, don't appear to be. How would my patriotism ever lead me to blindly swallow the "official explanation" for the Iraq war?

You do know that "patriotism" does not mean "loyalty to the USA" yes?

Does the article provide evidence that the US government is supporting Israel against its will?

-Gumboot

Well, if you were following the discussion you would know that I'm still reading the PDF which is a pretty long one - and I don't know how much is true, concerning your evidence question. I thought you're the more skilled person regarding foreign policies.

And yes, I know that patriotism is no US-patented word - even if it looks this way from German point of view in which patriotism is some kind of moral taboo.

 

[Texas]

Well, if you were following the discussion you would know that I'm still reading the PDF which is a pretty long one - and I don't know how much is true, concerning your evidence question. I thought you're the more skilled person regarding foreign policies.

And yes, I know that patriotism is no US-patented word - even if it looks this way from German point of view in which patriotism is some kind of moral taboo.

Go to your first link, there is a link to a video debate for this paper I am watching it now.

 

[gumboot]

Well, if you were following the discussion you would know that I'm still reading the PDF which is a pretty long one - and I don't know how much is true, concerning your evidence question. I thought you're the more skilled person regarding foreign policies.

And yes, I know that patriotism is no US-patented word - even if it looks this way from German point of view in which patriotism is some kind of moral taboo.

I have no doubt there's a strong Israeli lobby in the USA. I have no doubt that US foreign policy broadly reflects the desires of this lobby.

My issue is your assumption that this is because the lobby is making the USA follow this particular policy against its will.

Has it never occurred to you that you have everything backwards, and the reason the lobby is so strong is because their desires reflect the desires of the US government?

-Gumboot

 

[Gurdur]

I am curious, as to your definition of Neo-Con and and its origins.

From Wikipedia:

The term neoconservative was first used .... by ... Michael Harrington to make clear that a group, many of whom called themselves liberal, was actually a group of newly conservative ex-liberals. The name eventually stuck, both because it was reasonably accurate, and because neoconservatives came to accept that they were, in fact, conservative
...........
,..........
Three pillars of Neoconservatism
According to Irving Kristol, the founder and "god-father" of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism.

• Economics
  "One of these policies, most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth [...]
  .......
• Domestic affairs
  "Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state
  .....
• Foreign policy
  "First, patriotism .... should be encouraged by both private and public institutions ....

Historically, neoconservatives supported a militant anticommunism, .... .... less inclined to compromise principles, even if that meant unilateral action.

Looks good enough for a definition to me. If you want more, read more of the Wikipedia piece.