RE: Pardalis: "anti-semitic garbage"

[Texas]

From Wikipedia:

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

How is that definition different from the context of my comment? BTW I think all presently involved should watch the video debate I liked to above. It is very good.

 

[Gurdur]

How is that definition different from the context of my comment?

You seem to be confused.

• You said to me that it was amusing how the term neocon came to meant Zionist.
  .
• I pointed out to you that I do NOT mean Zionist when I use the term neocon. And most people, like me, mean "neocon" when they say neocon, and NOTHING more.
  .
• You then answered by asking me my definition.
  .
• I answered you.

Your question here does not make much sense to me.

 

[Oliver]

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

If "against it's will" refers to "We, the people" - yes, it somehow looks this way because "We, the people" seem to have a hard time to watch through the smoke-screen that would otherwise reflect a more citizen-based, critical type of politics and Mainstream-Media, I suppose.

The example that initially made me think this way is the way how Iraq was and is distorted ("patriotismized") in the US-Mainstream, TV-Media.

Anyway: I'm still reading and have to look into confirming sources to get a clearer picture concerning the Israel-Lobby.

 

[Texas]

You seem to be confused.

• You said to me that it was amusing how the term neocon came to meant Zionist.
  .
• I pointed out to you that I do NOT mean Zionist when I use the term neocon. And most people, like me, mean "neocon" when they say neocon, and NOTHING more.
  .
• You then answered by asking me my definition.
  .
• I answered you.

Your question here does not make much sense to me.

Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

[Texas]

If "against it's will" refers to "We, the people" - yes, it somehow looks this way because "We, the people" seem to have a hard time to watch through the smoke-screen that would otherwise reflect a more citizen-based, critical type of politics and Mainstream-Media, I suppose.

The example that initially made me think this way is the way how Iraq was and is distorted ("patriotismized") in the US-Mainstream, TV-Media.

Anyway: I'm still reading and have to look into confirming sources to get a clearer picture concerning the Israel-Lobby.

Why not watch the video debate with the authors themselves?

 

[Oliver]

Why not watch the video debate with the authors themselves?

I'm still listening. Did you read the article and what do you think?

 

[Texas]

I'm still listening. Did you read the article and what do you think?

I'll tell you at the end of the debate. Yes I read the article.

 

[Darth Rotor]

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

Naive much? Rather than explain it in excrutiating detail, I'll offer to you that the link I provided to the .pdf file gives some insight into how lobbies in Washington function. I don't think you appreciate the continual bombardment of Washington policy offices, and Congressional offices, by lobbies for a lot of PAC's, not just AIPAC.

It has grown considerably in the past 30 years.

DR

 

[Texas]

I'm still listening. Did you read the article and what do you think?

I have watched the debate and have read the paper. It is obvious to any fair minded person that the paper was written to focus on the Israel/Palestinian problem and that their example of the Iraq War and the "Israeli lobby" is just a thinly veiled propaganda piece to do what the authors claim the IL is doing i.e. change US foreign policy towards the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to force Israel to make whatever concessions the authors believe will bring their definition of "justice" to that conflict. American academia is almost monolithically aligned with the Palestinians on this issue. That is beyond dispute.

The authors made some really rookie mistakes in making their points. The first being that somehow GW Bush was beholding to this "lobby" and that he was taking orders from AIPAC. That is, on its face absurd, as the dissenting panelists pointed out. GW Bush had less than 25 percent of the Jewish vote in both elections.

When it comes down to the Middle East it is always distilled down to the I/P issue by the left. When you bring it down to that narrowly defined focus the solution is simple. Get rid of Israel and all the problems go away. The Authors made the exact point in their paper.

More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits.

What these authors are advocating is that the United States align itself with European policy regarding the I/P conflict. To do so guarantees the destruction of Israel.

I have googled this paper and it has been picked up and posted by almost every anti-Semitic site out there it was given a ringing endorsement by none other than David Duke:

Academic papers posted on a Harvard Web site don't normally attract enthusiastic praise from prominent white supremacists. But John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" has won David Duke's endorsement as "a modern Declaration of American Independence" and a vindication of the ex-Klansman's earlier work, presumably including his pathbreaking book, "Jewish Supremacism."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401282.html

The authors are quick to deny any antisemitism in themselves but their paper as written hits every ant-Jewish and Israeli hot button of those more honestly self-described as Anti-Semites.

Having said all of that, as long as the problem we are facing in the Islamic world are distilled down simply to what happens in Israel, the cancer that is growing is not being treated.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

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

Um..confusion.

Texan says it's counter-intuitive that Israel wanted us to take on Iraq instead of Iran. In other words, he's saying you would think that Israel considers Iran to be a bigger threat. Then you accuse him of not reading carefully, and post a quote that shows Israel thinks Iran is the bigger threat.

Which is exactly what Texan said. Certainly somebody's not paying attention....

 

[Ziggurat]

What these authors are advocating is that the United States align itself with European policy regarding the I/P conflict. To do so guarantees the destruction of Israel.

I actually disagree. The results would be far bloodier than the current state of affairs, and much less likely to produce the kinds of results leftists are likely to appreciate, but I believe Israel would survive. If Israel needs a major power sponsor and cannot find it in the US or Europe, there's another option: China. Israel has a lot of high-tech weapons development experience, which is exactly what China is looking for, and will pay quite a bit to get. And unlike the US, China is not likely to have any qualms about how their clients behave "internally", or even towards neighbors. Israel will do what it must to survive, but without US backing, what it will have to do will likely be far more ruthless, and if leftists are actually interested in the welfare of Palestinians (rather than just using that cause as a tool for their own purposes), abandoning Israel is frankly the LAST thing they should wish for.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I actually disagree. The results would be far bloodier than the current state of affairs, and much less likely to produce the kinds of results leftists are likely to appreciate, but I believe Israel would survive. If Israel needs a major power sponsor and cannot find it in the US or Europe, there's another option: China. Israel has a lot of high-tech weapons development experience, which is exactly what China is looking for, and will pay quite a bit to get. And unlike the US, China is not likely to have any qualms about how their clients behave "internally", or even towards neighbors. Israel will do what it must to survive, but without US backing, what it will have to do will likely be far more ruthless, and if leftists are actually interested in the welfare of Palestinians (rather than just using that cause as a tool for their own purposes), abandoning Israel is frankly the LAST thing they should wish for.

Yes indeed, the Israeli tech transfer, illegal, of US EW radar tech to China but one fine example of how Israel will look out after number one first. I find your analysis to make a great deal of sense, in re China, and I also consider that if I was in Israel, I'd probably be similarly ruthless, and adapt an ends justifies the means approach.

Israel has no strategic depth. That limits their options in a way most Americans, and particularly academics, either fail to understand, or choose to ignore in pursuit of a high (or even low) principle.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

I have watched the debate and have read the paper. It is obvious to any fair minded person that the paper was written to focus on the Israel/Palestinian problem and that their example of the Iraq War and the "Israeli lobby" is just a thinly veiled propaganda piece to do what the authors claim the IL is doing i.e. change US foreign policy towards the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to force Israel to make whatever concessions the authors believe will bring their definition of "justice" to that conflict.

Not hardly.

My take on it, of course informed by some years of interest in the Mid East security topic, was to illustrate both how the US Israel relationship is intertwined in every element of US Mid East policy, oil or not, and how that focus is reinforced by a driven and very effective lobby whose interests are not any secret at all: AIPAC makes no pretense at being other than an advocacy group for Israel. One weakness of the paper is that it does not compare that PAC, and other elements of "The Lobby" (a term used a bit loosely, which is another core weakness of the paper) with other PACS as I noted above. This is unfortunate, for it robs the lobbying activity of context, IMO.

American academia is almost monolithically aligned with the Palestinians on this issue. That is beyond dispute.

Really? Is academe that blatantly anti-Israel? I hadn't noticed.

The authors made some really rookie mistakes in making their points. The first being that somehow GW Bush was beholding to this "lobby" and that he was taking orders from AIPAC. That is, on its face absurd, as the dissenting panelists pointed out. GW Bush had less than 25 percent of the Jewish vote in both elections.

Not absurd, other than the noted "taking orders" bit. GW Bush's take of the Jewish vote is irrelevant, which is part of the point, if the "real" (loaded term) influence on policy decisions is from lobbyists, which is a charge that can be leveled at more PAC's than AIPAC. (Big oil comes to mind.)

When it comes down to the Middle East it is always distilled down to the I/P issue by the left.

Are M and W leftists? On the left? Center Left?

When you bring it down to that narrowly defined focus the solution is simple. Get rid of Israel and all the problems go away. The Authors made the exact point in their paper.

OK, a cite for that line would be in order. I marked up my paper copy of that paper with penciled in notes all over the place, but I don't recall that point. I'll be happy to stand corrected. (My marked up copy is not where I am.)

What these authors are advocating is that the United States align itself with European policy regarding the I/P conflict. To do so guarantees the destruction of Israel.

I think that's an overstatement, given Israel's nuclear deterrent, but Zig has a more rational option: Israel aligns itself with China, and survives nicely, thanks.

I have googled this paper and it has been picked up and posted by almost every anti-Semitic site out there it was given a ringing endorsement by none other than David Duke:

That doesn't make M & W anti Semites, it makes anti Semites happy to see someone taking the piss out of Israel. Do you see the subtle difference?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401282.html

The authors are quick to deny any antisemitism in themselves but their paper as written hits every ant-Jewish and Israeli hot button of those more honestly self-described as Anti-Semites.

Chomsky notes that the criticism of Israel brings the standard slur of anti Semite to many people, himself included. It may be hard, but let's not all fall into that trap, shall we?

[Having said all of that, as long as the problem we are facing in the Islamic world are distilled down simply to what happens in Israel, the cancer that is growing is not being treated.

Very well said, Tex, I concur with that sentiment completely. Israel is a part of the puzzle, it isn't the only piece of the mosaic in the Mid East.

Tex, on the whole, I find your take on the paper a bit reductionist, however, the timing of the paper is not coincidental. I am pretty certain it was aimed explicitly at the Jewish element of the neocon club as a finger pointing exercise, at the least, more "blame game" rhetoric, and as a kimono opening regarding how tax dollars were being allocated to Israel for those who don't pay attention to such things.

The "rooting for the underdog" in academia is an old habit, the Pals seem to the the cause du jour since Clinton's efforts collapsed in Arafat's hands. Israel was the underdog fifty years ago, certainly before the 1967 war, and now that the worm has turned, can probably not be blamed for feeling a bit ill used by "academe" for its loss of "underdog" status.

ETA

Oliver: I almost regret providing you the link, as you may try to take the paper as "gospel truth" when it is hardly that. If you would take the time to read it critically, rather than as yet another case of "truth on a sheet of foolscap" you'll get more out of it.

Tex: One of the other weaknesses of the paper, IMO, is M and W's conflation of pre and post cold war US Israel mutual interest. US interests in a "unipolar" changing to "multi polar" post Cold War geostrategic setting morphed. Where in the cold war Israel was a fine client in a strategically critical region, the warming to the Saudis in Reagan's time, and the fall of the wall and change in tensions in the region marked a different role for Israel, a role that I do not think they addressed fairly.

There were also nonsense inputs, such as this:

For example, the United States could not rely on Israel when the Iranian Revolution in 1979 raised concerns about the security of Persian Glf oil supplies, and had to create its own “Rapid Deployment Force” instead.

The IDF, Israeli Defense Force, was rather busy defending Israel, thanks, the US is/was the superpower. FFS. **

DR

 

[gumboot]

I see only one flaw in the Israel-China theory. Supply of weapons is only one part of the US support for Israel. A bit element of US support for Israel is the deterrent that the US provides. No Arab state will attack Israel, because it means war with the USA.

In contrast, China is not going to strike back against an Arab state that attacks Israel, and indeed lacks the military capability to do so.

I certainly agree that Israel would indeed look to alternative allies such as China, but nonetheless, no other nation can offer Israel the level of protection that the USA can.

-Gumboot

 

[MaGZ]

Thanks for the links, Darth Rotor.

I'm still reading but...



WTF?
Is that true?

The entire Iraqi war was planned by the Jews from the very beginning. The Israelis launched the anthrax attacks to terrorize America and to increase concern with the issue of WMDs. The Israelis sent two Senators weaponized anthrax letters so the Senate would give President Bush a blank check on the war.

 

[MaGZ]

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?

Yes,
America has been under Jewish control since FDR became president in 1933.

 

[Oliver]

The entire Iraqi war was planned by the Jews from the very beginning. The Israelis launched the anthrax attacks to terrorize America and to increase concern with the issue of WMDs. The Israelis sent two Senators weaponized anthrax letters so the Senate would give President Bush a blank check on the war.

If the two Senators you mentioned would have been Anti-Israel, that would make an interesting Aspect. But besides that - and I also have a hard time to consider the Anthrax attacks as being an Islamic-Extremists attack-wave, can you provide credible evidence confirming this since the final report about the Anthrax incidents isn't published yet?

 

[Oliver]

Yes,
America has been under Jewish control since FDR became president in 1933.

Feel free to add your evidence within the Thread I started about the jewish Lobby. But please restrain from unnecessary controversies and ignore possible attacks. Also: Make sure your evidence isn't refutable from others, if possible.

Pro-Israel Propaganda? - Powers of a Lobby
Oliver (Today)

 

[MaGZ]

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

The American people are largely ignorant of the power and control of the Israeli Lobby. The politicians react to the Lobby not to the American people.

 

[Gurdur]

Yes,
America has been under Jewish control since FDR became president in 1933.

MaGZ:
allow me to humbly hope that black Jewish and black Moslem Mexicans pollute enhance your body fluids.