Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Published on Friday, May 22, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Cheney: Support for Israel Feeds Terrorism
If we hear in the coming days that former Vice President Dick Cheney has fired one of his speechwriters — or perhaps grounded Lynne or Liz — it will be clear why.
Oozing out of the sleazy speech he gave Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute was an inadvertent truth regarding the Israeli albatross hanging around the neck of U.S. policy in the Middle East.
I watched the speech, but had missed the gaffe until I went carefully through the written text before a radio interview Thursday evening. It amounts to a major faux pas, though I’ll give you odds that the usual-suspect pundits of the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) will not touch it, because it raises troubling questions about the close U.S. relationship with Israel.
I wanted my 10-year-old grandson to learn a nice word to describe the arguments in the former Vice President’s speech, so he has now learned “disingenuous.” Today we’ll study “superficial,” for that is the right adjective to assign to both Cheney and President Barack Obama as they addressed the threat of “terrorism,” the threat always guaranteed to resonate among Americans — much like the threat of communism did, not too many decades back.
To burnish his anti-terrorist credentials, Obama pledged to do whatever is necessary to protect the United States and warned that al-Qaeda is "actively plotting to attack us again.”
What continues to be missing in the rhetoric of both Obama and Cheney is any discussion of al-Qaeda’s actual capability to perpetrate, in Cheney’s words, “a 9/11 with nuclear weapons” or some other scary thought designed to make Americans hand over their liberties for some dubious promise of safety. Equally important -- and equally missing -- there is never any sensible examination of the motives that might be driving what Cheney called this “same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers [who] are still there.”
There are a number of reasons why al-Qaeda and other terrorist movements wish to attack us, but this question never gets a complete – or honest – answer, certainly not from the FCM or from the mouths of politicians like Cheney and Obama.
Why They Hate Us
Cheney’s explanation of a motive mostly reprised George W. Bush’s old “the terrorists hate our freedoms” canard. Cheney said the terrorists hate “all the things that make us a force for good in the world — for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences,” an odd set of qualities for Cheney to cite given his roles in violating constitutional rights, torturing captives and spreading falsehoods to justify invading Iraq.
But that’s also where Cheney slipped up. You didn’t notice? Well, Cheney couldn’t resist expanding on the complaints of the terrorists:
“They have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion…our belief in equal rights for women…our support for Israel… — these are the true sources of resentment…”
“Our support for Israel.” Cheney got that part right.
My radio interview Thursday was with an FCM station, and I thought I would make an extra effort to be “fair and balanced.” So I noted that, to his credit, Cheney — advertently or inadvertently — did articulate one of the (usually unspoken) key reasons “why they hate us.”
I was immediately jumped on, figuratively, not only by the interviewee representing “the other side,” but also by the not-so-fair-and-balanced moderator. My interlocutors did not seem all that hospitable to facts, but I thought I owed them a try at adducing some anyway.
9/11, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed…and 9/11…
In his speech, Cheney mentioned 9/11 some 30 Times — for reasons that by this stage are obvious to all. Referring specifically to waterboarding, Cheney said that waterboardee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, “the mastermind of 9/11 … also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.” (Here, I thought, is a really good example of “disingenuous” — a nice concrete example for my grandson. For the only thing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did NOT take responsibility for, after being waterboarded 183 Times, was climate change.)
But since the name Khalid Sheikh Mohammed came up, I asked my two interlocutors if they knew how “KSM” explained why he masterminded 9/11. Apparently, neither had made it as far as page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report, so I told them what the 9/11 Commission found on that key point:
“By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experience there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”
KSM, you see, had attended North Carolina A & T in Greensboro, and apparently the first thought that came to those drafting the 9/11 report was that perhaps he had suffered some gross indignity accounting for his hatred for America. Not so.
Moreover, the footnote section (page 488 of the 9/11 Commission Report) reveals that KSM was not the only terrorist motivated by “U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel”:
“On KSM’s rationale for attacking the United States, see Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, Sept. 5, 2003 (in this regard, KSM’s statements echo those of Yousef, who delivered an extensive polemic against U.S. foreign policy at his January 1998 sentencing).”
The reference is to Ramzi Yousef, KSM’s nephew. The 9/11 Commission Report had noted earlier (page 147) that, “Yousef’s instant notoriety as the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing inspired KSM to become involved in planning attacks against the United States.”
In the “Recommendations” section of its final report, the 9/11 Commission suggested:
“America’s policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world. … Neither Israel nor the new Iraq will be safer if worldwide Islamist terrorism grows stronger.” (pp 376-377)
These observations seemed to strike my radio interlocutors as unfit for the airwaves. When the shouts of protest died down, there was an opportunity to offer additional evidence, so I threw in what a prestigious board appointed by the Pentagon had to say about all this over four years ago.
Defense Science Board Report
Are you ready for a scoop that is not a scoop, but that almost no one knows about?
It has to do with an unclassified study published, not by some “liberal” think-tank, but by the Pentagon-appointed U.S. Defense Science Board just two months after the 9/11 Commission Report. That report directly contradicted what Cheney and President Bush had been saying about “why they hate us,” letting the elephant out of the bag and into the room, so to speak:
“Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.”
You didn’t know about that report? Well, maybe this is because of the timing. The Defense Science Board final report was given to Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Sept. 23, 2004, just weeks before the presidential election.
That is a time when presidential candidates and the U.S. Establishment in general are hyper-allergic to discussing how U.S. support for Israeli policies toward the Palestinians encourages the recruitment of anti-American terrorists.
Suppressed, Then Gutted
Bending over backwards to oblige, the FCM suppressed the Defense Science Board findings until after the election. On Nov. 24, 2004, the New York Times, erstwhile “newspaper of record,” did publish a story on the board’s report — but performed some highly interesting surgery.
Thom Shanker of the Times quoted the paragraph beginning with "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom'" (see above), but he or his editors deliberately cut out the following sentence about what Muslims do object to; i.e., U.S. "one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights" and support for tyrannical regimes. The Times did include the sentence that immediately followed the omitted one. In other words, it was not simply a matter of shortening the paragraph. Rather, the offending middle sentence was surgically removed.
Similarly creative editing showed through the Times' reporting in late October 2004 on a videotaped speech by Osama bin Laden. Almost six paragraphs of the story made it onto page one, but the Times saw to it that the key point bin Laden made at the beginning of his presentation was relegated to paragraphs 23 to 25 at the very bottom of page nine.
Buried there was bin Laden's assertion that the idea for 9/11 first germinated after "we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American-Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon."
Wading through the drivel in the FCM’s Times and Washington Post on Friday morning, I am hardly surprised that they missed Cheney’s slip about U.S. policy toward Israel being one of the terrorists’ “true sources of resentment.”
This article appeared first on Consortiumnews.com.
Oozing out of the sleazy speech he gave Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute was an inadvertent truth regarding the Israeli albatross hanging around the neck of U.S. policy in the Middle East.
I watched the speech, but had missed the gaffe until I went carefully through the written text before a radio interview Thursday evening. It amounts to a major faux pas, though I’ll give you odds that the usual-suspect pundits of the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) will not touch it, because it raises troubling questions about the close U.S. relationship with Israel.
I wanted my 10-year-old grandson to learn a nice word to describe the arguments in the former Vice President’s speech, so he has now learned “disingenuous.” Today we’ll study “superficial,” for that is the right adjective to assign to both Cheney and President Barack Obama as they addressed the threat of “terrorism,” the threat always guaranteed to resonate among Americans — much like the threat of communism did, not too many decades back.
To burnish his anti-terrorist credentials, Obama pledged to do whatever is necessary to protect the United States and warned that al-Qaeda is "actively plotting to attack us again.”
What continues to be missing in the rhetoric of both Obama and Cheney is any discussion of al-Qaeda’s actual capability to perpetrate, in Cheney’s words, “a 9/11 with nuclear weapons” or some other scary thought designed to make Americans hand over their liberties for some dubious promise of safety. Equally important -- and equally missing -- there is never any sensible examination of the motives that might be driving what Cheney called this “same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers [who] are still there.”
There are a number of reasons why al-Qaeda and other terrorist movements wish to attack us, but this question never gets a complete – or honest – answer, certainly not from the FCM or from the mouths of politicians like Cheney and Obama.
Why They Hate Us
Cheney’s explanation of a motive mostly reprised George W. Bush’s old “the terrorists hate our freedoms” canard. Cheney said the terrorists hate “all the things that make us a force for good in the world — for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences,” an odd set of qualities for Cheney to cite given his roles in violating constitutional rights, torturing captives and spreading falsehoods to justify invading Iraq.
But that’s also where Cheney slipped up. You didn’t notice? Well, Cheney couldn’t resist expanding on the complaints of the terrorists:
“They have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion…our belief in equal rights for women…our support for Israel… — these are the true sources of resentment…”
“Our support for Israel.” Cheney got that part right.
My radio interview Thursday was with an FCM station, and I thought I would make an extra effort to be “fair and balanced.” So I noted that, to his credit, Cheney — advertently or inadvertently — did articulate one of the (usually unspoken) key reasons “why they hate us.”
I was immediately jumped on, figuratively, not only by the interviewee representing “the other side,” but also by the not-so-fair-and-balanced moderator. My interlocutors did not seem all that hospitable to facts, but I thought I owed them a try at adducing some anyway.
9/11, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed…and 9/11…
In his speech, Cheney mentioned 9/11 some 30 Times — for reasons that by this stage are obvious to all. Referring specifically to waterboarding, Cheney said that waterboardee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, “the mastermind of 9/11 … also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.” (Here, I thought, is a really good example of “disingenuous” — a nice concrete example for my grandson. For the only thing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did NOT take responsibility for, after being waterboarded 183 Times, was climate change.)
But since the name Khalid Sheikh Mohammed came up, I asked my two interlocutors if they knew how “KSM” explained why he masterminded 9/11. Apparently, neither had made it as far as page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report, so I told them what the 9/11 Commission found on that key point:
“By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experience there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”
KSM, you see, had attended North Carolina A & T in Greensboro, and apparently the first thought that came to those drafting the 9/11 report was that perhaps he had suffered some gross indignity accounting for his hatred for America. Not so.
Moreover, the footnote section (page 488 of the 9/11 Commission Report) reveals that KSM was not the only terrorist motivated by “U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel”:
“On KSM’s rationale for attacking the United States, see Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, Sept. 5, 2003 (in this regard, KSM’s statements echo those of Yousef, who delivered an extensive polemic against U.S. foreign policy at his January 1998 sentencing).”
The reference is to Ramzi Yousef, KSM’s nephew. The 9/11 Commission Report had noted earlier (page 147) that, “Yousef’s instant notoriety as the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing inspired KSM to become involved in planning attacks against the United States.”
In the “Recommendations” section of its final report, the 9/11 Commission suggested:
“America’s policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world. … Neither Israel nor the new Iraq will be safer if worldwide Islamist terrorism grows stronger.” (pp 376-377)
These observations seemed to strike my radio interlocutors as unfit for the airwaves. When the shouts of protest died down, there was an opportunity to offer additional evidence, so I threw in what a prestigious board appointed by the Pentagon had to say about all this over four years ago.
Defense Science Board Report
Are you ready for a scoop that is not a scoop, but that almost no one knows about?
It has to do with an unclassified study published, not by some “liberal” think-tank, but by the Pentagon-appointed U.S. Defense Science Board just two months after the 9/11 Commission Report. That report directly contradicted what Cheney and President Bush had been saying about “why they hate us,” letting the elephant out of the bag and into the room, so to speak:
“Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.”
You didn’t know about that report? Well, maybe this is because of the timing. The Defense Science Board final report was given to Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Sept. 23, 2004, just weeks before the presidential election.
That is a time when presidential candidates and the U.S. Establishment in general are hyper-allergic to discussing how U.S. support for Israeli policies toward the Palestinians encourages the recruitment of anti-American terrorists.
Suppressed, Then Gutted
Bending over backwards to oblige, the FCM suppressed the Defense Science Board findings until after the election. On Nov. 24, 2004, the New York Times, erstwhile “newspaper of record,” did publish a story on the board’s report — but performed some highly interesting surgery.
Thom Shanker of the Times quoted the paragraph beginning with "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom'" (see above), but he or his editors deliberately cut out the following sentence about what Muslims do object to; i.e., U.S. "one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights" and support for tyrannical regimes. The Times did include the sentence that immediately followed the omitted one. In other words, it was not simply a matter of shortening the paragraph. Rather, the offending middle sentence was surgically removed.
Similarly creative editing showed through the Times' reporting in late October 2004 on a videotaped speech by Osama bin Laden. Almost six paragraphs of the story made it onto page one, but the Times saw to it that the key point bin Laden made at the beginning of his presentation was relegated to paragraphs 23 to 25 at the very bottom of page nine.
Buried there was bin Laden's assertion that the idea for 9/11 first germinated after "we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American-Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon."
Wading through the drivel in the FCM’s Times and Washington Post on Friday morning, I am hardly surprised that they missed Cheney’s slip about U.S. policy toward Israel being one of the terrorists’ “true sources of resentment.”
This article appeared first on Consortiumnews.com.
Posted in cheney
117 Comments so far
Show AllFirst
This article is NOT about Israel's "right" to exist. This debate is about the FACT that supporting Israel incites terrorism. Clearly this is a true statement. Funny how the media gave Cheney total support/coverage UNTIL he told truth about Israel and terrorism. Lets see if he gets live coverage of his speeches now. IMHO Israel has every "right" to exist-if they go back to pre-1967 boundries. They have NO right to steal land that belongs to someone else and was NOT given to them in 1948. Israel must be held accountable for its war crimes and FORCED to give back ALL the land it has stolen. Israel Must make finacial reparations to the Palastian People and give them their land back. It is all very simple and has NOTHING to do with Religion!
Cheney loves terrorism, as long as he or his friends dish it out.
So Letto thinks "On many issues, such as gays right, woman's right, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, right of minorities, Israel is the most progressive country in the Middle East".
Well pass me the rose tinted specs - It's also the leading state in the Midldle East when it comes to Aparthied, Ethnic Cleasing and murdering innocents.
Do us all a favour Letto - turn the record over - this diatribe of yours if nothing else is certainly boring.
Wow, over 100 comments and nobody mentioned that Jerusalem is a holy city to Muslims as well as Jews and Christians.
Or that it was the British Empire that occupied Palestine, something they had been trying to do since the Crusades, after WWI.
Here's a good timeline of the attempt to control Palestine in the last couple of centuries.
http://qumsiyeh.org/palestinetimeline/
Did I read an earlier poster write that the Romans eventually expelled the Jews from Palistine, as an answer to the problem; Hmmm!
Did I read an earlier poster write that the Romans eventually expelled the Jews from Palistine, as an answer to the problem; Hmmm!
There is not a single comment here written to invoke peace and stop the killing and abuse of the innocents. I learned about peace from the Jews, but it is time all Jews remembered their journey and owned up to their responsibility with this land and the power they now have. It is vital Likkud and the ultra right-wings, and Netanyahu, understand that Jews around the world do not need to wash their hands in the blood of other Semitic people. Sit down, make nice and insist on peace. If anyone could do this, it is the Jewish people, particularly those in the West. Will they do it?
Shalom,
thong-girl
That is part of the problem: the issue is not about Jews, only right wing Zionists and their US Imperial enablers. Most Zionists in the US are not Jews. Ask Joel Kovel and Norman Finkelstein. This is about class and politics, ethnicity and religion are used only as excuses and pretexts.
We are talking about Human Rights, Racism, Imperialism and Illegal Occupation. What gives the Zionist Right Wing Israeli Jews more rights than Christian and Islamic Arab Palestinians? The policies of Israel are racist and imperialist by nature.
Jews control the US through their media influences. In the past we said that Jews control the banks. Both statementa are anti-Jewish.
you said "That is part of the problem: the issue is not about Jews, only right wing Zionists and their US Imperial enablers.". The person should have said "Zionists control the US through their media influences.". There is a difference.
KeLeMi,
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056648.html
I too think you are hired to disseminate lies, you sure don't know how to listen.
"KeLeMi May 23rd, 2009 10:32 am
Jews control the US through their media influences. In the past we said that Jews control the banks. Both statementa are anti-Semitism."
NO, not anti-semitism, and any [educated] person knows this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic
EXCERPT:
In linguistics and ethnology, Semitic (from the Biblical "Shem", Hebrew: שם, translated as "name", Arabic: ساميّ) was first used to refer to a language family of largely Middle Eastern origin, now called the Semitic languages. This family includes the ancient and modern forms of Akkadian, Amharic, Arabic, Aramaic, Ge'ez, Hebrew, Maltese, Phoenician, Tigre and Tigrinya among others.
As language studies are interwoven with cultural studies, the term also came to describe the extended cultures and ethnicities, as well as the history of these varied peoples as associated by close geographic and linguistic distribution.
...
Origin
The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern people originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites. It was proposed at first to refer to the languages related to Hebrew by Ludwig Schlözer, in Eichhorn's "Repertorium", vol. VIII (Leipzig, 1781), p. 161. Through Eichhorn the name then came into general usage (cf. his "Einleitung in das Alte Testament" (Leipzig, 1787), I, p. 45). In his "Gesch. der neuen Sprachenkunde", pt. I (Göttingen, 1807) it had already become a fixed technical term.[1]
The word "Semitic" is an adjective derived from Shem, one of the three sons of Noah in the Bible (Genesis 5.32, 6.10, 10.21), or more precisely from the Greek derivative of that name, namely Σημ (Sēm); the noun form referring to a person is Semite.
The term "anti-Semitic" (or "anti-Semite") usually refers to Jews only. It was coined in 1879 by German journalist Wilhelm Marr in a pamphlet called, "The Victory of Germandom over Jewry". Using ideas of race and nationalism, Marr argued that Jews had become the first major power in the West. He accused them of being liberals, a people without roots who had Judaized Germans beyond salvation. In 1879 Marr founded the "League for Anti-Semitism".
END OF EXCERPT
So, as you see, only some moron came to screw up usage of the term 'semitic' and, by extension, the term 'semite' in the 18th century, when he should have, instead, [respected] the very long usage of the terminology.
Semitic does [not] mean Jewish, therefore!
Anti-Semitic originally meant hating Jews. Perhaps the term Anti-Jewish would be more appropriate.
Jews control the US through their media influences. In the past we said that Jews control the banks. Both statementa are anti-Jewish.
Satisfied?
I would refer you to Dr. Finkelstein on this. Be very careful using the term anti-Jewish/Semitic; Self-Hating Jews etc. It will backfire on you. The boy can only cry Wolf so many times. When genuine anti-Jewish sentiment does arise no one will believe you. In fact by calling everyone anti Jewish for making observations you are inviting a backlash.
Not to mention the phony defense of War Crimes, Apartheid and Ethnic Cleansing: hiding behind the Holocaust to justify this undermines your cause, I wish the Zionists could see that. Oh well, short-termism again.
See "Beyond Chutzpah: the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History" Dr. Norman Finkelstein.
And Finkelstein's book before that is also a really good one - "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering".
SO!it is, what it is.
"GwNorth May 23rd, 2009 11:08 am
...
The Invasion of the Americas happened hundreds of years ago when the State of Law at the international stage was still evolving. While there were certainly MORAL violations of Indingent rights at the time, International law did not recognize legal violations.
As example no International law existed that stated that land could not be seized by Conquest and then colonized."
That may be different from the present state of Israel in more ways than GwNorth says, above. While there wasn't international law, convention, ..., there was the U.S. Constitution, which, if I recall correctly, forbids the U.S. from committing aggression against others, but which the U.S. never lived up to. The U.S. Constitution, also from what I recall, requires adherence to treaties, and the U.S. never lived up to these with the American Indians, either.
Also, international laws don't really make a difference, because the U.S. genocide, slaughter, ... of American Indians didn't happen internationally once the U.S. government was formed.
So the U.S. Constitution was contrary to the ways of the U.S. government and its ruling elites who were hellish pigs, etcetera. Now, what about the constitution or founding laws of the present state of Israel? What do they say about the kinds of crimes this state of Israel commits, including fully deliberately and psychopathically?
The US Constitution did not come into effect until 1779 was it not?
The Territories that belonged to the Natives had already been seized. As example "The Hudsons bay Carter" granted the Corporation of the Hudsons Bay compnay "All territories and lands whhose rivers drain into the Hudsons Bay".
The King of England made Land Grants to Lord Baltimore. The King of France laid claim to all Territories along the St Lawrence river and then the lands draining down the Mississippi and into the Gulf.
All of this before the US Constitution, the founding of the country we call Canada or for that matetr Mexico.
All of these land claims were madwe without consulting the people who were inhabitants of that land.
Again I was trying to Illustrate how law has evolved.
In the 16 and 1700's thats how Empires were built. Today the body of laws and treaties we have would not allow such.
If America Invaded Iraq in 1700 and conquered it, they would likley have gotten away with calling it part of the US Empire (as they did with Cuba, Puerto Tico and the like) . Today they could nto get away with such.
In the Case of Israel , her creation was in 1948 and was in Violation of all existing laws of the time and she still in Violation of the same wherein areas conquered are being colonized.
Great posts, GwNorth, as always.
Actually, the Revolutionary war was still going on in 1779. The Constitution, after the understanding that a bill of rights would be added later, was passed in 1787 and took effect in 1789 after a majority of states ratified it.
The treasonous statement by George W. Bush that "it's just a G.D. piece of paper" needs to be prosecuted, as he was sworn to uphold it, and did not.
Native Americans were hunter/gatherers and did not homestead like Europeans did. That model has been unsustainable in the face of expanding populations on every continent on this planet because the seasonal migration of the tribes takes too much land. To say that land was seized, when in fact nobody was there at the time, (absentee landlord) is a different situation in my mind than Europeans calling themselves Jews and forcibly removing homesteads so they could steal their land. (The French claims for example, were overly broad and sweeping; unsustainable without more settlements.)
Was 1948 ugly in Israel? (not sure.) Or did Arabs and European's claiming to be Jews get along at first? The early 1600's was rather peaceful in North America between the colonists and the Native Americans. Yes their were skirmages and isolated massacres with these war tribes, but not till the colonies got big in the 1750's did the Indian Wars erupt out of control.
I'm unsure if the two (birth of US and Israel) are comparable. But then again, maybe they are.
You have birthed a very curious comparison. And I'm not sure I'm going to like it! ;-)
Cheers,
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
"GwNorth May 23rd, 2009 11:08 am
...
Fact.
The Europeans who invaded the Americas at least understood that the Native Americans had rights to the land and sought to sign treaties with them. While many of these treaties were violated, that does not mean title not recognized. The Native Americans ceded over stretches of territory in return for considerations they felt important to them as people."
The Native Americans, the indigenous ones, that is, ceded land at first probably out of generosity, but eventually it was out of wanting to avoid being rather Holocausted. They and South American indigenous peoples went through the "greatest", i.e., worst, holocausts in human history that we know of. A lot of the land they ceded wasn't ceded out of desire.
GwNorth:
"The Europeans that invaded Israel did not recognize the Palestinains as having any title to the lands. They drove them off by force and then claimed that because they fled they had no right to return. To this day they refuse to compensate for lands stolen."
I wonder if the European Jews transferred to the state formed as Israel following WW II didn't recognise that the Palestinians had title to the lands, because the UNSC had to be used to obtain a (an illegitimate) granting of (Palestinian) land for the transferred Jews, many or most of whom must've known about this "official" or "legal" manner of obtaining a state of their own. They knew that the UNSC had (arbitrarily) drawn state boundaries or borders, that the then newly formed state of Israel had only x by y surface area and that this is all the transferred Jews were supposed to have, according to the UNSC's (illegitimate) decision to expropriate the Palestinians in the first place (to begin with).
After all, the transferred Jews, most of them anyway, certainly knew they weren't in their countries of origin any longer and that there were people already living in or on the land that was then being used to form the new state of Israel. They couldn't have been so blind and deaf that they couldn't realise or know that there were already people inhabiting this land. Some may have been that blind and deaf, but certainly not most of them.
They surely were not all guilty of holocausting or genocidally murdering, etcetera, the Palestinians though. I certainly hope they weren't. And I wish the Jews against Palestinians today would wake up and become intelligently moral humans.
"KeLeMi May 23rd, 2009 10:28 am
THe Jews were expelled from the area during Roman rule. THe Arabs later conquered the area. They are the ones who moved in and stole the lands not vice versa."
And you like telling half-truths, eh. The Jews who were transferred to occupy the land of the expropriated Palestinians are from Eastern Europe. Even some Jews state or admit this. Wikipedia, which I've read a number of times of being provided by people who are Jewish, also states that by far most Jews in the world today aren't descendants of the Jews of ancient times. And when we see videos of Jewish settlers, including the insane female mayor in an illegal settlement in the West Bank, f.e., we don't see plenty of Jews who are white, while the Jews of ancient times weren't whites. There are also Blacks who converted to Judaism, and they also inherit nothing of the land of the ancient Jews, not in any legitimate terms. No non-ancient-descendant Jews have any legitimate claims whatsoever to Middle Eastern lands when these people have no ancient ties at all to the peoples who, in ancient times, inhabited these lands; no legitimate religious, political, ... rights at all. But worse is that they pretend to have legitimate claims and then to obtain what their psychopathic and otherwise insane minds drive them to obtain, they [murder]; they murder even women and young children. And that clearly is done in deliberate terms.
You pretend to look at only facts, but state things so questionable that they appear to be half-truths; you do this without providing any links to any supporting resources. So you really like to make yourself non-believable, then.
But as stated in my prior post, the psychopathic leadership of the state of Israel today does not truly care about the ordinary Jews, and we can clearly learn this from people who are Jewish.
And there is absolutely no way that it can be argued that the UNSC acted legitimately when its state members decided, rather hegemoniously, hypocritically, that it was okay to expropriate Palestinians from their ancient lands in order to make room for Jews of Eastern Europe who were being transferred in order to get them out of the Nazis' paths and to keep them from needing to be relocated to, f.e., other European countries, where there was strong hatred of the Jews until the horrors of Nazi Germany caused these Europeans (and Americans) to develop some sympathy for the Eastern European Jews.
People shouldn't whine about the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis. While what they went through was horrific treatment, it nonetheless seems that around 60 million people died because of WWII and Jews definitely weren't the only people in Nazi concentration camps. There apparently were plenty of Roman Catholics and Gypsies, f.e., who were also placed and suffered there. They weren't gassed, but it was still hell for them; and many enough of them probably died, even if it didn't happen due to being gassed.
Note how Jews like professor Norman G. Finkelstein and Sir Gerald Kaufman speak about those years. They are examples of Jews to draw real respect and empathy(ies), and if the empathy isn't drawn to themselves personally, then they nonetheless draw it for the survivors of the Nazi period and reign.
If you can get them to say that most Jews of what we today have for state of Israel descend from the ancient Jews pushed out under Roman Empire rule, and also provide references or links to supporting resources for additional education, then you'll draw respect for your claim. I doubt these people would care to lie in any way in order to try to obtain favours for Jews of today. They very evidently are honest, tell the truth. I doubt they'd state such history, but if they did, then I'd carefully consider their words.
Mere words just aren't enough. Stories like you stated are awfully easy to make up, including out of child-like confusion, by mistakingly believing that every Jew today is a descendant of the ancient Jews; an awfully simple falsehood to discern, but people regularly make awfully stupid mistakes, too.
I am not making up anything. The statement "The Jews were expelled from the area during Roman rule. The Arabs later conquered the area. They are the ones who moved in and stole the lands not vice versa." is one that I heard for years.
I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood. I saw anti-Semitism directed at my friends and me, for having Jewish friends. I was saying what I believed to be true.
I am open to facts, such as you provided. I most certainly will fact check them. But the audacity that you and many of your followers have to claim that I made this up is absurd.
You stated a lot of facts. Now let me digest them. Remember, what I said, I've heard for over 30 years and until now, I had no reason to doubt them.
When the Jews demanded more land in Palestine, and used the Holocaust to have France, and Britain's help, to force the Arabs off their land, was when the trouble started. Than the US stepped in, sending weapons, and billions of our tax money to kill, and obtain almost all of the land. Now the Jews want all the Arabs land from Syria to Iran. The reason they will create a catastrophe, blame Iran, and force the US into yet another war. Something like 9/11, or will use a Flu epidimic as genocide.
Seriously? Wow. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be solved with this kind of backwards thinking. It's nice to have an overly simplistic view of things because it lessens the need for heavy thinking. But it doesn't solve problems.
Israel is one of the smallest countries in the world. Not one "Jew[] want[s] all the Arabs (sic) land from Syria to Iran." Criticize the policies of that country all you want (and believe me that I know there's a lot to criticize) but don't make up childish lies.
The trouble didn't start in 1948. And unfortunately it didn't end then. Have you studied world history? Yeah, a lot of problems started after both world wars (and the Balfour Declaration was a part of the imperialistic policies of the West after WWI) but a lot more happened other than the creation of the state of Israel. If the Arab world wants to blame all of its problems on the creation of the state of Israel then I think that's pretty lame. Israel is responsible for the tragic conditions of Palestinians but the tragic conditions of the citizens of every other Arab country has absolutely nothing to do with Israel.
And the comment about a flu epidemic? So you've read and bought into such classic pieces of propaganda as "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?
At a certain point you have to ask yourself if you want to stay wedded to easy (and in your case insane) ideas that you learned a long time ago or if you want to seek the inconvenient truth and actually solve problems in the world. Those who take the latter route acknowledge both 1.) Israel's right to exists and defend itself and 2.) the Palestinians' right to their State as soon as possible and just compensation for their losses. Resolution of the conflict will only take place through true dialogue. Ideologues from both the left and right (equally stupid in my opinion) have nothing to contribute.
"abstractedaway May 23rd, 2009 1:41 am
...
You conflate Israel with the survival of the Jewish people. It is anything but identical, and I know quite a few Diaspora Jews who'll agree. The history shows that Jews lived far more peacefully in the Middle East than they did in Europe for centuries before."
Very good post, abstractedaway, and as for the Jews in the diaspora you speak of, I believe Prof. Norman G. Finkelstein is one of them. He has very important things to say about the state of Israel known today, or at least the leadership of it and their ways. He wrote the book, "Holocaust Industry", which I haven't read, but which I've read about, and he's evidently very, rather wholly, right. One interesting thing to note from what he says fits with what I've said a number of times about the Israeli leadership not truly caring about Jews, only using them for the achievement of the agenda of the psychopathic leadership. Prof. Finkelstein states at his website, normanfinkelstein.com, that compensation that was to be provided to Jewish survivors of the Nazi forces was never provided to them; that the money was kept by the Israeli leadership types. That alone is a clear sign that they don't [care] about Jews and Holocaust survivors!
It's like in the USA, where the "Christian" elites don't truly care about Christians in general, except from what can be gained by fooling many into believing tha they're cared for by the elites.
Devil, in Greek, means trompeur, trickster, and what do charlatans do? They always try to fool people, trick them, and it's done out of greed. It's the same with U.S. and Israeli elites, as well as elites of Canada, Britain, and on and on and on. It's done by the corporate, political and military elites. It's sometimes also done by religious elites. And many or most are not difficult to discern, but they still fool many naive people.
If Israeli leadership truly cared about Palestinian rockets sometimes killing and injuring Jews in Israel, then the leadership would cease its hellbent criminal assaults against Palestinians, but no, it's the opposite that this leadership does.
A former British MP who is Jewish and who had parents who went through the Holocaust period, or who also went through it himself when young, spoke this winter against the extremely criminal Israeli leadership's major assaults on Palestine or Gaza. He, Sir Gerald Kaufman, was videotaped and there are clips at Youtube for his speech; a very excellent, strong speech, in which he compared the Israeli leadership to the Nazi leadership of WWII, and Hamas resistance fighters to Jews who fought, as they could, for the means were little, against the Nazi oppression, etcetera.
I don't precisely recall the Holocaust-related history of himself and his parents that he stated or that we can learn through other sources on the Web, but definitely recall that his speech is clearly stated and excellent.
And there are many other Jews of the diaspora who are against what the Israeli leadership does. Noam Chomsky is another, among the plenty more.
Like Christians, Muslims, ..., many of us disagrees with the wrongs committed by others professing to be of the same religious faiths, whether those people be lay, ordinary citizens, or religious elites, or political elites who pretend to be of the same religions that we believe in a whole lot more truly. We certainly shouldn't expect for Jews to be any different. We [are] all human beings!
There are Jews writing or stating today that they'd prefer to have a one-state solution and to live side-by-side with the Palestinians, living in peace, etcetera, as was the case in the past; before the state of Israel of today was (illegitimately) established. They don't want any part in the crimes against the Palestinians.
This is not new to humanity. There've always been people who are wicked and those who are of good will, unbiased, non-racist, etcetera. We have not changed, but the wicked unfortunately became much more powerful than before.
Just to mention a few of the dirty tricks.
Dressing Israeli agents as Arabs and using them to Bomb the King David Hotel.
Dressing Israelis as Arabs in the lavon Affair and using them to try and blow up American targets in Egypt so as to draw they US in a war against them.
Using unmarked planes to attack the USS Liberty, then torpedoing the same ship with torpedo boats and machine gunning the survivors as they took to life rafts.
Continual spying on Americans including the pollard affair where the names of US agents were exposed the world over to the Russians. In return the Russians allowed persons of the Jewish faith to emigrate to Palestine.
Discovering a cell of "Al Qaeda" terrorists in the West bank, trumpeting this all over the world , until it was learned they were in fact "Israeli Agents".
There was also a rather short lived article about "Islamist terrorists" brandishing machine guns and chanting "death To Israel". They sort of exposed themselves here as they showed a picture of these black clad thugs, wearing Balacavas.
One of the thugs when showed in a blowup photograph had a Tatoo of the Star of David on his neck and another on his arm. I sort of doubt Muslims would tatoo themselves with "stars of Davids".
In short, when Israel speaks they can not be trusted much like the Governmnet of the USA when they say they do not torture, or that Saddam has stockpiles of WMDS.
The Government of Israel has shown time and time again that they will stage attacks against allies and then claim it was the Arabs.
Blow up a church...call in on a phone and claim "we are with the islamic martyrs of Doom" and the press eats it up without question. I suggest a good number of these attacks are staged and use Israels history of such as my evidence.
You always know a rightwinger is desperately bluffing when he talks about 'our support for women's rights'.
What about supporting gays right? Also a trait of a rightwinger?
"Wanderer May 22nd, 2009 10:40 pm
Israel does not have the right to exist for three reasons:
1) It is an illegal and immoral invasion, supplanting with violence the indigenous people
2) It is genocidal in nature
3) It is causing a huge amount of suffering for the entire world, not to mention the US in particular.
If you know of any other country that is worse in all three of the above, then by all means, it shouldn't exist. But nobody beats Israel, I'm afraid."
NO, Israel is the U.S. elites' strategic military power in the Middle East and they allow Israel to do what it does in order to make sure to keep it loyal as a strategic military power for what they intend for themselves and the rest of us; and it's definitely not something good for us.
I agree with all of what Wanderer posted, but not the last quoted paragraph, above. The U.S. is worse!
Otoh, there's an additional reason for why Israel doesn't have the right to exist and it's that the UNSC [illegitimately] approved of or authorised the establishment of what we today call the state of Israel. That was something the UN had absolutely no right to do. The UN had no right (moral or legal) to decide that it was okay for Palestinians to be expropriated from their ancestral land to make room for Eastern European Jews from conversion, direct, or through ancestors. If the UN had [asked] the Palestinians if they would help by accepting transferred, so refugee, Eastern European Jews and the Palestinians accepted, then this would have been wholly legitimate. But the UN took the [illegitimate] approach.
And there's still another reason for why Israel does not have a right to exist and this is something Israel itself is wholly responsible for. It does not have a right to exist upon its illegitimate start when it refuses to respect the Palestinians and their country, their sovereignty, their human rights and dignity, etcetera. This is the sole reason why Hamas has refused to recognise the right for Israel to exist, contrary to what phony "news" media, the FCM as Ray McGovern refers to them, have long been trying to have us believe. It's really Israel that refuses; not Hamas, which said it'd recognise Israel, but only if this is [reciprocated].
The Israeli population definitely has human rights and that Palestinian resistance fighters should work to avoid harming innocent members of the unfortunately established state of Israel; but this also is a different matter, related, but still a different matter.
Israel's a strategic military power for western elites:
Only psychopaths will work with and/or for other psychopaths, and the ruling elites of the USA know that the U.S., alone, can't [conquer the world]; knowing they need military allies. And when gangsters work with gangsters they would or could otherwise be rivals with or of in order to achieve common objectives, they sometimes concede that the other is to be allowed to do things the former would prefer to not be done. They prioritise and what has higher priority simply does.
They're all and wickedly insane. They probably, or surely (?), don't care about each other, except for what they can gain from each other's allegiance.
They made Israel the world's 4th military power. It's not Israel that made this for itself; it's the western elites who did, who saw to this happening. Ray McGovern recently enough stated in an article that the U.S. first used Israel as a "battleship" in the Middle East, but that ship has evolved into far more; being the 4th military power on earth and nuclear-armed, unquestionably the superpower of the Middle East and over much or most of Asia, as well as vis-a-vis Africa, parts of it anyway.
"The Long War: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and more ahead",
by Tom Hayden, Tikkun, May 22 2009
(checked Tikkun website and the article there was of May 7th)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13708
EXCERPT:
President Obama seems to be committed to continuing to fight.
Understanding the Long War
The concept of the "Long War" is attributed to former CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid, speaking in 2004. Leading counterinsurgency theorist John Nagl, an Iraq combat veteran and now the head of the Center for a New American Security, writes that "there is a growing realization that the most likely conflicts of the next fifty years will be irregular warfare in an 'Arc of Instability' that encompasses much of the greater Middle East and parts of Africa and Central and South Asia." The Pentagon's official Quadrennial Defense Review (2005) commits the United States to a greater emphasis on fighting terrorism and insurgencies in this "arc of instability." The Center for American Progress repeats the formulation in arguing for a troop escalation and ten-year commitment in Afghanistan, saying that the "infrastructure of jihad" must be destroyed in "the center of an 'arc of instability' through South and Central Asia and the greater Middle East."
The implications of this doctrine are staggering. The very notion of a fifty-year war assumes the consent of the American people, who have yet to hear of the plan, for the next six national elections. ...
END OF EXCERPT
People who read the full article surely will appreciate it. I'm about half-way through it and Tom Hayden has very important information and analysis to relate.
Note that what he describes, the "long war", isn't for Israel. It's for the real ruling elites of the government of the USA and they know they definitely need military allies, and more; including hellishly "dirty" or dark wars, fighting, methods.
Something that seems interesting to me is the fact that so many so-called Christians believe in the support of Israel and the Jews who reside there, and the Jews do not believe in Jesus and killed him. Even though Muslims do not believe that Jesus was the savior, they do believe in Jesus as a real person and a prophet of God/Allah. Maybe this confusion is why so many so-called Christians believe the lies of our great Christian leaders Bush and Cheney.
Dizi “the Jews do not believe in Jesus and killed him”
If memory serves me right, Jesus was a Jew who was killed by the Romans. Also, most of his early followers (before Emperor Nero) were Jews. But don’t let the facts disturb your medieval anti-semistic crap.
The actual arguement (from the medieval pov) is that the 'evil' jews handed him over to the Romans to be Crucified. What the meieval ponces fail to note is that had Christ not been executed, he wouldn't have been the saviour of all mankind. So the 'evil' jews really did the world a favour, and were damned for it.
That's the problem with all faiths really, they end up worshiping the scribbles left behind by people who wrote down what others made up while spending time keeping lions away from their goats. Religion is the bullshit (no matter which faith) that keeps humans killing one another.
Sometimes religion is the engine behind wars (Middle-East, Former Yugoslavia, and Pakistan). Sometimes religion advocates peace (Dalai Lama, and even the current Pop).
Sometimes non-religious faiths cause war (Nazism, Stalinism)
I do agree with you that religion is Bullshit (Well, maybe not bullshit, but unproven fantasy story that people should not kill and die for.)
Stalinism/Communism was an attempt at creating a 'workers paradise' it wasn't a non-religious faith, it was an attempt at building a christian heaven on earth; without any parasitic priests or churches.
Nazism had many faiths working for it and in it. From bog standard xtianity to paganism to mystical claptrap. It also was not a 'non-religious' faith.
"Sometimes non-religious faiths cause war (Nazism, Stalinism)"
and Zionism.
Only one thing fuels terrorism...the expectation that it will be effective. Terrorism is a tactic and a technique, the only way to defeat it is to discredit it. To concede to terrorists is to validate their tactics, and nothing succeeds like success.
Further, the arguement about terrorism recruitment being 'up' is baloney. Modern terrorist organizations have learned to remain very small, as the more operatives you have the more weaknesses you have. And terrorist organizations really only need a handful of chowder-heads to committ a large, horrible act. And you'll never bleed terrorism white, as they'll always be enough chowder-heads for political geniuses to send on suicide missions.
In short, what Mr. McGovern is advocating is establishing the following reality, "Kill Americans, win the lottery!" The man is a fool and a clown.
Right.
The ANC was a terrorist organisation too. According to the right. Look at all the terrorism that has been fueled by conceding to them.
The IRA was a terrorist organisation too. Look at all the terrorism that has been fueled by conceding to them.
And yes, we must fear the terrorists. They will take away our freedoms. They will spy on us and store all our data in databases. They will wiretap our conversations. They will use CCTV to record all our movements. They will store all our internet activities in databases. They will try to suspend habeas corpus and jury trials. They will try to impose detention without trial. They will bomb news broadcasters who broadcast alternate views. They will attack protesters, and then lie about it.
Oh wait.
Ok, touche. However, you've basically made my arguement for me. By displaying where terrorism has worked, you essentially are asserting terrorism pays. You miss the forest for the trees. There are many frustrated weirdos out there. As long as anyone with a grievance expects the deal the IRA got ppl will use terrorism for every and any reason whatsoever. Shall we abolish abortion in the US b/c it creates violence? Should we repress gay right b/c they create violence? Of course not, you'd say. Thus demonstrating that terrorism CAN be overcome. In this case, in the case of Palestinians, you simply don't WANT it to be overcome. In that case, you place terrorism up to arbritration. Again, the only way to end terrorism is to discredit it entirely. Unless you want to weight Timothy McVeigh on the same scale as Nelson Mandela.
Ah so, according to massud the right winger, the ANC is a terrorist organisation. How many people did the terrorist organisation that was / is the ANC kill?
Compared to the terrorist apartheid government?
As for the IRA, here's a hint: when some breakaway elements tried to restart the violence again, the IRA leadership stamped on them aggressively. The peace deal, and the resulting dividends, the resulting economic growth, has destroyed any desire among the majority on all sides to return to violence.
You miss the forest for the trees. Which is: the term "terrorist" is meaningless. It has always been used against any dissenting group by those in power.
Thus, according to the right, environmentalists are now "eco terrorists".
Thus, according to right wingers, Nelson Mandel was a terrorist. According to Dick Cheney, Nelson Mandela was a terrorist who deserved to be jailed.
You're fond of putting words in my mouth. Again, I must repeat myself. I do not refer to terrorism in a moral sense. I refer to terrorism as a tactic and a technique. Terrorism IS a tactic and a technique. And yes, you are still missing the forest for the trees. Sure, you can point out that conceding to the IRA(Britain essentially agreed to cut North Ireland loose and let is die a 'natural' death ie IRA long term victory) reduced violence in that instance. But how many more frustrated political groups were inspired by it? You can say conceding to one little terrorist group may in fact appease it. But then how many more terrorists enter the game, expecting the same result?
Israel = everything sleazy, ugly, duplicitous, conniving, lying, scheming, tyrannical, racist, hypocritical and wrong with the world.
That's why it has my complete attention. They dismantle 7 tin huts & make it headline news while digging foundations for 2,000 single family units in OPT on the sly.
They kill for pleasure.
They imprison, torture & maim for no reason other than they have the power.
Israelis claim to have the most moral army in the world........
can anyone dispute this?
Israel never gets tired of sucking on USA's welfare tit, you & I are paying for the accursed apartheid wall, Jew Only settlements & roadblocks & weapons too numerous to mention.
No more american blood or money for Israel.
Come on Washington, cut those apron strings & let them sink or swim on their own.
rubyinthedust: "Israel = everything sleazy, ugly, duplicitous, conniving, lying, scheming, tyrannical, racist, hypocritical and wrong with the world."
On many issues, such as gays right, woman's right, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, right of minorities, Israel is the most progressive country in the Middle East.
In some other Middle Eastern countries, being gay is a crime punishable by death. Converting from one religion to another- death. Woman can't vote, drive or choose her career path. The press can't criticize the government, etc.
What you, rubyinthedust, basically say: Exterminate Israel, and everything in this planet will be sunshine and roses. You are wrong.
Once again . . . why is this despicable man (Cheney) still at the forefront of the discussion?
And Mr. McGovern . . . what a wonderful way to teach your grandson some big vocabulary. I love it! Perhaps tomorrow you can teach him "diabolical".
Cheney said the terrorists hate “all the things that make us a force for good in the world — for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences,”
Cheney must want to appease the terrorist, since he advocates geting rid of all those things.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
"...there is never any sensible examination of the motives that might be driving what Cheney called this “same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers [who] are still there.”
There are a number of reasons why al-Qaeda and other terrorist movements wish to attack us, but this question never gets a complete – or honest – answer, certainly not from the FCM or from the mouths of politicians like Cheney and Obama...."
Do you really want to know the reasons?
Do you?
Be warned, it will be a horrifying look behind the curtain:
Read ‘Collateral Damage’ part I and II
*** www.scribd.com/people/documents/2169400-ep-heidner ***
The implications are BEYOND BELIEF.
Jews control the US through their media influences--for the past 13 years they have been making the policies--from mad alldumb/shady burger era with their great lying leader Clinton wishing he had just stuck with the cigars insted of dripping on the blue dress--In fact it was the power of the NY jews that propelled him to victory in the 92 primary.
All their dirty work is given to the Roman soldiers--today it's not Rome that is the world power--it's US and it's OUR blood, money and SHAME. The question is how long are we going to let them get away with this crap?????
Jews control the US through their media influences. In the past we said that Jews control the banks. Both statementa are anti-Semitism.
So what are you proposing to do against these evil Jews, Herr 0necaptjim?
LETTO I dont have to do anything--It's actually up to them--they can come back to their God and redeem their promise of the new covenant--you know what that means, don't you--or they can all go to hell--I was merely pointing out what their nation is up to now--it's affecting our country in a negative way and we would very much appreciate it if we could have it end now. By the way, I'm not a Jew hater--my best friend is a Jew--you might have heard of Him--His name is JESUS--He is the new Covenant!
Expose them for what they are.
I can help exposing you as a hard core anti-Semite.
Here...
---
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/11#comment-1201566
Wanderer May 12th, 2009 9:24 am
There's no majority of people in Israel that want peace. Never have been.
There's no majority of Jews in general that want peace. Never have been.
That's the reality starting point here...
---
You bring this up on every thread, but yet, somehow... you never link to my responses. Why is that? Oh yeah, you're a Zionist.
The good news is that whenever you bring this up, you've pretty well lost the argument and now your trying to cry-baby manufacture some sort of anti-Jewish bull. Can't win on the facts? Can't win on the morality? Time to whine, whine, whine.
I stand by my above quotes, which are in REFERENCE TO THE ISRAELI SITUATION. If Jews wanted Israel (the supposed homeland of the Jews) to sue for peace, it would be forced to do it. But neither the Israelis nor the majority of Jews seem to want that.
What's pathetic is that it's not the reality of the situation that disturbs you, it's someone pointing out the obvious that upsets you.
It isn't our liberty but the 'liberties' we take with other people's human rights.
Our irrational support for genocidal Zionists is an outrage.
Bought and paid for by Baron Rothschild as the Balfour Betrayal clearly shows.
hey ray - osl had nothing to do with 9/11 - even the fbi knows that - speaking of old canards - let us leave that alone
as for cheney - he shoud be arrested and thrown in jail - a self-confessed murderer and traitor to the constitution and all for which it stands
that would be change i could believe in
Cheney has been proven to be a pathological LIAR, I am no psychologist, but something is not right with him.
The very fact that he is not forcefully discredited and treated as a laughingstock is in istelf a question to ask. The msm has been saturated with him in the last 24 hours.
What is really going on here?
Because the new Tricky Dick is and has been the Shadow Commander of the American Empire for the last 10 years. Does anyone think this reptile has given up one ounce of his power. His people are still in place he's even less accountable now as a private citizen. A private citizen with a secret service detail and a global hit squad on speed dial no less.
Darth Cheney indeed.
"What is really going on here?"
Do you really want to comprehend?
You have to read a bit.
But be warned, it will be a horrifying look behind the curtain:
Read ‘Collateral Damage’ part I and II
*** www.scribd.com/people/documents/2169400-ep-heidner ***
The implications are BEYOND BELIEF.
Thanks, but I meant it as a rhetorical question smart guy. I am on your side.
It's a 2 way street. Muslim countries don't recognize Israel's right to exist, and vow to destroy it. A fact that many on the left conveniently forget.
The Palestinians would have accepted a separate state years ago, and would today -- a fact that those who try to lever Israel's clear right to exist into an excuse to kill conveniently forget, or perhaps only ignore.
Sure, antisemitism still exists. But ongoing Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank do not help this. Whether they have some role in protecting Israelies has yet to be determined, but it seems unlikely. Rarely does one nation occupy another nation without putting its citizens in peril.
The principal reason why some "Muslim States" (hey, you sneakily forgot Egypt and Indonesia which do recognize Israel)do not recognize Israel is that they object to recognizing a state whose borders are not determined.
Israel does not recognize the Palestinains right to exist, nor will they allow them the right of return.
They are the ones who moved in and stole the lands not vice versa.
Why should the Palestinains recognize the right Of Europeans to their land?
THe Jews were expelled from the area during Roman rule. THe Arabs later conquered the area. They are the ones who moved in and stole the lands not vice versa.
The ultimate diversion: the RightWing hatemongers arguments are hollow, therefore they resort to the old anti-Semitism diversion to justify war crimes. That alone is disgusting and an abomonation to those that suffer geuine anti-Semitism.
This is a boilerplate AIPAC tactic.
See: "Beyond Chutzpah, the misuse of Anti-Semitism and the abuse of History" Dr. Norman Finkelstein.
Don't be diverted by the mythical BS, the bottom line is that Israel is an Apartheid state that must be shut down. Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment in the way!
According to Israeli scholar Dr. Schlomo Sand this is myth.
Rubbish. See my refutation of that lie above.
In case you forget, Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel. It's kinda hard to sign a treaty with a state you don't officially recognize as existing, isn't it?
Yep - the Palestinian Authority recognized Israel, and see where that got them.
It got them 100% of Gaza and 41% of the west bank.
Then the Hamas took over Gaza. See what they have brought upon the poor people of Gaza since their coup.
When the Gazans voted, they voted to destroy Israel.
Hamas was elected over the U.S./ Israel puppet regime, so they are the legitimate choice of the people!
Israel, vowed to punish them for NOT electing "THEIR PUPPET GOVERNMENT".
Get the facts straight!
You are a buffoon aren't you? Gaza is not free. It has no control of its borders whether it be land, air or sea. Gaza is an open air prison you stupid fuckwit!
Gaza is under blocate.
There is no Israeli occupation inside Gaza though.
Weren't that many nazis in the Warsaw ghetto either. What's the point of having troops in the land, after all if they don't get enough food they're not going to fight too hard.
KeLeMi;---are you one of these volunteers? ---http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056648.html------------just wondering. the zionists sent many on their mission of disinformation, after their illegal attack on gulag gaza.
No, I am just trying to see both sides of the story. Do you always prejudge people?
As a leftist I am wondering, why does Israel have a right to exist? The people who lived in the land called Palestine had nothing to do with the European pogrom against the Jews. So why do European Jews have a right to take over and then oppress the people who lived in Palestine? Also why does the U S support Israel in this oppression by supplying the arms that make it possible? I have seen your argument before, but it is never qualified. I guess I am asking you to make it clear why Israel has a right to exist in this particular place.
SamHam: "As a leftist I am wondering, why does Israel have a right to exist?"
Why the USA have a right to exist? The USA was founded by European settlers who took land from the natives (and from Mexico). Why Canada? Why Australia? Greece, Turkey, Jordan. All the nations on this planet were build on land stolen from others. All.
The question, SamHam, is: Why are you fixated only on the existance of the Jewish state. Is it because you have something special against Jews?
The word for the likes of you is not leftist, but something else.
>>Why the USA have a right to exist? The USA was founded by European settlers who took land from the natives (and from Mexico). Why Canada? Why Australia? Greece, Turkey, Jordan. All the nations on this planet were build on land stolen from others. All.
The USA has never demanded "The Right to exist".
Nor has Canada or New Zealand.
Israel does not have the right to exist for three reasons:
1) It is an illegal and immoral invasion, supplanting with violence the indigenous people
2) It is genocidal in nature
3) It is causing a huge amount of suffering for the entire world, not to mention the US in particular.
If you know of any other country that is worse in all three of the above, then by all means, it shouldn't exist. But nobody beats Israel, I'm afraid.
USA, China, Russia, Sudan, to name a few.
"USA, China, Russia, Sudan, to name a few."
Get rid of Israel, and you get rid of a huge hunk of the problems caused by the US, so no, I don't accept your premise. As for all those mentioned, Israel is far worse.
When the peoples of the world, and especially the Jewish people can stand with Rachel Corrie and say to the Palestinians,“you are our brothers and our sisters,” then that monstrous and devouring entity, born of the psycho-pathological dreams of t.herzl, d.ben gurion and others, the state which hides behind the name “israel”, can disappear and fall back into the abyss in the human spirit from which it arose..
your point about the emergence of nation states is accurate enough, but it's a strawman. personally, i do think we should come to an amenable agreement with native Americans, Mexicans and others whose lands we've unrightfully expropriated, even after more than a century and half.
that said, you've just made an argument for might makes right, that Israel has a right that it conquered for, and you're apparently okay with that because others have done the same thing.
i don't have the answer on when enough time is enough time, or a statute of limitations on historical claims to territory has been eclipsed. but the fact is that Israel has emerged as an utterly abusive state, and it should be stopped.
(yes, we are, too, and that should stop as well).
Fair enough. (Assuming that when you say "should be stopped" you don't mean "quistion its right to exist".)
How should it be stopped? and from what?
Stopped from expanding settlements on occupied land, hell yes.
Stopped from launching attacks against the people who live in territories that are occupied by the Israeli army, hell yes again.
But how to accomplish such a goal? If the people of Israel stop their government from actions like the above, then cool. But if it takes the effort of other nations to bring about an end to preemptive war, to the wanton murder of people who live in occupied territories, then yes, the right of Israel to exist will come to an end.
The last remnants of occupation will end soon, and a peaceful Palestinian state will be established alongside Israel.
This is what most Israelis and most Palestinians want.
[The last remnants of occupation will end soon, and a peaceful Palestinian state will be established alongside Israel.]
I see no evidence of such a thing comming. Certainly not with the current gov't of Israel, or are you going to argue that a mystical 'saviour of all mankind' is on his way?
The Israeli Government will agree to a Palestinian state bacuse that's what most Israelis support that solution.
Also the right wing government may cave in to pressuer from Obama.
I'll believe it when I see it. The right wing gov't seems to ignore any and all pressure to make peace with its neighbours. Benny has said that Jerusalem is going to be the sole capital of Israel forever, he's ruled out any idea that the '67 border is something to be returned to. The settlements will continue, there will not be any prosecution for settlers who shoot or beat the Palistinians who used to live on the land the settlers have siezed.
Yep - all the assurances from Zionists are worth squat. Waiting for a two state solution?
You might be waiting for Godot. In the meantime, genocide is perpetrated.