The War Against Israel in America: Part Two
DoD
large chorale on stage to sing during the final movement. Their voices are
easily heard throughout the hall. Today in America, we have the unusual
situation of a similarly large collection of writers, and academics and
propagandists, a chorus, if you may, all of whom are hostile to Israel and
its supporters in America. And they are singing together in newspaper
columns, magazine articles, TV and radio interviews, books, academic papers,
conferences, and lectures. What they all are saying is:
"I am brave, for I am a lonely soul breaking the silence demanded by and
imposed by the all-powerful Israel lobby. And by speaking the truth about
the conflict, I am really helping Israel, for only by following my advice,
will Israel and the Palestinians ever achieve justice and peace, and America
be loved again in the Muslim world."
There is no silence to be broken. Rather, those fighting Israel and trying
to undermine its support in America, have already seized control of major
information pathways, from newspaper op-ed pages to the classrooms of
colleges and universities, and are dominating the messages sent out from
them on the Middle East conflict. And more to the point, their advice for
American policymakers in the Executive branch and Congress, is naīve,
foolish, and threatening to the security of one of America's few stalwart
allies in the long war we are now fighting against radical Islamic forces.
By encouraging weakness if not surrender to these forces aligned against
Israel, their advice is also a danger to the United States itself.
The campaign against Israel in America today is focused on a few themes:
1. The so-called Israel lobby is in complete control of the debate, and
stifles criticism of Israel
2. If only other voices were allowed to be heard, the debate would open up,
and American public opinion and policy would change.
3. American policy needs to change because the Israel lobby does not promote
American interests, but Israel's (or at least right wing Israelis), which
are different than and wrong for America.
4. If America were more evenhanded in its approach, and engaged more in the
peace process (meaning it should lean on and pressure Israel for
concessions) peace between Israel and the Palestinians could be achieved,
presumably quickly.
5. If American policy were less under the sway of the Israel lobby, our
policy would be viewed as more balanced, say like Europe's, and we would
have more friends in the world.
6. If 2 through 5 above were implemented, Al Qaeda would throw a party for
us on the Pakistan-Afghan border, light a campfire, and invite us over to
sing Kumbayah with them, just before the forced conversions to Islam would
begin at gunpoint.
Actually this last one is not what most of the critics of America's Middle
East policy believe. Only some of them believe this.
It is worth addressing each of the first five points, albeit briefly.
Does the Israel lobby control the debate?
The supposed power of the Israel lobby in limiting debate these days seems
little in evidence. In fact, it seems to be open season on Israel in the
media, what with Gary Kamiya in Salon, Nicholas Kristof in the New York
Times (the higher circulation Sunday edition of course), and now with his
very own I Love You Nick website created for progressive Democrats who
detest Israel (a large and growing group), Jimmy Carter, seemingly
everywhere discussing his new bestselling book accusing Israel of being a
new South African apartheid state, Professors Steven Walt and John
Mearsheimer, speaking (and out with a book in September, expanding on their
tendentious London Review of Books article from last year) and being feted
by such charming groups as CAIR, Tony Judt writing off Israel in the New
York Review of Books, Philip Weiss with his regular poison penned columns in
the Nation, and so many more.
As to opening the debate, we have the recent example of former President
Carter getting national airtime to make his attacks against Israel on NPR or
C-SPAN, or Meet the Press, and at various colleges (Brandeis and Emory
recently), and refusing to debate his critics in any of these venues.
Many of the harshest critics of Israel, such as Norman Finkelstein and Noam
Chomsky, are Jews, themselves, and have opened the door to other critics to
attack Israel without fear of giving offense. There are of course more
mainstream Jewish critics of Israel than Finkelstein and Chomsky, both of
whom seemingly believe that Israel's creation and existence are an
injustice. Weiss and Kamiya and Kristof write lovingly of these groups, such
as the Israel Policy Forum, B'tselem, Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek v
Shalom and Ameinu, and accept their criticisms of Israel as gospel. Exactly
how these groups are being silenced, or kept out of the policy debate among
American Jews is a mystery of course.
There is quite simply no silence, and no enforced silence. There is
vigorous debate on Israel in this country, as in Israel, and what frustrates
the left is that so far, they have lost the debate. Has anybody recently
checked the balance of columns supporting or attacking Israel in the major
newspapers of America? Anybody kept track of how many anti-Israel speakers
were invited to campuses across the country versus pro-Israel speakers in
the last year? Anybody want to compare the number of pro-Palestinian
faculty propagandizing their students in colleges and universities these
days, (the next generation of leaders) with those faculty making a more
balanced argument about the conflict Can one even defend Israel on campus
these days? Anybody want to compare the dollars injected into influencing
the debate on Israel and the Palestinians in this country by Saudi Arabia
and other Palestinian supporters with the dollars raised and spent defending
Israel?
Would American policy change if the debate were opened up?
The real problem for pro-Palestinian Arabs and Muslims and their allies on
the progressive left (who have adopted anti-Israel attitudes as a religion,
much like their passionate hatred of the Iraq war and George Bush), is that
Americans are not on their side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If
Congress in a largely bipartisan fashion is pro-Israel, it is because their
constituents are overwhelmingly pro-Israel. AIPAC did not make the man or
the woman on the street uncomfortable with Palestinian suicide bombers, or
with the Palestinians who cheered the 9/11 attacks in cites across the West
Bank and Gaza, or with the Palestinian media, schools and mosques in which
hatred is spewed for Jews, Christians, America, the West, and all
non-Muslims (infidels).
The Gallup organization has been polling Americans on their sympathies in
the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians for decades. In every poll
taken on the subject, the pro-Israel group has always been much larger. In
the latest survey, the numbers show 58% for Israel (close to an all-time
high), and 20% for the Palestinians . The 38% margin is one of the largest
ever recorded in the survey. Gallup says fewer Americans are neutral or do
not care about the conflict than in the past. The results also show very
sharp differences among self-proclaimed Democrats and Republicans.
Democrat-leaning voters are much more likely to be supportive of the
Palestinians than Republican-leaning voters.
In the last few years, there has been a succession of books attacking
evangelical Christians, also called "right wing Christians", for their
alleged control over American politics. In fact critics on the left believe
they are in the center of political debate, and all who disagree with them
are right wing or far right wing or "wingnuts". It is not clear whom they
would regard as left wing other than Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao perhaps
(but only on their bad days). It is not surprising that some of the most
vitriolic polemicists on the subject are also hard-line anti-Israel in their
views (Chris Hedges is a prime example). With Christian Zionism in full
bloom, the left's hysteria over and hatred of the Christian right will only
be more on display, and more intolerant. Christian evangelicals are a very
large group of pro-Israel Americans who are among those surveyed in all the
polls taken. And no Israel lobby was needed to make them supportive of the
one Jewish state.
Many on the left seem to be unconcerned about how illiberal and
unprogressive are the attitudes and behaviors of those they champion in this
conflict; the forever aggrieved Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim
allies. They are loath to defend Palestinian (or Saudi) behavior on such
issues as women's rights, gay rights, tolerance for secularists and other
non-Muslim believers, freedom of speech and the press, and so on. Because
cultural relativism reigns supreme on the left, the progressives refuse to
judge a non-western culture by western standards (or alternatively, it is
just too inconvenient to do so). Only Israel can be judged by western
standards (perfection in its case) and always found wanting.
Kristof in his recent column admits that human rights abuses directed
against the Palestinians pale before the much more substantial and deadly
human right abuses carried out by governments or groups around the world,
and in the Muslim world in particular. But after paying lip service to this
fact he goes on to bash Israel exclusively. Kristof has been a frequent
writer on Darfur for years. But his condemnations in his many columns on
Darfur are almost always directed against Western nations, in particular the
US, for not doing more, (even suggesting military action!). Kristof will not
condemn the brutal Sudanese Muslim government regime for murdering its own
citizens, who have the misfortune of being predominantly black, not Arab.
Americans see the hypocrisy among those who back the Palestinians and yet
whitewash their behavior, and who focus only on Israel's imperfections. For
all its faults (there are no perfect nations), Israel is admired by many
Americans for its resolve, its military toughness and sacrifices, its
economic and technological achievements in agriculture, desalinization,
computer science, and medicine, all shared with countries around the world,
its friendship and strategic partnership with America (no country votes more
often with the US in the United Nations than Israel) , and most of all for
its western culture, democratic values, first amendment type freedoms, and
respect for minorities. Where in the Arab world are any of these seen?
If the Israel lobby is successful, it is because the pro-Israel case is an
easy one to make, and already widely understood and accepted.
Most of those on the left look for the "victim" or the weaker party in any
dispute, and automatically assign moral superiority to that party. But most
Americans also see a consistent pattern of self-destructive behavior by the
Palestinians: sabotaging the Camp David talks in 2000, starting a vicious
intifada (terror campaign) only months later, and electing a terrorist
entity to control its government in 2006. Why help those who will not help
themselves?
Does the Israel lobby promote American interests?
Even the "realist school" professors Walt and Mearsheimer admit that Israel
was a strategic ally in the cold war. But now they believe that American
interests lie more in securing our energy needs, and Israel can be thrown
overboard if it interferes with that objective. Since our energy "partners"
in the Arab world hate Israel, the professors want to abandon Israel to
appease these supposedly more important players.
Bless their souls, both professors say they still believe (for today at
least) that Israel has a right to exist. But America should cater to Saudi
Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, and the Gulf states, since they have what
we need. Maybe Al Gore needs to talk to the professors about whether this
approach is healthy for the nation or the planet; first to continue to rely
almost exclusively on fossil fuels, and second on such unreliable sources at
that.
It is not hard to argue that Israel remains a vital strategic ally of the
United States. The focal point of the worldwide Islamic fundamentalist
assault on the West is in Israel's neighborhood, and Israel defends itself.
Some of Israel's fiercest enemies are the same nations attempting to
undermine American interests in Iraq and Lebanon, namely Iran and Syria.
Israel shares intelligence on radical Islamist groups with the US. The two
countries jointly work on development of many weapons systems - missile and
rocket defense, drones, aircraft missile avoidance systems. The two
countries cooperate on homeland security, policing, civil disaster planning,
and counter-terrorism strategies.
Israel is in many ways a canary in the coal mine for the West. The war
against Israel highlights the strategies and tactics of radical groups
worldwide. And Israel's survival and resilience demonstrate that the West
can triumph against its foes if it marshals its considerable strength and
maintains the determination to succeed. The sacrifice of Israel would be an
enormous gift to the enemies of the West, and only increase their appetite
and belief in their eventual victory against other Western targets.
Of course, the two nations can and do disagree on policy. But support for
Israel in this country reflects the fact that most Americans believe Israel
is a reliable and steadfast ally. What support has the US bought with its
billions in foreign aid to Egypt? Is Saudi Arabia an American ally? Sure
they have bought off politicians, academics, and journalists (even
ex-Presidents for that matter). Have the Europeans made themselves more
secure by siding with the Palestinians and cowering before every radical
Islamist group in their midst?
Finally, the argument is made that Israel is controlled by a right wing
government, and the Israel lobby here is aligned with that government. This
is almost a total misreading of AIPAC's role, and the recent history of
Israeli politics. AIPAC works to facilitate relations between Israel and the
United States, whether Israel is governed from the left or the right.
Israel's government changes from left to right to left to right in rapid
order. Since the election of Yitzhak Rabin and the start of the Oslo
process, Israel has been governed by left or center-left coalitions for more
years than by the right. Consider this list of Israeli governments that
Israel's critics denounce: Rabin, Peres, Barak, and Olmert. Right wing?
Likud Party? Sharon had to abandon his Likud party to accomplish the
disengagement from Gaza. Even a Likud-led government of Benjamin Netanyahu
withdrew from Hebron, and agreed at Wye River to a substantial withdrawal
from the West Bank. Israel withdrew unilaterally from southern Lebanon in
2000 and from Gaza in 2005. Neither of these withdrawals led to new quiet
peaceful borders, but rather rocket fire, kidnapping and killing of IDF
soldiers, and non-stop smuggling of weaponry to positions near the border so
as to fire on Israel territory, as Hezbollah did with 4,000 rockets fired at
Israel in the 5 week war of 2006, and as Palestinians have with almost 2,000
rockets fired into Israel since the disengagement from Gaza.
Is peace waiting around the corner?
The media are full of stories these days of Saudi peace plans, reformulated
Saudi peace plans, and the new unity Palestinian government. Peace is in
the air. And of course, to Israel's critics, the only obstacle is Israel's
unwillingness to end its occupation and settlement policy, which Kristof
blames for almost everything wrong in that part of the world at the moment.
"Hard-line Israeli policies have profoundly harmed that country's long-term
security by adding vulnerable settlements, radicalizing young Palestinians,
empowering Hamas and Hezbollah, isolating Israel in the world and nurturing
another generation of terrorists in Lebanon."
Is Ehud Olmert guilty of hard line policies directed against the
Palestinians? Has he been adding settlements? Hamas and Hezbollah and the
Palestinian Authority have done a pretty good job radicalizing their own
populations for years, of course, but why concern oneself with incitement,
when you can blame Israel?
The reality as to who offered peace and who rejected it, is a bit different
from the Kristof fable or the Kamiya saga, or the mythologies kept alive by
the peace camp true believers, here and in Israel. At Camp David, as Chief
US negotiator Dennis Ross makes clear in his opus on the peace process,
Israel offered 92% of the West Bank, plus land within pre-67 Israel, plus
all of Gaza, to share Jerusalem, and to help finance refugee resettlement.
At Taba a few months later, the vicious Palestinian terror campaign (the
second and far deadlier intifada) induced a sweeter offer from Israel- over
95% of the West Bank, and a larger land exchange. Of course the Palestinians
had no intention of taking either offer, but have always been happy to book
an Israeli offer, and use it as the basis for the beginning of the next set
of negotiations once Palestinians agree to a time out in their 80 plus year
campaign of terror against Israel and Zionism.
This history is either unknown to Israel's critics, or conveniently ignored.
How to explain that on three occasions in the year 2000, New York Times
"news" stories misinterpreted the meaning of UN Security Council Resolution
242, adopted in November 1967, five months after the Six Day War. That
resolution does NOT require Israel to withdraw from all territories captured
in that war, in exchange for peace and secure borders. In fact the
deliberations that led to the resolution's passage were debated for 5 months
until the United States and its allies won acceptance of the language of 242
that left it up to the parties themselves how much territory Israel would
withdraw from. The negotiators of 242 wrote at the time that the pre-67 War
boundaries were inherently unstable, and insecure for Israel, and only
encouraged future Arab attacks.
Eugene V Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in 1967
and one of the drafters of the resolution, draws attention to the fact that
the text proposed by the British had succeeded ahead of alternatives (in
particular, a more explicit text proposed by the Soviet Union):
... paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli
armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and not
'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to
amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security
Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision
requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the
cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines.[16]
The USSR and the Arabs supported a draft demanding a withdrawal to the 1967
Lines. The US, Canada and most of West Europe and Latin America supported
the draft which was eventually approved by the UN Security Council.[17]
Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338... rest on two principles, Israel
may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when
peace is made, Israel should withdraw to 'secure and recognized borders',
which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949.[18]
He also points out that attempts to explicitly widen the motion to include
"the" or "all" territories were explicitly rejected.
Motions to require the withdrawal of Israel from 'the' territories or 'all
the territories' occupied in the course of the Six Day War were put forward
many times with great linguistic ingenuity. They were all defeated both in
the General Assembly and in the Security Council.[1]
Arthur Goldberg, another of the resolution's drafters, concurred that
Resolution 242 does not dictate the extent of the withdrawal, and added that
this matter should be negotiated between the parties:
Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council
require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories
occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no. In the resolution,
the words the and all are omitted. Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal
of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict,
without specifying the extent of the withdrawal. The resolution, therefore,
neither commands nor prohibits total withdrawal.
If the resolution is ambiguous, and purposely so, on this crucial issue, how
is the withdrawal issue to be settled? By direct negotiations between the
concerned parties. Resolution 242 calls for agreement between them to
achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement. Agreement and acceptance
necessarily require negotiations.[20]
On each occasion when the New York Times got the story wrong, the paper,
notified of the error by CAMERA, was forced to print a correction. So why
did the Times get it wrong three times? Were Times reporters and editors
deliberately misreporting the meaning of the Resolution (suggesting bias and
malice towards Israel) or are Times reporters and editors merely stupid,
uninformed and incapable of learning from error?
Israel has certainly not always made wise decisions in its dealings with the
Arabs or the Palestinians. But has Israel been the principal obstacle to the
two state solution that some of Israel's critics say will end the conflict?
The negotiations in 2000 and during the Oslo process put the lie to that. Of
course, some of Israel's critics are more honest, and want Israel to
disappear into a multi-ethnic state that would soon be dominated by the
Palestinians (Tony Judt, Ali Abunimah, Jeff Halper and Ilan Pappe are in
this camp).
As to the need for US engagement, critics neglect to mention that President
Bush was the first President to explicitly support the creation of a
Palestinian state. Present Clinton engaged as none before him and came up
empty. Yassar Arafat remained a terrorist 'til his end, with no interest in
ending the conflict. Now we have Hamas running the Palestinian government,
and the new Palestinian unity cabinet adopting the Hamas principles to
achieve consensus at Mecca: no recognition of Israel, no end to violence
(resistance to occupation in all forms is supported), and no acceptance of
the need to live with all prior agreements between the parties (Hamas merely
acknowledges that some agreements were negotiated). This may be enough for
George Soros but should not be for Israel, the United States and its roadmap
partners.
Will we win more friends by abandoning Israel (in diplomatese, being more
balanced, say like Europe)?
It is comical to describe the European position on the Israeli Palestinian
conflict as balanced. When Europeans rate Israel the greatest threat to
world peace (and the US second), we are dealing with either collective
delusion, or a new 21st century form of cowardice mixed with a perceived
need to appease an angry domestic immigrant population.
We have Europeanists in our midst in the United States, of course, seen most
recently in the James Baker-led Iraq Study Group, which argued that if
America pressured Israel into a peace deal, we could achieve a successful
conclusion to our effort in Iraq. How exactly the two conflicts are
intertwined, or why any of the combatants in Iraq would stop their killing
of each other if only Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas were toasting each
other, is never explained.
The delusionary thinking of so many of Israel's critics stems from a
progressive worldview that all conflicts are resolvable, and most are caused
by our side's failure to understand the other side and their grievance (if
we were more open minded, even Al Qaeda might be brought around to achieve
common ground with us, I guess). In fact, however, there is evil in the
world, not just misunderstandings among nations or leaders. And many of the
groups that seek harm to Israel have no interest in negotiated solutions or
US engagement, but only to an eventual Israeli submission and collapse.
Genuine realism recognizes the need for American political support for
Israel, an essential ally in today's struggle with Islamic radicalism. .
The great Victor Davis Hanson was recently interviewed by the Jerusalem
Post. Hanson's take on the war over Israel was as follows:
Israel serves today as the ethical barometer in the western collective mind.
Support for it brings no oil, no ingratiation with terrorists, no
psychological lift of the usual easy bullying of a small democracy, but it
does reveal respect for democracy, confidence in the history of the West,
and respect for a humane culture and an accomplished people under terrible
assault. So, I confess, as I age I sort of judge Westerners I meet now by
their degree of fairness toward Israel. I've gotten to the point when I hear
a rabid Leftist or a creepy Right-wing nut rant on Israel, I just pack it up
and walk away. Life is too short for such nonsense.
Indeed it is.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/the_war_against_israel_in_amer.html
Cazador
> Post. Hanson's take on the war over Israel was as follows:
>
> Israel serves today as the ethical barometer in the western collective mind.
THE ethical barometer? An ethical barometer? DoD, can you defend this
all by yourself? Or will you change the subject? Help us understand
how Israel deserves this moral position in the "western collective
mind". I certainly don't want Israel to be America's ethical
barometer! We've already far to many deviations from basic ethical
behavior to deal with.
howard...@gmail.com
Hey, shit for brains. Why are you posting to soc.culture.usa and
talk.politics.mideast??
No one cares about your ignorant garbage here, keep it with your
contemporaries at the klan and kook groups, OK??
Al Smith
LOL. Israel is the ethical barometer in the sense that you show
your kids what Israel is doing, and then you tell them, "Don't you
ever do anything like that!"
zr
everyone's right by rudely erasing any dissenters.
"Cazador" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175116255....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Warhol
> "Cazador" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1175116255....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 28, 1:16 pm, "DoD" <thec...@ss.mil> wrote:
>
> >> Post. Hanson's take on the war over Israel was as follows:
>
> >> Israel serves today as the ethical barometer in the western collective
> >> mind.
>
> > THE ethical barometer? An ethical barometer? DoD, can you defend this
> > all by yourself? Or will you change the subject?
>
> do.
>
> Help us understand
>
> > how Israel deserves this moral position in the "western collective
> > mind".
>
> down the dumpster we have gone. Read all of what Hanson said. It makes
> sense.
>
> I certainly don't want Israel to be America's ethical
>
> > barometer!
>
> it comes down to it, most people trust and value someone who who is a well
> respected historian and writes for the Hoover institute, i.e. Policy Review,
> like Hanson, over a silly antisemitic Michigan lawyer whos only audience is
> usenet and idiots at his local klan rallies.
First you already turning around the subject.... if you where so
respectable why dont you start to confess your crimes...
its very easy to speak truth... and it will set ye free from that
ghost yids see everywhere... Now you want we love ye... while blood is
dripping from your bloody mouth... how do you want us to love you that
way...
I hear you cry always Anti Semtic here and idiots there... but let us
talk... Do you have brown eyes? Black Hair? Fin Nose? Large forhead?
+/-168cm high? no? than you are not Semitic... and have no Right on
Semitic lands... is that so difficult to understand... your lands
never have been in Ha'shems Lands... the simple truth you all seem
fail to understand... second point is the crime you committed to be
called yids... because before we called ye Goy(Moorish Goya) till ye
vermin started to transform a word that means brother to beast...
created war between two Nation who lived in perfect harmony... and
wars broke out and people became dumber and dumber... till they
understood nothing anymore of the sacred story... than you showed up
again in the 17th and 18th century in europe with many lies you had
stolen from the Moorish Archive of knowledge...
Mid 20th century your kind received a socalled Nation even knowing it
was against all heavens laws... but lies and crime would pave the path
for very great crime... and that is the theft and the miss use of the
Name of God... And you known what is awaiting ye... So now you want us
to be kind with ye... than we want to hear the truth from your
mouth... without one lie... or ye will burn for eternity.
Restore the hidden truth or feel the curse... the only choice yids
have before it becometh a bloodbath in Europe and America and in the
rest of the World... and that is not so far away, belief me, Redeem
now.
Binyamin Cramer
"DoD" <the...@ss.mil> wrote in message
news:qazOh.3985$dd....@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
Yid lies, distortion, b'ullshit and whines snipped to save you any further
embarrassment, doodoo, you dumbkunt.
Binyamin Cramer
"Cazador" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175116255....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
True. True.
America is the only nation in history which miraculously has
gone directly from barbarism to decadence without the usual interval of
civilization.
Venceremos
The worlds largest Holocaust occured when Jewish dominated CHEKA,
NKVD, KGB etc. slaughtered close to 100 million Russians, and almost
wiped out several racial groups, such as Tatars, Chechens, Uigurs and
Tajiks.
Jewish Commissars mercilessly killed people with a bullet in the back
of the head, or worked them to death in the slave camps.
The details on the greatest Holocaust that befell world are readily
available in Aleksndr Solzhenitsyn's "200 YEARS TOGETHER" so far
available in many languages only in Russia, on the behest of the
Zionists of the world.
(The family of yours truly was slaughtered by the Jews at Posad
Pokrovskoe
with a bullet in the back of the head, by the Jewish Commissars)
Mirelle
DoD wrote:
> Exactly how these groups are being silenced, or kept out of the policy debate among
> American Jews is a mystery of course.
Easy.
They are labeled: anti-semitic®.
Mirelle
> Imagine a major orchestra playing Beethoven's 9th Symphony, with a very
> large chorale on stage to sing during the final movement. Their voices are
> easily heard throughout the hall. Today in America, we have the unusual
> situation of a similarly large collection of writers, and academics and
> propagandists, a chorus, if you may, all of whom are hostile to Israel and
> its supporters in America. And they are singing together in newspaper
> columns, magazine articles, TV and radio interviews, books, academic papers,
> conferences, and lectures. What they all are saying is:
>
> "I am brave, for I am a lonely soul breaking the silence demanded by and
> imposed by the all-powerful Israel lobby. And by speaking the truth about
> the conflict, I am really helping Israel, for only by following my advice,
> will Israel and the Palestinians ever achieve justice and peace, and America
> be loved again in the Muslim world."
> There is no silence to be broken. Rather, those fighting Israel and trying
> to undermine its support in America, have already seized control of major
> information pathways, from newspaper op-ed pages to the classrooms of
> colleges and universities, and are dominating the messages sent out from
> them on the Middle East conflict. And more to the point, their advice for
> American policymakers in the Executive branch and Congress, is naïve,
Binyamin Cramer
Piss orf, dopey dumbkuntdoodoo.
Defendario
> Imagine a major orchestra playing Beethoven's 9th Symphony
Hmmm...Fallschirmjaegers!
8-)
>
>
Cazador
> "Cazador" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1175116255....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 28, 1:16 pm, "DoD" <thec...@ss.mil> wrote:
>
> >> Post. Hanson's take on the war over Israel was as follows:
>
> >> Israel serves today as the ethical barometer in the western collective
> >> mind.
>
> > THE ethical barometer? An ethical barometer? DoD, can you defend this
> > all by yourself? Or will you change the subject?
>
> do.
Any time I have missed a post and you think I should have answered it,
send me a message. You're hear from me.
>
> Help us understand
>
> > how Israel deserves this moral position in the "western collective
> > mind".
>
> Because it is the tiny democracy. If we sell it short, it shows just how far
> down the dumpster we have gone. Read all of what Hanson said. It makes
> sense.
Don't worry, I read it.
So that's it? That's the only reason? Uruguay is a tiny democracy. The
next time she's menaced by Paraguay must we send the First Marine
Division to attack her enemy? We have to start giving her somewhere
between 3 and 5 billion a year? And there is no other reason?
> I certainly don't want Israel to be America's ethical
>
> > barometer!
>
> Well, that is your problem.
The Hell it is. It's America's problem. Would you like to discuss it?
Hanson said it, I believe it and I suppose when
> it comes down to it, most people trust and value someone who who is a well
> respected historian and writes for the Hoover institute, i.e. Policy Review,
> like Hanson, over a silly antisemitic Michigan lawyer whos only audience is
> usenet and idiots at his local klan rallies.
What do you do for a living, DoD? Where do you live? Have you guts
enough to say? The next time you decide to display this phoney hateur
about my profession and my home state be prepared to disclose your
own.
Actually, I have a great deal of confidence in the Hoover Institution
at Stanford, primarily because it remained sane and steady throughout
the Cold War while the country's left intellectuals, especially the
professoriat, threw in the towel.
It shouldn't surprise you, however, that regardless of where they hold
forth, I have little respect for neocons. Hanson appears to be a
classic of the species. In case you've forgotten, that the crowd who
have gotten us into this mess.
You can't deny it's a mess. You just want us to stay the course even
though you wouldn't give a damn about poor Uruguay.
Mirelle
> > What do you do for a living, DoD?
> I told you already. I am a shepherd. I am trying to lead the bigots out of
> that crappy fold.
So...you are unemployed, DuD.
Figured!
Mooching off ma and pa, eh DuD!
Mirelle
> in message
>
> news:1175312791....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 6:38 pm, "DoD" <thec...@ss.mil> wrote:
> >> "Cazador" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1175116255....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Mar 28, 1:16 pm, "DoD" <thec...@ss.mil> wrote:
>
> >> >> Post. Hanson's take on the war over Israel was as follows:
>
> >> >> Israel serves today as the ethical barometer in the western collective
> >> >> mind.
>
> >> > THE ethical barometer? An ethical barometer? DoD, can you defend this
> >> > all by yourself? Or will you change the subject?
>
> >> I am not the one that changes subjects and runs from the threads like you
> >> do.
>
> > Any time I have missed a post and you think I should have answered it,
> > send me a message. You're hear from me.
>
> Actually I am not in the business of sending anyone a message unless you are
> a hot chick or one of my friends.
>
> >> Help us understand
>
> >> > how Israel deserves this moral position in the "western collective
> >> > mind".
>
> >> Because it is the tiny democracy. If we sell it short, it shows just how
> >> far
> >> down the dumpster we have gone. Read all of what Hanson said. It makes
> >> sense.
>
> > Don't worry, I read it.
>
> If you did, then you would be able to talk more abou the merits of it.
>
> > So that's it? That's the only reason? Uruguay is a tiny democracy. The
> > next time she's menaced by Paraguay must we send the First Marine
> > Division to attack her enemy?
>
> I can't remember everything, but I am not sure of when Uruguay was menaced
> by her neighbors.
>
> We have to start giving her somewhere
>
> > between 3 and 5 billion a year? And there is no other reason?
>
> That is a load, and anyways we get things back from Israel. Anyways... here
> is what Hanson said...
>
> "Israel serves today as the ethical barometer in the western collective
> mind.Support for it brings no oil, no ingratiation with terrorists,
> nopsychological lift of the usual easy bullying of a small democracy, but it
> does reveal respect for democracy, confidence in the history of the West,and
> respect for a humane culture and an accomplished people under terrible
> assault."
>
> There is more merit to his statement than what you have given.
>
> >> I certainly don't want Israel to be America's ethical
>
> >> > barometer!
>
> >> Well, that is your problem.
>
> > The Hell it is. It's America's problem. Would you like to discuss it?
>
> Always, if you would quit running.
>
> > Hanson said it, I believe it and I suppose when
> >> it comes down to it, most people trust and value someone who who is a
> >> well
> >> respected historian and writes for the Hoover institute, i.e. Policy
> >> Review,
> >> like Hanson, over a silly antisemitic Michigan lawyer whos only audience
> >> is
> >> usenet and idiots at his local klan rallies.
>
> > What do you do for a living, DoD?
>
> I told you already. I am a shepherd. I am trying to lead the bigots out of
> that crappy fold.
>
> Where do you live?
>
> The land of the free.... and the home of the CHIEEEEEFS!
>
> Have you guts
>
> > enough to say?
>
> Just did.
>
> >The next time you decide to display this phoney hateur
> > about my profession and my home state be prepared to disclose your
> > own.
>
> Since my brother is a REAL lawyer and I happen to frequent your state more
> than any other (other than Missouri)(I used to have a girlfriend from Troy)
> I really don't know what you are talking about.
>
> > Actually, I have a great deal of confidence in the Hoover Institution
> > at Stanford, primarily because it remained sane and steady throughout
> > the Cold War while the country's left intellectuals, especially the
> > professoriat, threw in the towel.
>
> Which is what they are doing again, this time against Izlamozombies. Two bad
> you can't understand that. Then again, all you care about is that the Jews
> get hurt along the way.
>
> > It shouldn't surprise you, however, that regardless of where they hold
> > forth, I have little respect for neocons.
>
> Opinions vary.
>
> Hanson appears to be a
>
> > classic of the species.
>
> I have NEVER thought of Hanson as a neocon.
>
> In case you've forgotten, that the crowd who
>
> > have gotten us into this mess.
>
> That is your opinion of course.
>
> > You can't deny it's a mess.
>
> I don't know what you are talking about. What mess?
>
> You just want us to stay the course even
>
> > though you wouldn't give a damn about poor Uruguay.
>
> ???? Depends on what you are talking about.
hille...@yahoo.com
> The worlds largest Holocaust occured when Jewish dominated CHEKA,
>NKVD, KGB etc. slaughtered close to 100 million Russians, and almost
> wiped out several racial groups, such as Tatars, Chechens, Uigurs and
> Tajiks.
Your number are way off, and you blame the Jews instead of Stalin,
but let's talk about the people you hate most - the Zionists. The
most popular Zionist newspaper back then was Davar. I uploaded
some Davar's cartons from back then. See
http://www.geocities.com/hillelg123/o59.jpg
The execution of the suspect in the murder of Kirov.
http://www.geocities.com/hillelg123/o60.jpg
Stalin talks to a picture of Lenin telling him that had
he not exit early, he would admit too.
http://www.geocities.com/hillelg123/o62.jpg
The election of the beauty queen, USSR style.
http://www.geocities.com/hillelg123/o63.jpg
Stalin celebrates with those who did the revolution.
Don't come back with your bullshit before you
understand the cartons and why they
were published.
Binyamin Cramer
>> On Mar 28, 6:38 pm, "DoD" <thec...@ss.mil> wrote:
>>> "Cazador" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:1175116255....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> > On Mar 28, 1:16 pm, "DoD" <thec...@ss.mil> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Post. Hanson's take on the war over Israel was as follows:
>>>
>>> >> Israel serves today as the ethical barometer in the western
>>> >> collective
>>> >> mind.
>>>
>>> > THE ethical barometer? An ethical barometer? DoD, can you defend this
>>> > all by yourself? Or will you change the subject?
>>>
>>> I am not the one that changes subjects and runs from the threads like
>>> you
>>> do.
>>
>> Any time I have missed a post and you think I should have answered it,
>> send me a message. You're hear from me.
>
> are a hot chick or one of my friends.
Ergo, you never send messages.
Cazador
Perfect.