The Intelligent Design/Evolution Discussion Thread

[Patrick R.]

Israel is not synonymous with Zionism. Supporting Israel as a state that has a right to exist does not explicitly coincide with the notion of "a homeland for the Jewish people." Also, directly linking neo-conservatism with Zionism is another erroneous claim on your part. And again, if you think that any facets of Zionism found in the US government supersedes the policies of the Christian Right, then you are either genuinely ignorant or are deceived by anti-Zionist conspiracy theorists. The vast majority of the support of Zionism is through the Christian Right. Zionism is supported insofar as it supports the Christian Right. Thus, your claim is patently wrong by default, as support of Zionism is enclosed within the sphere of influence of the Christian Right, which is more expansive than that of Zionism. The only other support that Israel gets rests solely in the fact that Jews in America make massive contributions in the political arena despite being a feeble minority in terms of population.

Israel is synonymous with Zionism, it was that political movement that made the Jewish state possible. This claim is just like saying that Germany from 1933 to 1945 isn’t synonymous with Nazism.

So you can support Israel’s right to exist, but not as a homeland for the Jewish people? Well that is right, but in any case, that most certainly doesn’t apply to the Christian right! In fact, god supports the Jewish people, if you don’t you will burn in hell! That is exactly what those nuts cases say.

Lets make this easier, the Christian right is Zionist, so therefore the Christian right is synonymous with Zionism…they see the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state over the land that was once Palestine. You may not think they are synonymous, but the world does, especially the Middle East. Stop confusing yourself already, you must come to the realization that the Christian right put Israel’s interest above America, you didn’t read that Harvard study I referenced did you?

Directly linking neo-conservatism with Zionism is ‘erroneous’? Well what are they if they aren’t Zionist? Are the neo-cons not made of academics of Jewish descent who had their political affiliations on the far left and for reasons best known to themselves, were excluded from the Vietnam war and vehemently opposed to that war? Did they clearly change their political thought process from left-wing liberal to pro-Israeli right wing ‘conservatism‘? Yes they did, they opposed the Vietnam war but now are the main proponents for Israeli supremacy in the Middle East, they are pro-Likud to the core.

By the way, I was asking you to source the claims that you were drawing from these events, not the events themselves. You're not telling me anything new. The case of the USS Liberty is ambiguous at best, for example. To use that as a claim of "supporting Zionism" is not very useful. Not only does it have nothing to do with Zionism insofar as Zionism is understood by definition (but rather support of Israel as an integral political ally), but the actual circumstances surrounding the incident preclude one from drawing an accurate conclusion from it. You cannot conclusively say that Israel intentionally attacked the Liberty. If you mean to do this, then you are just showing your pre-established bias, as evidenced in the debate that you had in the Royal Carnage forum as well.

So you are now making up the rules for a debate? The attack on the USS Liberty has everything to do with Zionism, didn’t you read that link from the USS Liberty memorial site? Your claim is just like saying 9/11 has nothing to do with Jihad. Yes, the attack on the USS Liberty is a perfect example of supporting Zionism, if any political leader tried to cover up a terrorist attack on the United States by Muslim fundamentalist, wouldn’t that be a clear support for their Jihad? Well, the people on the USS Liberty all claim that the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty, I’m going to take their word over yours.

 

[skeptik]

Israel is synonymous with Zionism, it was that political movement that made the Jewish state possible. This claim is just like saying that Germany from 1933 to 1945 isn’t synonymous with Nazism.

No. Israel is not synonymous with Zionism. There is no one-to-one connection. Supporting Israel is not necessarily supporting Zionism, which you agree with here:

So you can support Israel’s right to exist, but not as a homeland for the Jewish people? Well that is right, but in any case, that most certainly doesn’t apply to the Christian right!

Therefore, it is erroneous to call it synonymous when there is more than one possible answer. To infer that one in support of Israel is in favor of Zionism is foolish, and the basis under which I'm saying that that Israel and Zionism should not be seen as "synonymous."

In fact, god supports the Jewish people, if you don’t you will burn in hell! That is exactly what those nuts cases say.

I know. But that doesn't make the US government as a unified body Zionist.

Lets make this easier, the Christian right is Zionist, so therefore the Christian right is synonymous with Zionism…they see the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state over the land that was once Palestine. You may not think they are synonymous, but the world does, especially the Middle East. Stop confusing yourself already, you must come to the realization that the Christian right put Israel’s interest above America, you didn’t read that Harvard study I referenced did you?

You are again making the mistake of, for some reason, assuming that the Christian Right supersedes its own interests in favor of Jewish interests, which is just outright absurd. The Christian Right supports Zionism only insofar as it supports the Christian Right. They do not support Zionism in all circumstances, only those in which it is in their own benefit. Thus, you are the one that is evidently confusing yourself. The Christian Right does not put Israel over America. Not as a whole. Yes, there are extreme sects, such as one in Texas I believe that even has a replica of the wailing wall, but these are outliers in this issue. This is not the case for the vast majority of the Christian Right movement. The majority of the Christian Right is ignorant and really doesn't even know anything about Israel. All they care about is making sure people can't get abortions and stopping homosexuals from ruining the "sanctity of marriage." THIS is the Christian Right in America, not your Romanticized conception of an informed populace knowledgeable in religious doctrine longing for the rise and prosperity of the homeland of the chosen people.

And yes, I've come across your article before. Did you read the rebuttal paper on the same link that you provided from Alan Dershowitz? More conspiratorial, asinine bullshit from you, connecting dots where there is no connection.

Directly linking neo-conservatism with Zionism is ‘erroneous’? Well what are they if they aren’t Zionist? Are the neo-cons not made of academics of Jewish descent who had their political affiliations on the far left and for reasons best known to themselves, were excluded from the Vietnam war and vehemently opposed to that war? Did they clearly change their political thought process from left-wing liberal to pro-Israeli right wing ‘conservatism‘? Yes they did, they opposed the Vietnam war but now are the main proponents for Israeli supremacy in the Middle East, they are pro-Likud to the core.

So I take it that you, indeed, not native to the US? This is such a vast and laughable oversimplification of the development of the Neo-Conservative movement that it really does not deserve a proper rebuttal. I suggest that you educate yourself more on the history and development. Yes, there is generally a shift from liberal to conservative, but the rest of what you are saying is either largely unfounded or not nearly universal enough within the movement to justify the way in which you use such examples. Have you even studied the political philosophies of Le Strauss and other predecessors of the Neoconservative movement to know what you're talking about? Once again, the support of Israel in Neoconservatism stems only from the Christian fundamentalism. It is not a policy necessitated by the political philosophy itself, as attested by Neocons who are not outspokenly Christian.

Regardless of this, we are speaking of the government as a whole, unified, central entity supporting Zionism. This is simply not the case. The US government's support of Israel on the macro level is from the alliance perspective. Israel is an integral ally in world affairs to the US. It is the only state resembling somewhat of a Democracy and a sympathy toward the US in the region. Which is why the state supports Israel, not because it's the homeland of the chosen race of God.

So you are now making up the rules for a debate? The attack on the USS Liberty has everything to do with Zionism, didn’t you read that link from the USS Liberty memorial site? Your claim is just like saying 9/11 has nothing to do with Jihad. Yes, the attack on the USS Liberty is a perfect example of supporting Zionism, if any political leader tried to cover up a terrorist attack on the United States by Muslim fundamentalist, wouldn’t that be a clear support for their Jihad? Well, the people on the USS Liberty all claim that the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty, I’m going to take their word over yours.

I am not making up any rules. I simply asked you to explain how you drew your radical conclusions from the events that you cited. What good would you citing the events themselves do, since I was already aware of them? You're not the first anti-Zionist I've encountered. The attack on the USS Liberty in no way can be proven to have anything to do with Zionism. To do so is pure speculation on your part. Evidently your sole source of information on the incident is that memorial website, which is highly, highly, highly based to such an extent as to negate its credibility. It is purely the story of those who were victims of the attack. How could they possibly know the reality of the situation? They are clearly biased in their assertions because they suffered. The reality is that it is conclusively impossible to know whether or not Israel was aware that that was not an Egyptian ship that they were attacking, which is highly probable, given that the US claimed that they did not have a ship within 350 miles of the coastline.

As for the US government's stance following the incident, there is no indication whatsoever that you can possibly conjure to conclusively say that the US did not vehemently retaliate because Israel is the homeland of the Jews. It is far more likely that they did not retaliate in such a way because Israel is an essential ally in our foreign policy affairs. This was not the first time in the history of the country in which they essentially turned a blind eye to the actions of their allies in favor of the greater good.

 

[PiratesRule]

I know. They've been giving them billions of dollars. They also increased their aid to many other countries as well.

Which is pretty stupid, considering everything else we could be spending money on here at home.

 

[cookiecutter]

allthatshitbyyou.jpg

I apologize, I should've been clearer. I am not disputing that humans are different physically even down to bone structure. I am not disputing that we are of the animal kingdom. I am not disputing that because of differences of culture, politics, religion, territory or a myriad other things there will be conflict.

I am disputing your claim that different races can never coexist. This is why your historical examples didn't really hold water. Half of them were the same race fighting and the others were conflicts based on things other than race. Racial conflict is not an inevitable outcome of coexistence, and different races do not occupy niches like in your natural law example.

I claimed that you cannot apply natural laws to humans not because we are not natural or animals, but that we are unique within the animal kingdom. We are the only species to have developed language and culture, and the only species to construct reality in the way we would like it instead of just living in nature. These factors change our behavior and relationships in such a way that the ideas that predict the behavior of animals, even our closes relatives, are inaccurate.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Israel is an integral ally in world affairs to the US. It is the only state resembling somewhat of a Democracy and a sympathy toward the US in the region. Which is why the state supports Israel, not because it's the homeland of the chosen race of God.

.

 

[Patrick R.]

No. Israel is not synonymous with Zionism. There is no one-to-one connection. Supporting Israel is not necessarily supporting Zionism, which you agree with here:

Originally Posted by Patrick R. So you can support Israel’s right to exist, but not as a homeland for the Jewish people? Well that is right, but in any case, that most certainly doesn’t apply to the Christian right!

Therefore, it is erroneous to call it synonymous when there is more than one possible answer. To infer that one in support of Israel is in favor of Zionism is foolish, and the basis under which I'm saying that that Israel and Zionism should not be seen as "synonymous."

Well guess what? If, and this is a big IF Israel was no longer the ‘Jewish state’ laid about by the Zionist political movement, then you can claim that it isn’t one in the same with Zionism, but until then I’m sorry but they are synonymous. Consider this parallel, Germany was considered one in the same with Nazism from 1933 to 1945, The Federal Republic of Germany created by the post war powers, is no longer synonymous with Nazism, it is in fact a denazified state as detailed by Article 139 of their post war Basic Law.

I know. But that doesn't make the US government as a unified body Zionist.

This is the same Christian right that has influence in the federal government correct? Surely you aren’t referring to the Christian right as the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan that have no power in the federal government?

You are again making the mistake of, for some reason, assuming that the Christian Right supersedes its own interests in favor of Jewish interests, which is just outright absurd. The Christian Right supports Zionism only insofar as it supports the Christian Right. They do not support Zionism in all circumstances, only those in which it is in their own benefit. Thus, you are the one that is evidently confusing yourself. The Christian Right does not put Israel over America. Not as a whole. Yes, there are extreme sects, such as one in Texas I believe that even has a replica of the wailing wall, but these are outliers in this issue. This is not the case for the vast majority of the Christian Right movement. The majority of the Christian Right is ignorant and really doesn't even know anything about Israel. All they care about is making sure people can't get abortions and stopping homosexuals from ruining the "sanctity of marriage." THIS is the Christian Right in America, not your Romanticized conception of an informed populace knowledgeable in religious doctrine longing for the rise and prosperity of the homeland of the chosen people.

And yes, I've come across your article before. Did you read the rebuttal paper on the same link that you provided from Alan Dershowitz? More conspiratorial, asinine bullshit from you, connecting dots where there is no connection.

When there are religious people believing that Israel exist for “gods chosen” people and that if you try to stop the right wing policies of Israeli and Jewish supremacy, you are a demon that will burn in hell, what possible interest could they not have with their fellow Jewish Zionist? For example read this quote from Stephen Walt’s paper and this is just one of the many example on how the Christian right puts Israel above America (of course, if you don’t you are going to hell boy.)

“A key pillar of the Lobby’s effectiveness is its influence in Congress, where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. This in itself is remarkable, because Congress rarely shies away from contentious issues. Where Israel is concerned, however, potential critics fall silent. One reason is that some key members are Christian Zionists like Dick Armey, who said in September 2002: ‘My No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel.’ One might think that the No. 1 priority for any congressman would be to protect America. There are also Jewish senators and congressmen who work to ensure that US foreign policy supports Israel’s interests.”

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

We agree that the Christian Zionist are just that, Zionist, they are just a certain ‘branch’ of Zionism, and in many cases they are a lot more extreme and stupid then AIPAC and the neo-cons. I can understand Jews wanting to protect Israel, it is a homeland unique to their physical, genetic, cultural, historic, and mental character. The Christian Zionist support Israel out of delusion and money, I can understand why you wouldn’t want Zionism to be one in the same with the Christian right, just like no intelligent white nationalist would want the NSM or the Aryan nations to be consider one in the same with a white nationalism. So therefore, you and I can agree that the Christian Zionist are an embarrassment to that Zionist movement?

However, I must agree with you that there most certainly are certain sects ‘Christian right’ movement, that doesn’t know anything about Israel. But they are on the sidelines, doing nothing, I’m referring to the heavy weight clowns, I hate to call them clowns but I mean come on, Pat Robertson is a fool and so are the people like him. So take your pick, the Christian right on the sidelines, or the heavyweights in Congress.

Yes, I read that along time ago, Alan Dershowitz doesn’t even have a lot of credibility within the academic circles that embrace Israel. He failed to provide any evidence that the Jewish lobby doesn’t put Israel over America. All he really did was claim how anti-Jewish the paper was and that it reminded him of the Protocals of Zion, some forgery that appeared in Czarist Russia over a century ago. That isn’t a very good thing to do, turn to anti-Jewish literature that has nothing to do with the present day American federal government. Also, trying to play the victim doesn’t help either.

So I take it that you, indeed, not native to the US? This is such a vast and laughable oversimplification of the development of the Neo-Conservative movement that it really does not deserve a proper rebuttal. I suggest that you educate yourself more on the history and development. Yes, there is generally a shift from liberal to conservative, but the rest of what you are saying is either largely unfounded or not nearly universal enough within the movement to justify the way in which you use such examples. Have you even studied the political philosophies of Le Strauss and other predecessors of the Neoconservative movement to know what you're talking about? Once again, the support of Israel in Neoconservatism stems only from the Christian fundamentalism. It is not a policy necessitated by the political philosophy itself, as attested by Neocons who are not outspokenly Christian.

Regardless of this, we are speaking of the government as a whole, unified, central entity supporting Zionism. This is simply not the case. The US government's support of Israel on the macro level is from the alliance perspective. Israel is an integral ally in world affairs to the US. It is the only state resembling somewhat of a Democracy and a sympathy toward the US in the region. Which is why the state supports Israel, not because it's the homeland of the chosen race of God.

Oversimplified’? Did you want an entire academic paper on it? Yeah, I would love to do that and post it for you so you don’t even read it because you are to busy screaming ‘conspiracy’, I love wasting my time you know? Nothing I said was incorrect, neo-conservatism was created by Jews, they were on the far left, they migrated to the far right, they were opposed to the Vietnam war, they are in favor of the Iraq war (they formulated it, the ‘Bush’ doctrine was in fact written by a Jewish neo-conservative named Paul Wolfowitz) they are pro-Israel, and pro-Likud.


Yes, I am an American, I’m concerned with the fact that our image is being destroyed all over the world as a result Zionist lobby, not all Jews partake in this or have a hand in political matters of the United States federal government. The evidence shows who is responsible for Americas war in Iraq, it was the neo-cons, their paper ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing the Realm’ details the neo-conservative ambition for war in Iraq, America had nothing to do with their logic for removing Saddam from power, it was for Israel’s ‘strategic’ objectives.

http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

I am not making up any rules. I simply asked you to explain how you drew your radical conclusions from the events that you cited. What good would you citing the events themselves do, since I was already aware of them? You're not the first anti-Zionist I've encountered. The attack on the USS Liberty in no way can be proven to have anything to do with Zionism. To do so is pure speculation on your part. Evidently your sole source of information on the incident is that memorial website, which is highly, highly, highly based to such an extent as to negate its credibility. It is purely the story of those who were victims of the attack. How could they possibly know the reality of the situation? They are clearly biased in their assertions because they suffered. The reality is that it is conclusively impossible to know whether or not Israel was aware that that was not an Egyptian ship that they were attacking, which is highly probable, given that the US claimed that they did not have a ship within 350 miles of the coastline.

As for the US government's stance following the incident, there is no indication whatsoever that you can possibly conjure to conclusively say that the US did not vehemently retaliate because Israel is the homeland of the Jews. It is far more likely that they did not retaliate in such a way because Israel is an essential ally in our foreign policy affairs. This was not the first time in the history of the country in which they essentially turned a blind eye to the actions of their allies in favor of the greater good.

I’m not the first anti-Zionist you have debated? I’m not anti Zionist, I’m against the political subversion of America. You aren’t the first Zionist I’ve debated, there is a typical patter followed here, one the Zionist usually refuse to acknowledge Israeli terrorism against the United States or just white wash it, something you are doing right now, you haven’t expressed much concern for the fact that a foreign nation attacked an American ship. You haven’t shown much concern for Americans on that ship, but rather ‘ They are clearly biased in their assertions because they suffered’. Your make concern, which is expressed through your writings, is the image of Israel and you counter any suggestions that this ship was attacked deliberately. In any case, a lot of politicians agree with those on the ship, which contrast your statement that it was ‘purely’ the story of those on the ship. Lets say it wasn’t deliberate, it is still careless behavior by the Israeli air force wouldn’t you think? Nothing like confirming friend from foe is there? Friendly fire isn’t shrugged off very easily.

If you don’t think the attack on the USS Liberty was deliberate well, what do you make of the Lavon Affair which is universally confirmed to be state sponsored terrorism against the United States by the Israeli government. In marked contrast to 9/11, which wasn’t state sponsored by any Muslim nation, the Lavon Affair was sponsored by the Israeli government, the plan was to blow up American installations in Egypt, but it failed and the ordeal become known as the Lavon Affair.

So you are saying that America didn’t retaliate against Israel because it is Jewish state, but rather because they are an ally? Why are they an ally in the first place? Is it the effective lobbying and political techniques on a federal level that keeps American foreign policy and domestic opinion in favor of Israel, despite their actions against America? Yes it that is the real reason, it has little to do with their benefit to America, they don’t benefit this nation at all except give us a bad name every time we step into their Middle Eastern affairs. In any case Israel is no ally, no ally would ever engage in state sponsored terrorism against a nation that made their existence possible. The United States has a strange way of dealing with things don’t they? I mean we were ‘allies’ with Osama and Saddam Hussein, but that didn’t last very long did it?

 

[skeptik]

You are a mindless fucking squawkbox. Until you learn to separate Israel from Zionism, Israeli lobby with Zionism, and Neoconservatism with Zionism, then there is absolutely no use whatsoever in debating with you any further because you're too stubborn to acknowledge that these things are all not one in the same. You're implying causations where it's not true. It's also amazing how you completely dismiss the Dershowitz article due to the fact that he is a Jew and is not as renowned as the authors of the article that you support. The article you cite has been soundly stomped into the ground not only by Dershowitz but by many other outlets. When your company includes Buchanan and Duke, you know you're off the mark. That paper was horribly shoddy, displayed inaccurate facts, quoted people out of context, and simply used abysmal logic. You're incapable of addressing the issue from an unbiased perspective. Don't try to masquerade behind the banner of American sovereignty when your motive is clear enough, namely to propagate the myth of a Zionist conspiracy.

Also, to claim that I am a Zionist just because you are an idiot is absurd. I don't support Zionism. But what we're dealing with here is not Zionism. You're too bigoted to differentiate between governmental policy and Jewish supremacist theory, so you just assume that I'm a Zionist? Great logic there. I see you've taken more from Mearscheimer than just talking points.

 

[Patrick R.]

I apologize, I should've been clearer. I am not disputing that humans are different physically even down to bone structure. I am not disputing that we are of the animal kingdom. I am not disputing that because of differences of culture, politics, religion, territory or a myriad other things there will be conflict.

Do you think humans can be placed into taxonomic categories based on our distinctive traits?

I am disputing your claim that different races can never coexist. This is why your historical examples didn't really hold water. Half of them were the same race fighting and the others were conflicts based on things other than race. Racial conflict is not an inevitable outcome of coexistence, and different races do not occupy niches like in your natural law example.

I gave examples of conflict based on differences that weren’t related to the diversity in physiology between human populations. With Europe, I gave examples of European peoples fighting over linguistics, culture, politics etc, these problems can be resolved, European peoples can assimilate each other, people of different ancestry can’t. An example of this can be seen with regards to the European settlements in what is today the United States of America, the native populations were pushed aside, never to assimilate with the European peoples. But when people of German, British, and Swedish descent settled, they were able to assimilate.

The same can be said in European settlements all over the non-European world, such as the indigenous populations of today’s South Africa, the people who were descended from the native populations of Europe couldn’t assimilate with those who were descendants of the native African populations. The result was state sponsored discrimination by the government and political powers set up by the European descendents. Due to the nature of these two distinct peoples living together in the same environment and government, only one could become dominant, history and current events tells us that it is the native population of Africa that is currently outmaneuvering the alien population who settled their from Europe in a quest for territory and resources, just as Gause's Law of competitive exclusion perfectly predicts.

I claimed that you cannot apply natural laws to humans not because we are not natural or animals, but that we are unique within the animal kingdom. We are the only species to have developed language and culture, and the only species to construct reality in the way we would like it instead of just living in nature. These factors change our behavior and relationships in such a way that the ideas that predict the behavior of animals, even our closes relatives, are inaccurate.

Humans are different in behavior then animals, but the rules of biology and mother nature still apply to us regardless of our abstract thought process. But I understand your point.

 

[skeptik]

Why are they an ally in the first place? Is it the effective lobbying and political techniques on a federal level that keeps American foreign policy and domestic opinion in favor of Israel, despite their actions against America? Yes it that is the real reason, it has little to do with their benefit to America, they don’t benefit this nation at all except give us a bad name every time we step into their Middle Eastern affairs.

I will respond to this directly though. How in the living fuck can you possibly know this? You are a piece of fucking shit. You have absolutely no basis whatsoever upon which to make the assumption that any US policy toward Israel has to do with the fact that they are a Jewish state, and not because they are an important strategically located ally in a hostile region. This is, again, a direct display of the laughably inane logic employed by anti-Zionist conspiracy buffs such as yourself.

 

[cookiecutter]

Do you think humans can be placed into taxonomic categories based on our distinctive traits?

I am not a biologist and I do not know what constitutes taxonomic differences so I can't answer this. However it is irrelevant to my point

I gave examples of conflict based on differences that weren’t related to the diversity in physiology between human populations. With Europe, I gave examples of European peoples fighting over linguistics, culture, politics etc, these problems can be resolved, European peoples can assimilate each other, people of different ancestry can’t. An example of this can be seen with regards to the European settlements in what is today the United States of America, the native populations were pushed aside, never to assimilate with the European peoples. But when people of German, British, and Swedish descent settled, they were able to assimilate.

The same can be said in European settlements all over the non-European world, such as the indigenous populations of today’s South Africa, the people who were descended from the native populations of Europe couldn’t assimilate with those who were descendants of the native African populations. The result was state sponsored discrimination by the government and political powers set up by the European descendents. Due to the nature of these two distinct peoples living together in the same environment and government, only one could become dominant, history and current events tells us that it is the native population of Africa that is currently outmaneuvering the alien population who settled their from Europe in a quest for territory and resources, just as Gause's Law of competitive exclusion perfectly predicts.

See the problem I'm having here is I feel like you are changing your argument from what I originally objected to. It is obvious that when two cultures meet, unless people take lessons from history, that conflict will result. Your historical examples prove that well. What I have a problem with is your implication that this is due to some intrinsic biological difference that makes one race superior or even just different and therefore makes conflict inevitable.

I think recent immigration to Canada and the United States from Asia shows this is not really the case. If you look at any college campus for example, you'll see how integrated Asians have become into our society. There are obviously still examples where different this is not the case, such as Mexicans in the southern US or Muslims in Europe, but again I don't think that has anything to do with biological differences.

 

[Pessimism]

Well I am a biologist cookie; so fuck you patrick, you giant ragamuffin.



Hopefully no will will catch on to my clever guise!

 

[cookiecutter]

 

[Patrick R.]

You are a mindless fucking squawkbox. Until you learn to separate Israel from Zionism, Israeli lobby with Zionism, and Neoconservatism with Zionism, then there is absolutely no use whatsoever in debating with you any further because you're too stubborn to acknowledge that these things are all not one in the same. You're implying causations where it's not true.

Ok then, are the AIPAC lobbyist not Zionist? Are the neo-conservatives not Zionist? Is Israel not a nation run by right wing Zionist policies? Is the Israeli lobby in general clearly not Zionist? There is a simple answer to this…yes they are.

It's also amazing how you completely dismiss the Dershowitz article due to the fact that he is a Jew and is not as renowned as the authors of the article that you support. The article you cite has been soundly stomped into the ground not only by Dershowitz but by many other outlets. When your company includes Buchanan and Duke, you know you're off the mark. That paper was horribly shoddy, displayed inaccurate facts, quoted people out of context, and simply used abysmal logic. You're incapable of addressing the issue from an unbiased perspective. Don't try to masquerade behind the banner of American sovereignty when your motive is clear enough, namely to propagate the myth of a Zionist conspiracy.

That is utterly incorrect, I have nothing against Jewish people just because I’m against hard right wing policies by neo-conservatives, AIPAC, the ADL etc, I have my own thought process…I’ve revised my thinking several times as I learn new things, none of it deals with anti-Semitism.


Here is the thing, you ignored when I said Israel is a homeland unique to Jewish people, but yet now I disregard Alan Dershowitz because he is of Jewish background? No, that isn’t the case, in fact I shouldn’t disregard Alan’s reply to the Israeli Lobby paper, but he didn’t provide enough solid evidence to counter the main thesis of the Israel Lobby paper. He did of course make some good points and he backed it up with sources.

The Israeli Lobby paper by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer has been expanded into a book, they use sound analyses of America’s relationship with Israel by stating the obvious that the United States federal government gives unmatched support for Israel, the explanation isn’t based on morality or strategic interest, but rather the activities by the Israel Lobby, they document this very well.

I’m not anti-Zionist, but I’m against America getting involved in the Middle East regardless of whoever the political powers maybe, I’m against the red necks who want war more then I am the Zionist, the Zionist call for war against Middle Eastern nations, the hicks follow it as though it were biblical doctrine, in the end, Europeans Jews, and Middle Easterners all hate each other. I’m an isolationist, I’m against American intervention in global affairs, just like the forefathers of this nation, my interest are strictly domestic.

Also, to claim that I am a Zionist just because you are an idiot is absurd. I don't support Zionism. But what we're dealing with here is not Zionism. You're too bigoted to differentiate between governmental policy and Jewish supremacist theory, so you just assume that I'm a Zionist? Great logic there. I see you've taken more from Mearscheimer than just talking points.

You disregard Israel’s terrorism against the United States and go out of your way to take Israel’s side in a typical pro-Israel fashion. You can’t be on the far left, they are opposed to Israel’s right wing establishment and the neo-cons etc, maybe you just want to argue? Who knows.

 

[Patrick R.]

I will respond to this directly though. How in the living fuck can you possibly know this? You are a piece of fucking shit. You have absolutely no basis whatsoever upon which to make the assumption that any US policy toward Israel has to do with the fact that they are a Jewish state, and not because they are an important strategically located ally in a hostile region. This is, again, a direct display of the laughably inane logic employed by anti-Zionist conspiracy buffs such as yourself.

What strategic value could a nation possibly have where they can commit state sponsored terrorism against America, attack our ships with foolishness, spy on Americans, film the worst terrorist attacks against our nation and laugh about it etc. It doesn’t stop there, the United States has put our own security at risk to step into the Middle of Israeli wars in the Middle East…it doesn’t help us out in any way but the Israeli Lobby doesn’t see it that way.

 

[Patrick R.]

See the problem I'm having here is I feel like you are changing your argument from what I originally objected to. It is obvious that when two cultures meet, unless people take lessons from history, that conflict will result. Your historical examples prove that well. What I have a problem with is your implication that this is due to some intrinsic biological difference that makes one race superior or even just different and therefore makes conflict inevitable.

That is how it has been throughout history, there is a biological explanation to these conflicts, have you read Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond? It is somewhat biased against Europeans, but it does show how European contact with non-Europeans all over the world had a bad impact on the social developments of non-European peoples all over the world.

The Spanish and the Aztecs were distinct from one another physically and of course genetically, the Spanish people are indigenous to Europe and the Aztecs are native to what is today Mexico, the Aztecs flourished for centuries, but all that came to an end when the Spanish arrived. That goes for the Inca people as well, they flourished for centuries until the arrival of the Spanish, basically this contact brought the end of the Incas, until of course the native peoples could finally chase the Europeans out.

I think recent immigration to Canada and the United States from Asia shows this is not really the case. If you look at any college campus for example, you'll see how integrated Asians have become into our society. There are obviously still examples where different this is not the case, such as Mexicans in the southern US or Muslims in Europe, but again I don't think that has anything to do with biological differences.

The Asians are very intelligent and accomplish a lot in Western societies, they Japanese understand the concept of people hood very well, they have historically refused to allow non-Japanese people into their land, to this day immigration isn’t possible. The Asian presence in America was followed by conflict between people who were of European descent and those of Japanese descent because they could never be ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or ‘white’, that was the view at that time. After awhile, the even southern Europeans weren’t welcomed by the northern European population do the difference in physical appearance.

 

[cookiecutter]

Again though, the conflict and prejudices do not spring from a innate biological predisposition. They come from cultural values that get tied to the color of others' skin or any other meaningless physical trait.

 

[skeptik]

Ok then, are the AIPAC lobbyist not Zionist? Are the neo-conservatives not Zionist? Is Israel not a nation run by right wing Zionist policies? Is the Israeli lobby in general clearly not Zionist? There is a simple answer to this…yes they are.

AIPEC is largely Zionist; not entirely. Certain members of the Neocons could be classified as Zionist; not the movement as a whole. Israel is not run exclusively on right wing Zionist policies. Israel is not a theocracy. They allow Muslim parties to campaign and allow Muslim representatives into their government. How is this Zionist? The Israeli lobby is in part Zionist, of course, but not everybody is supporting Israel because it is the homeland of the chosen people. This is the problem that you continually make over and over and over and over and over and over again. You automatically assume that any support for Israeli policies is due to what Israel is, and not what Israel does; namely that is is the homeland of the Jews, and not because its policies coincide with many of the Western cultures'. Your blanket assessment of these groups I take issue with. It is inaccurate to brand them all with the Zionist tag when to make such a sweeping generalization is surely inaccurate, but you don't seem to have a problem with being inaccurate in this department to begin with. Again, I reiterate: Supporting the Israeli state is not necessarily supporting Israel as the homeland of the Jews, and thus Zionism. Sometimes we just agree with their policies, crazily enough, just as we agree with Saudi Arabian policies. Or 'agree' with, I should say, for the alliance between Israel and the US is taken on about as begrudgingly at times as is our associations with the House of Saud.

That is utterly incorrect, I have nothing against Jewish people just because I’m against hard right wing policies by neo-conservatives, AIPAC, the ADL etc, I have my own thought process…I’ve revised my thinking several times as I learn new things, none of it deals with anti-Semitism.

If you don't want to be pinpointed as an anti-Zionist, then I suggest you cease crying wolf on everybody that agrees with an Israeli policy and labeling them Zionists (as if that in itself would be an inherently bad thing any worse than support of any other religious practice).

Here is the thing, you ignored when I said Israel is a homeland unique to Jewish people, but yet now I disregard Alan Dershowitz because he is of Jewish background? No, that isn’t the case, in fact I shouldn’t disregard Alan’s reply to the Israeli Lobby paper, but he didn’t provide enough solid evidence to counter the main thesis of the Israel Lobby paper. He did of course make some good points and he backed it up with sources.

The problem with your argument here is that you assume that the Mearscheimer paper actually made a valid argument that needed to be explicitly rebuffed point for point. The fact of the matter is that the points of contention proposed in the Mearscheimer paper were shoddily supported at best and simply embarrassing on an academic integrity level at worst. The paper in no way proved that the Israeli lobby's goals subvert US intentions any more so than does any other major lobby, nor did it even sufficiently state the base for the Israeli lobby being any more powerful than any of the other major players. The simple explanation for this is due to the fact that the Israeli lobby is not more powerful than the bureaucratic webs ejected by the oil, **************, tobacco, alcohol, and other major player industries with significant lobbying firms.

The Israeli Lobby paper by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer has been expanded into a book, they use sound analyses of America’s relationship with Israel by stating the obvious that the United States federal government gives unmatched support for Israel, the explanation isn’t based on morality or strategic interest, but rather the activities by the Israel Lobby, they document this very well.

The Israeli lobby is a lobby. Its goal is to garner support for Israel in the grand scheme of US foreign relations. That is what the lobby sees as in the best interest of the country, just as the oil lobby sees things going their way as in the best interest of the country, and so on and so forth for every other lobby you will find in D.C. This is the function and functioning of lobbies. You are merely defining what a lobby is. What you are not doing is showing how the Israeli lobby garnering support for Israel is subverting US interests in favor of Zionist interests any more so than the oil industry is subverting US interests in favor of oil interests. And please don't tell me how they use "sound analyses" and "document [it] very well," because if their article is any indication of this soundness of analysis and wellness of documentation, then it is no more valid than a Pat Buchanan or David Duke book. They also use "sound analyses" and anally go about "documenting" their work, as if including ample footnotes has any bearing on the level of credibility on one's words, yet surely you would not deny that these men are fools and that their works are shoddy. Mearscheimer gets a pass simply because of his academic standing, when the reality is that his paper fares no better under the discriminating light of academic evaluation, as testified by several of his peers and other sources.

I’m not anti-Zionist, but I’m against America getting involved in the Middle East regardless of whoever the political powers maybe, I’m against the red necks who want war more then I am the Zionist, the Zionist call for war against Middle Eastern nations, the hicks follow it as though it were biblical doctrine, in the end, Europeans Jews, and Middle Easterners all hate each other. I’m an isolationist, I’m against American intervention in global affairs, just like the forefathers of this nation, my interest are strictly domestic.

I agree with you in large part here that we should not meddle in the affairs of other nations unnecessarily. The only problem here, however, is that in this modern society, it is impossible to be fully isolationist. The international community is so essentially interconnected that it would be damning not only to us, but to the world economy as a whole if the US were to go isolationist. It's an entirely folly and unrealistic approach, but the concept is respected. There are many degrees of foreign relations by which we as a nation have greatly overstretched our reach. We need to pull back and reevaluate not only our place in the world, but more importantly our standing domestically, as you say, for surely there is ample room for improvement. Such as doing away with lobbies.

You disregard Israel’s terrorism against the United States and go out of your way to take Israel’s side in a typical pro-Israel fashion.

No I don't. The problem with your example of the USS Liberty is that one cannot possibly assert to know the truth of the matter. I did not explicitly say that in no way could the attack have been intentional, and you will see this if you go back and read my posts. What I did say was that it was foolhardy of you to assume that the attack was intentional because there is no concrete evidence suggesting that it was. It could very well have been an unintentional miscommunication error. Israeli forces unintentionally attacked their own forces a few days prior to the incident in question, thus making it well within the range of possibility that it was an accident.

Nor did I at any time "go out of [my] way to take Israel's side." I did no such thing. I am taking the side of the rationalist argument as opposed to the sensationalist. For the record, I do not support Israel, nor do I support the US's overwhelming and irrational support of Israel. However, I do not attribute this solely to Zionist forces in government. That is an absurd proposition which completely ignores the role that Israel plays in global politics. The US is not the only nation that regularly pays lip service to Israel. Once again, inferring that support of Israel on a practical level must be Zionist rather than pragmatic is a logistical error. If you truly want to make this assertion, you're going to need to have concrete evidence to back it up, which you nor anybody that you have cited or that I have seen independently has. This is not to say that no Zionist forces have at least a degree of influential power on governmental policy. However, this is not the same as state-sponsored Zionism.

You can’t be on the far left, they are opposed to Israel’s right wing establishment and the neo-cons etc, maybe you just want to argue? Who knows.

I will always argue against absurd claims.

What strategic value could a nation possibly have where they can commit state sponsored terrorism against America, attack our ships with foolishness, spy on Americans, film the worst terrorist attacks against our nation and laugh about it etc. It doesn’t stop there, the United States has put our own security at risk to step into the Middle of Israeli wars in the Middle East…it doesn’t help us out in any way but the Israeli Lobby doesn’t see it that way.

You have yet to give a concrete example of state sponsored terrorism against America at the hands of the Israeli government that is any worse than any other incidental scuffle between allies that we have had in the past but have overlooked. Israel is not the first of our allies to spy on us, and I assure you that we spy on them, along with the rest of our allies.

Your pegging of Middle Eastern conflict as "Israeli wars" I must take issue with, however. The reason for this is twofold, firstly simply because there are no longer any regional conflicts in the world. All conflicts are global in impact, thus whatever is of regional interest is of global, and thus, US interest. If there is unrest in the Middle East, then it is an issue for the US as it is for the rest of the first world. Secondly, just as with any other ally, and "Israeli war" is our war as well in that we are allied with Israel. This is really quite simple to understand. If you don't realize why the US is concerned with Israeli issues other than to shout "Zionism!" from the rooftops, then I will ask you to kindly refrain from further conversation.

 

[Patrick R.]

AIPEC is largely Zionist; not entirely. Certain members of the Neocons could be classified as Zionist; not the movement as a whole. Israel is not run exclusively on right wing Zionist policies. Israel is not a theocracy. They allow Muslim parties to campaign and allow Muslim representatives into their government. How is this Zionist?

What constitutes as a full Zionist and how do you distinguish them from a part Zionist? In any case, AIPAC is a very powerful organization with tremendous influence in the United States legislative branch, which passes our laws. AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbyist can influence Senators and Representatives to pass laws that are in favor of Israel and at odds with the American public.

Israel legislative branch, Knesset doesn’t have much Muslim influence, there are Jews that support the Palestinian cause, I’m not saying that the Israeli government has banned everybody who doesn’t agree with them, what I am saying is that the Israeli government is still run by Zionist who are at odds with the Arab world, that is fine by me, but when you have neo-conservatives with heavy influence in the executive branch of the United States federal government, then we have a problem because then our actions are in favor of these Israel’s right wing policies, which of course isn’t in Americas best interest to support Likud’s interest and that goes for Israel’s interest as well, the people there would rather have security then war.

The Israeli lobby is in part Zionist, of course, but not everybody is supporting Israel because it is the homeland of the chosen people. This is the problem that you continually make over and over and over and over and over and over again. You automatically assume that any support for Israeli policies is due to what Israel is, and not what Israel does; namely that is is the homeland of the Jews, and not because its policies coincide with many of the Western cultures'.

Here is a problem, there is a huge difference between supporting the Israeli government on key issues and turning a blind eye to their state sponsored terrorism against America, such as the Lavon Affair. I’m not implying that every decision in favor of Israel is a result of their Jewish character.

Also, supporting their interest can come into direct conflict with American interest, for example, when they are at war with the Palestinians who are under military occupation, that is bad for American troops and our image especially when there is a human rights crisis, when America’s image is already associated with global domination and human rights violations, it only makes it worse when we step into Israel’s domestic affairs. Israel should allow the Palestinians to establish their own government and nation, then if the Palestinians fall into economic decay or suffer from a human rights crisis, then it can’t be blamed on Israel.

Your blanket assessment of these groups I take issue with. It is inaccurate to brand them all with the Zionist tag when to make such a sweeping generalization is surely inaccurate, but you don't seem to have a problem with being inaccurate in this department to begin with. Again, I reiterate: Supporting the Israeli state is not necessarily supporting Israel as the homeland of the Jews, and thus Zionism. Sometimes we just agree with their policies, crazily enough, just as we agree with Saudi Arabian policies. Or 'agree' with, I should say, for the alliance between Israel and the US is taken on about as begrudgingly at times as is our associations with the House of Saud.

I’ve never said that every single decision is a result of the Jewish character of Israel.

If you don't want to be pinpointed as an anti-Zionist, then I suggest you cease crying wolf on everybody that agrees with an Israeli policy and labeling them Zionists (as if that in itself would be an inherently bad thing any worse than support of any other religious practice).

Zionism is a political movement for a homeland for Jews, what is wrong with that? Nothing, I’m against war, regardless of whoever pushes for war, from the ‘White Anglo-Saxon Protestants’, Islamic radicals, all the way to the neo-conservatives.

Israel is a nation firmly established, why ruin that and start all over again with more chaos and destruction, dismemberment, ethnic cleansing, rape, etc? That sums up war regardless of who is involved, white man, Jew, Arab, Asian…you name it.

The problem with your argument here is that you assume that the Mearscheimer paper actually made a valid argument that needed to be explicitly rebuffed point for point. The fact of the matter is that the points of contention proposed in the Mearscheimer paper were shoddily supported at best and simply embarrassing on an academic integrity level at worst. The paper in no way proved that the Israeli lobby's goals subvert US intentions any more so than does any other major lobby, nor did it even sufficiently state the base for the Israeli lobby being any more powerful than any of the other major players. The simple explanation for this is due to the fact that the Israeli lobby is not more powerful than the bureaucratic webs ejected by the oil, **************, tobacco, alcohol, and other major player industries with significant lobbying firms.

Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer firmly supported their thesis that the Lobby puts Israel’s interest over Americas, one example they gave is the attempt by the American federal government to overthrow Islamic regimes and formulate ‘Westernized’ governmental bodies to replace the old Islamic governments, something that has no benefit for the United States of America at all…nothing.

Apparently the lobby feels that it does help the Israeli government and their right wing ambitions, it takes away their enemies who could provide exceptional support for the Palestinian cause and also take international anger with Israel away and of course place that burden on America’s shoulders…just what every American needs. But what this does is put Israel at risk of terrorism, in contrast of the goals of the lobby and the world.

The Israeli Lobby paper dealt with other powerful lobby’s, such as the National Rifle Association. They quoted an article that appeared in Fortune magazine where they asked Congressman (American lawmakers) and their staff to list the most powerful lobby’s and AIPAC was in second place, here is the exact footnote.

Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, “Washington’s Power 25,” Fortune, December 8, 1997.
AIPAC was ranked number 4 in a similar study conducted in 2001. See Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Russell Newell, “Fat and Happy in D.C.,” Fortune, May 28, 2001.

The Israeli lobby is a lobby. Its goal is to garner support for Israel in the grand scheme of US foreign relations. That is what the lobby sees as in the best interest of the country, just as the oil lobby sees things going their way as in the best interest of the country, and so on and so forth for

The Israeli lobby is a lobby. Its goal is to garner support for Israel in the grand scheme of US foreign relations. That is what the lobby sees as in the best interest of the country, just as the oil lobby sees things going their way as in the best interest of the country, and so on and so forth for every other lobby you will find in D.C. This is the function and functioning of lobbies. You are merely defining what a lobby is. What you are not doing is showing how the Israeli lobby garnering support for Israel is subverting US interests in favor of Zionist interests any more so than the oil industry is subverting US interests in favor of oil interests. And please don't tell me how they use "sound analyses" and "document [it] very well," because if their article is any indication of this soundness of analysis and wellness of documentation, then it is no more valid than a Pat Buchanan or David Duke book. They also use "sound analyses" and anally go about "documenting" their work, as if including ample footnotes has any bearing on the level of credibility on one's words, yet surely you would not deny that these men are fools and that their works are shoddy. Mearscheimer gets a pass simply because of his academic standing, when the reality is that his paper fares no better under the discriminating light of academic evaluation, as testified by several of his peers and other sources.

The Israeli Lobby paper didn’t mention everything Israel and the Israeli lobbying has done against American interest. It didn’t mention the attack against the USS Liberty or even the Lavon Affair which has been proven to be state sponsored terrorism against American installations. I haven’t read it in awhile, but I don’t even think they mentioned the Israeli spies that were captured and released from federal investigators. This is odd, it would help their thesis that the Lobby looks out for Israel’s interest over Americas at times.



http://cryptome.org/dea-il-spy.htm

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feat...ndex.html?pn=1

I agree with you in large part here that we should not meddle in the affairs of other nations unnecessarily. The only problem here, however, is that in this modern society, it is impossible to be fully isolationist. The international community is so essentially interconnected that it would be damning not only to us, but to the world economy as a whole if the US were to go isolationist. It's an entirely folly and unrealistic approach, but the concept is respected. There are many degrees of foreign relations by which we as a nation have greatly overstretched our reach. We need to pull back and reevaluate not only our place in the world, but more importantly our standing domestically, as you say, for surely there is ample room for improvement. Such as doing away with lobbies.

We may not have to be fully isolationist, but we can stay out of conflicts as much as possible.

No I don't. The problem with your example of the USS Liberty is that one cannot possibly assert to know the truth of the matter. I did not explicitly say that in no way could the attack have been intentional, and you will see this if you go back and read my posts. What I did say was that it was foolhardy of you to assume that the attack was intentional because there is no concrete evidence suggesting that it was. It could very well have been an unintentional miscommunication error. Israeli forces unintentionally attacked their own forces a few days prior to the incident in question, thus making it well within the range of possibility that it was an accident.

Nor did I at any time "go out of [my] way to take Israel's side." I did no such thing. I am taking the side of the rationalist argument as opposed to the sensationalist. For the record, I do not support Israel, nor do I support the US's overwhelming and irrational support of Israel. However, I do not attribute this solely to Zionist forces in government. That is an absurd proposition which completely ignores the role that Israel plays in global politics. The US is not the only nation that regularly pays lip service to Israel. Once again, inferring that support of Israel on a practical level must be Zionist rather than pragmatic is a logistical error. If you truly want to make this assertion, you're going to need to have concrete evidence to back it up, which you nor anybody that you have cited or that I have seen independently has. This is not to say that no Zionist forces have at least a degree of influential power on governmental policy. However, this is not the same as state-sponsored Zionism.

That is the USS Liberty alone, the Lavon Affair was proven to be an attacked against American installations in Egypt formulated by the Israeli government at that time, not all Israelis were part of that, they were powerless to stop Pinhas Lavon.

I’m not against Israel, I’m against war, regardless of who the people pushing for it, like the fake memo the that appeared in the Weekly Standard, falsely claiming Bin Laden and Saddam had connections. The neo-conservatives have wanted this war for years, they even wrote a letter to Bill Clinton to formulate a policy to remove Saddam from power.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

I’m also against the Americans who foolishly support Middle Eastern wars just because they are ‘Muslim’, so therefore Americans and Middle Easterners must die for this arrogance.

You have yet to give a concrete example of state sponsored terrorism against America at the hands of the Israeli government that is any worse than any other incidental scuffle between allies that we have had in the past but have overlooked. Israel is not the first of our allies to spy on us, and I assure you that we spy on them, along with the rest of our allies.

No other nation in the world receives near as much diplomatic, financial, and military support from American then Israel. If the United Kingdom damaged our intelligence and sold it the way Pollard did, we would put the UK on our shit list, Pollards treachery caused us dearly in the Soviet Union. Also, Saddam’s government never attacked the US but the federal government took him out, the reason for that is because the neo-cons wanted him out.

If there was political movement in the US that was very anti Israel and had influence in Fox news and the federal government etc, then there is no telling what would happen to Israel. I’m against any kind of war propagated by intellectuals with political agendas. There could possibly be an anti-Israel lobby in the feature, and I would be bitching up a storm against them if they decide to attack Israel and use the USS Liberty , the Lavon Affair, etc, as ‘reasons’ for war.

Your pegging of Middle Eastern conflict as "Israeli wars" I must take issue with, however. The reason for this is twofold, firstly simply because there are no longer any regional conflicts in the world. All conflicts are global in impact, thus whatever is of regional interest is of global, and thus, US interest. If there is unrest in the Middle East, then it is an issue for the US as it is for the rest of the first world. Secondly, just as with any other ally, and "Israeli war" is our war as well in that we are allied with Israel. This is really quite simple to understand. If you don't realize why the US is concerned with Israeli issues other than to shout "Zionism!" from the rooftops, then I will ask you to kindly refrain from further conversation.

I must disagree with you here, Israel’s wars don’t necessarily have to be America’s wars as well. Take a look at America’s war in Iraq…Israel isn’t even a part of this war, they are on the sidelines, so why doesn’t Israel join America’s war? It is the Israeli government that was eager for America to go to war with Iraq to topple Saddam’s government, so why didn’t they go along side of us then? That goes for Iran as well, another war that is formulated by the neo-conservatives when we don’t have the job in Iraq finished despite being their for years.

This has nothing to do with being a Jew, this has to do with the United States federal government attempting to political subvert the Middle Eastern world, they have been successful with the rest of the world and they are even successful in the Middle East at this, so the American government should leave it at that, Iran may not be Westernized, but they aren’t able to go against American interest or even Israel’s at this point. A radical Zionist who puts Israel over any nation shouldn’t get ahead of his or herself, the problems in Iraq a far from resolved, we are running out of troops and bombs will not destroy the insurgency in Iraq, this is true with Iran as well, lets not get ahead of ourselves and bight off more then we can chew. I blame more then the Israel Lobby, I also blamed the bulk of American and other Western people who provide the man power to make this possible.

 

[skeptik]

We wouldn't have gone through all of this if you didn't start throwing out the word Zionist in every other sentence and just acknowledge that most of the US' relations toward Israel is politically oriented and not religiously motivated. Obviously Israel is a burden to the US on an international scale. Frankly, I largely agree with most of what you're saying. If you would have just stated your argument more clearly without the whole "Zionist conspiracy in the American government" rhetoric, then we could have saved a lot of key-pounding. Indeed, the American-Israeli relationship is far from reciprocal, and Israel rarely appears to be sympathetic to their American allies or appreciative of their aid, but I think that this is largely due to their realization that America's hands are essentially tied politically as far as supporting Israel is concerned unless Israel does something so stupid that not even the most ardent supporters could deny it.

 

[Patrick R.]

We wouldn't have gone through all of this if you didn't start throwing out the word Zionist in every other sentence and just acknowledge that most of the US' relations toward Israel is politically oriented and not religiously motivated. Obviously Israel is a burden to the US on an international scale. Frankly, I largely agree with most of what you're saying. If you would have just stated your argument more clearly without the whole "Zionist conspiracy in the American government" rhetoric, then we could have saved a lot of key-pounding. Indeed, the American-Israeli relationship is far from reciprocal, and Israel rarely appears to be sympathetic to their American allies or appreciative of their aid, but I think that this is largely due to their realization that America's hands are essentially tied politically as far as supporting Israel is concerned unless Israel does something so stupid that not even the most ardent supporters could deny it.

Agreed, I should of known better.