So sad to see Obama kneel to AIPAC

[notfullofit]

Obama’s promises fail at the AIPAC conference
By Daoud Kuttab

It was so sad. To see a grown tower of a man come to his knees. Just like everyone before him, the presumptive democratic followed the suit of all US political leaders before him and bowed down at the footsteps of the pro Israel lobby. What happened to the anti lobby nominee.
On the day his nomination had been sealed, at a time when his chances of being elected had been all but ensured Barack Obama failed the test. What happened to the nominee who was going to change the way Washington was run. What happened to the promise of “I will tell you what you have to hear not what you love to hear.”
Speaking at the pro Israel lobby the first black presidential nominee who is being seen world wide as a potentially global president turned on every promise he made during the run up to the nomination.
snip..
On the day that he succeeded in getting the Democratic National Committee to announce that they will not accept lobbyist money, he was pandering to the most powerful of all lobbies. How can we believe that lobbyists will not run Obama’s administration.
Content wise, Barack Obama contradicted himself and every foreign policy rule he has been espousing. Gone was the need to favor diplomacy over militarisms as Obama promised to give Israel $30 billion in military funding. Gone was the need to talk to Iran and instead the saber rattling was repeated in the form of declaring that the military option in defense of Israel. Gone was the need to talk to our enemies and replaced by the repetition of claims of Bush claim of Iran’s nuclear military program a claim that have been disproved by 16 American intelligence agencies.

The pandering to Israel at the AIPAC conference even produced criticism from the Daily Show’s John Stewart. An unashamedly Jewish comedian tore apart Obama’s twin flag (Israel and US) pin, made fun of the gushing attempts to woe the pro Israeli audience and the lack of a single word of criticism by all three speakers. The pro Israeli love fest was so sad that Obama needed Hillary Clinton who had yet to concede the nomination, felt it necessary to vouch for the young Illinois senator’s pro Israel credentials.
snip...

America’s black nominee who would have supported divestment on racist south Africa blasted international divestment calls on Israel, and libeled Arab oil producing countries by saying that “petrodollars are responsible for the killing of American soldiers and Israeli citizens.” How pathetic.
If there was a time that a presidential candidate should have had courage to change course on the way Washington is run this was the time. If there was a group that deserved a more honest speech it was this. Obama failed in both tests. This is a shame.

http://www.daoudkuttab.com/

[Vegasaurus]

1. And these people prefer McCain?

because he is the alternative.

Obama still looks good to me.

[smoogatz]

2. Go Nader!!!1!!1!

Oy.

[babylonsister]

3. Written by a Palestinian journalist-no surprise there:

http://www.daoudkuttab.com/?page_id=421

[notfullofit]

7. Muslims barred from picture at Obama event

Muslims barred from picture at Obama event
By BEN SMITH | 6/18/08 11:08 AM EST Updated: 6/18/08 12:48 PM EST Text Size:

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama's rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women's headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.

The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.

"This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers."

Building a human backdrop to a political candidate, a set of faces to appear on television and in photographs, is always a delicate exercise in demographics and political correctness. Advance staffers typically pick supporters out of a crowd to reflect the candidate's message.

When Obama won the North Carolina primary amid questions about his ability to connect with white voters, for instance, he stood in front of a group of middle-aged white women waving small American flags. On the Republican side, a Hispanic New Hampshire Democrat, Roberto Fuentes, told Politico that he was recently asked, and declined, to contribute to the "diversity" of the crowd behind Sen. John McCain at a Nashua event.

But for Obama, the old-fashioned image-making contrasts with his promise to transcend identity politics and to embrace all elements of America. The incidents in Michigan, which has one of the largest Arab and Muslim populations in the country, also raise an aspect of his campaign that sometimes rubs Muslims the wrong way: The candidate has vigorously denied a false, viral rumor that he himself is Muslim. But the denials seem to some at times to imply that there is something wrong with the faith, though Obama occasionally adds that he means no disrespect to Islam.

"I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change, who I could really relate to," said Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer who lives in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills. "The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters."

snip...

When they said they were with Abdelfadeel, the volunteer told them their friend would have to take the headscarf off or stay out of the special section, Marino said. They declined the seats.

snip...

Abdelfadeel, like Aref, felt "disappointed, angry and let-down," she later wrote.

She was "let-down that the Obama campaign continously perpetuates this attitude towards Muslims and Arabs — as if being merely associated one is a sin."

The two women's friends who witnessed the incidents were disappointed too. Aref's friend Miller said he was "shocked" by the contrast between Obama's message and their experience.

"He was the one candidate who you would expect to stand up for something like that — and behind the scenes you have something completely contrary to what he was running on," said Koussan, Aref's other friend.

Aref and her friends complained to the campaign, and after those complaints and an inquiry from Politico, Obama's director of advance, Emmett S. Beliveau, called her to apologize.

more
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11168_Page2.html

[babylonsister]

8. What's your point? Volunteers screwed up, the campaign apologized.

Do you HAVE a point? :eyes:

[notfullofit]

10. The point is...

don't you just hate pandering?

[LeftishBrit]

12. That is sad and disappointing...

I am glad Obama apologized, and hope that this incident happened without his knowledge.

The attitude that 'all Muslims are disloyal, or about to blow you up!' is truly scary and dangerous. Like all bigotry.

[notfullofit]

13. The thing that bothers

me is, from where did these campaign volunteers get this idea?
Somebody had to plant it in their minds.

[LeftishBrit]

14. Well, I'm obviously not there 'on the ground'; but it might be just the influence of all those

revolting e-mails and innuendoes about how Obama is a Muslim1111!!!!! and of course set against a background of prejudice - (1) All Muslims are terrorists!!! and (2) Muslims don't BELIEVE IN JESUS!!!11111

And then these volunteers decided to pander to this prejudice to help make their candidate more 'electable'.

Of course, I'm not there and there may be someone higher up in the campaign who is a nasty panderer.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

18. Do you live in the US? As mom of a Muslim family, I can attest that Muslim-hate is

alive and well in this blessed land.

[Behind the Aegis]

20. As does anti-Semitism, at gross levels.

[LeftishBrit]

26. In the UK...

antisemitism is and has always been a significant problem.

Anti-Muslim hatred is a more recent but currently worse problem.

But anti-immigrant hatred trumps the lot!

[BonnieJW]

4. Bull

[azurnoir]

5. The last Presidential candidate to

suggest a major "change in course" in US policy towards Israel was Ron Paul, remember him?

[LeftishBrit]

9. Certainly. A far-RW-er.

Against ALL welfare and government funding of public services, even of the limited sort currently existing in America. Has said that 'just because someone needs medical care doesn't mean that they are entitled to it' - and he is a DOCTOR! Supports abolition of the income tax. Opposes the Voting Rights Act. Has called gay rights 'heterophobia'. Opposes women's right to choose.

He is an extreme isolationist, who opposes ALL links with other countries, whether bad (like the war) or good (like foreign aid to developing countries). I don't know his specific views on I/P; but assume that he opposes any alliances at all, and therefore including Israel. At any rate, he is a revolting person on most issues, and am amazed to see ANY sympathy for him at all on a progressive site (except perhaps insofar as he may help to split the RW vote). I know he's against the war, but so are the British National Party, LePen and Pat Buchanan.

I know this post is totally off the topic of I/P; but the words 'Ron Paul' always raise my blood pressure - not so much in himself as he has little power (and certainly none where I live), but because of the far right viewpoints that he represents.

[azurnoir]

15. Regardless of his other stances

Ron Paul came out publicly against aide to Israel and the Iraq war. As for his other stances on race or affirmative action and welfare he is little different from any other Republican, simply more "up front" about it.

[LeftishBrit]

16. Quite possibly - nowadays most Republicans seem to be hideously far-right!

Unless and until they move back a bit to centre (i.e. only SLIGHTLY to the right of Genghis Khan/ Maggie Thatcher) any Republican government is going to be horribly dangerous.

However, I don't often see DU-ers expressing any sympathy for Giuliani, Romney or McInsane; whereas I've occasionally seen pro-Paul posts.

[Tarc]

6. Sooner or later they all snap back like they have a bungee-cord around their neck.

AIPAC and Israel have a stranglehold on the American foreign policy in the Middle East, much the same as the whackjob exile community in Florida does in regards to our Cuban relations. Progress will never been seen in either area until groups with undue influence are shown the door.

[Shaktimaan]

17. Yup, the Jews secretly control America. Everyone knows that. It's in the Protocols after all. np

[ProgressiveMuslim]

19. Shakti...

no one believes that Jews control America, but the reality is, that any politician who does not toe the AIPAC line ends up skewered by the press. American politicans are required to be far more "zionist" than the average Israeli. I don't think they have the opportunity to explore their personal and honest leanings on these issues. I don't see any conspiracy here. I think it's the media looking for a story. But the prospect must be very frightening to politicians.

Do you deny the reality that there is far smaller range of "acceptable" discussion about the I/P conflict here than, say, in Israel?

Didn't Obama recently decry speaking with Hamas, only to have Israel turn around and negotiate themselves with Hamas?

[Shaktimaan]

24. Look PM,

I'm not saying that influence doesn't exist, or even that the pressure from the Israel lobby and politically involved Jewish organizations can stifle open, objective debate on this issue. I'd be a fool to think otherwise. But this is the situation with every hot-button issue in America from Creationism in science classes to global warming to free trade to the right to bear arms to nuclear power. And I honestly don't think that the Israel lobby is any different.

That said, take another look at the comment I was responding to:

Sooner or later they all snap back like they have a bungee-cord around their neck. AIPAC and Israel have a stranglehold on the American foreign policy in the Middle East, much the same as the whackjob exile community in Florida does in regards to our Cuban relations. Progress will never been seen in either area until groups with undue influence are shown the door.

So this guy thinks that not just AIPAC, but Israel itself has a "stranglehold on the American foreign policy in the Middle East." This isn't a criticism about politicians not enjoying the opportunity to explore their personal feelings. This guy is saying, literally, that he thinks a foreign country controls US foreign policy behind the scenes. I'm not one to make accusations of anti-semitism lightly, and I'd be willing to bet that this guy doesn't even realize the significance of what he's writing here. But his post happens to voice one of the classic memes in anti-semitic propaganda; it's right out of the protocols. It also happens to be completely untrue. And I can't just ignore it or pretend that it means something other than it does.

Back in reality, the truth is that I think people give AIPAC much more credit for influencing policy than they deserve. The common line is that politicians are prevented from voicing their own opinions unless they match AIPAC's or the lobby will crush their career. But I don't remember George Bush (not W) toeing their, or Israel's line at all. He seemed pretty comfortable taking precisely the kind of actions you consider impossible, and was certainly not thought of as a great friend of Israel's.

[Behind the Aegis]

25. "I'd be willing to bet that this guy doesn't even realize the significance of what he's writing here

It wasn’t as if he needed the Jewish money or votes. This has been the first presidential run which succeeded in circumventing large donors and prided itself with the million donors who gave less than $100 was suddenly kowtowing to a sector of America whose major source of power has been their ability to raise large funds.

Personally, I think he does realize what he is writing.

[Shaktimaan]

28. I was referring to Tarc, not Daoud Kuttab.

I usually give posters like him/her the benefit of the doubt and assume that they do not realize that such statements are not only false but are also thinly camouflaged examples of classic anti-semitic themes, masquerading as legitimate criticism of Israel. I think this is how people end up thinking that Israel's supporters fling the charge of anti-semitism around recklessly, in order to squelch any comments that legitimately question Israeli policies.

The real problem is a lack of understanding the difference between the valid censuring of Israel's actions and speech that directly references and reinforces the exact same prejudices that have been used for thousands of years to vilify Jewish people everywhere. Weirdly, no matter how much time passes, the core set of usual allegations has remained surprisingly consistent all over the world. There's little question anymore as to whether a particular criticism could be considered anti-semitic... if the same accusation you made matches one from "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (only is made against Jews there instead of just Zionism or Israel) then consider yourself to be continuing the ancient tradition of slandering the Yids. Remember, just because you aren't an anti-semite yourself doesn't necessarily mean that your comments are all fair play. You don't have to hate Jews to practice hate speech.

[Behind the Aegis]

53. OK...Gotcha!

Your post is great.

Funny, ain't it? How anti-Semitism still gets a pass, it just has to be gussied up. Of course, so-called "progressives" love this type of anti-Semitism because they can spew it all over the place, then when called on it say (sometimes preemptively) "see, you get called an anti-Semite for criticizing Israel." It is a fail-safe for Jew-hating bigots.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

29. George HW Bush took much heat, and James Baker is still considered persona non grata for the

time they stood up to the lobby on the housing loan guarantees.

Rather than an example of independence, I think the GHWB/Baker example shows the danger of standing up to the lobby!

I can understand your concern about the use of AIPAC and Gov't of Israel interchangably. "Our side" should be more precise in our use of language.

But the knee-jerk "i've gotta be more hardline zionist than most Israelis" attitude evidenced by all major US politicians has to stop! It does not serve the interests of our country, or of peace in the Middle East!

[LeftishBrit]

27. Isn't the fact...

that American politicians are sometimes more hawkish about Israeli issues than Israel itself, evidence AGAINST the idea of a unilateral influence of Israel on America, and evidence that the American government is to some degree using Israel to promote what they see as their own interests in the Middle East?

Case in point: Israel was recently found to be negotiating with Syria. American State Department officials instantly complained that Israel 'hadn't asked our permission'!

[Vegasaurus]

30. Untrue

LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of people believe Jews control America, that Jews control American foreign policy, that Jews control the media, money and banking worldwide.

It is evident everywhere, and even on this website, where there is plenty of subtle and not-so subtle references to Jewish/Israeli control of American foreign policy.

What really controls American foreign policy is BIG OIL and capitalism/corporatism. THOSE lobbies are FAR more influential than AIPAC!

The "Jews control everything" meme has been the hallmark of anti-semitism for centuries.

Why is the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" THE best seller in the Arab world?

LOADS of people believe this shit, so let's not pretend that "no one believes that Jews control America".

[Lithos]

31. Best selling Arab book

Can you point me to the list which states the "Protocols" are THE Best selling book in the Arab world? Not talking where someone else has repeated this, but the actual work which authoritatively lists the best selling books in the Arab world. This statement implies it has sold more copies than the Quran and many of the associated theological works.

[Vegasaurus]

32. Perhaps not the BEST

but a "canonical text" according to the New York Times:

Henry Ford was captivated by the idea of Jewish financiers plotting to undermine the United States; he became a proselytizer for "The Protocols" in his newspaper, The Dearborn Independent. Hitler, an admirer of Ford, was introduced to "The Protocols" by the Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg, and cited it in "Mein Kampf." More than 23 editions of "The Protocols" were published by the Nazi party over 20 years.

During the last half-century, it has also become a canonical text in the Islamic world. One edition on display here, printed in Pakistan in 1969, was presented by King Faisal of Saudi Arabia to state visitors in the 1970's, its jacket showing a snake, representing the Jews, wrapped around the crescent of Islam while casting its glance over the entire Eastern Hemisphere. Another edition is an Arabic translation of "The Protocols" that was posted on the Palestinian State Information Services Web site until protests led to its removal last year.

Now "The Protocols" would presumably be affirmed with less embarrassment: the Palestinian Authority is presently controlled by the militant Islamist organization Hamas, whose 1988 covenant could almost be read as a rewrite of "The Protocols." "Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious," that covenant says. "With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations and others," it declares of Jews.

"They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam," it says, asserting that Jews were behind the French and Russian revolutions, the Freemasons, the Rotary Clubs, imperialism, the two world wars, the United Nations, the drug trade and alcoholism. It cites a source: "Their plan is embodied in 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' "

www.nytimes.com/2006/04/21/arts/design/21holo.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

[Lithos]

35. Canonical

Means something akin to "authoritatively accepted" and has nothing to do with Best Selling status. I most certainly agree that at an official level (which in this case are the authorities) here demonstrated by the two examples being from State/governmental groups - King Faisal and the Palestinian State Information Services, it received support which is problematic, but there is no basis to extrapolate that to meaning popular support today.

The danger I fear is confusing the use of the Protocols as an instrument of propaganda by the State and that of its use as indicative as a inherent belief of the people of the State. When you are talking about authoritarian governments who seek to control the population, there is a distinct difference.

L-

[Vegasaurus]

43. The government control of the media in authoritarian governments

assures that the messages they send, i.e. extremely anti-semitic ones, are taken as truth by the people.

Anti-Semitism finds governmental sanction, and often support, in Islamic as well as secular states, among those who are at peace with Israel and those still in a state of war with Israel, the study finds. In countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt and Syria, daily promulgation of anti-Semitic messages are carried out through media that are under the supervision and censorship of the regimes.

There's a dissonance between the anti-Semitism that takes on the form of a religious clash and the regional coalition of moderate states, from Morocco to the Gulf states and Turkey, that believes in peace and a two-state solution," according to Herzog, who belongs to the Labor Party.

"Unimaginable and unacceptable expressions of anti-Semitism are somehow permitted among members of the coalition," he said.

Part of the problem, he said, is that the rest of the world has simply grown used to Muslim anti-Semitism. "We respond to anti-Semitism only where large, vibrant Jewish communities exist. This is a mistake. It is incredibly dangerous that young Muslims are brainwashed with anti-Semitism. It starts with the Jews, but it won't end with the Jews."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1208422652742&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Every day, TV shows, cartoons, editorials, other media, present Jews as greedy people who are trying to run the world. The Hamas charter uses exact wording from the Protocols.

IT is more difficult to find moderates who don't believe this crap, than ones that do.

Authoritarian governments indoctrinate their people, so there is widespread acceptance and promulgation of these conspriacies.

[LeftishBrit]

33. I think PM probably meant 'no one here'; not 'no one in the entire world'....

there are obviously quite a few nasty websites that do blame the Jews for many of the actions of other countries. And occasionally they've even been linked to on DU, though not I think on this forum.

While I'm not really into advertising antisemitic sites(!), my favourite name for such a site (link came from a much more prominent site of similar viewpoint which WAS posted on DU) is 'Extraterrestrial Jews' (!?)

[Vegasaurus]

34. My point was that the Jewish conspiracy theorists

are not off on the fringe, with small memberships.

There are gigantic numbers of people, including, as I have noted, much of the Islamic world, that buys into this bullshit hook, line and sinker.

We must fight against those who slander, spread lies, untruths, and seek to dehumanize an entire people.

[LeftishBrit]

38. I strongly agree that...

'We must fight against those who slander, spread lies, untruths, and seek to dehumanize an entire people.'

I think (and hope and expect you do too) that this is not just specific to antisemitism - though perhaps this is the form of xenophobia that has been most constant through the ages - but all forms of racism and ethnic bigotry. Thus, theories implying Muslim conspiracies; fears of 'being taken over by immigrants'; hatred of non-white 'hordes'; and the anti-Western xenophobia in some non-western countries are *all* seriously worrying to me.

My favourite site on antisemitism is the following, because it takes the problem seriously, and at the same time places it in the more general context of xenophobia.

www.axt.org.uk

[LeftishBrit]

40. I suddenly remember that a week or so ago...

a link was posted (and later deleted, so I wont repost it) on DU to an article by Peter Chamberlin, which claimed among other things that it is not antisemitic or a canard, but perfectly true, to say that 'wealthy Jewish-Americans economically control the government, the media, international business or finance'. Most people here attacked it, so obviously it's not a popular view here - but it's an example of some people's publicly-expressed views.

[Tarc]

36. Don't be an asshole, if you can help it

Labeling critics of Israel as antisemites (which is precisely what the reference to the Protocols means) is the sign of a weak argument and an extremely pathetic individual.

[LeftishBrit]

37. There's a difference between criticizing Israel, and implying that Jews (and Cubans) have a

stranglehold on another country's foreign policy.

Blaming one's country's mistakes on another country or ethnic group (unless it's actually been invaded or colonized) is at any rate xenophobic: whether it concerns Jews, Cubans, Muslims, Palestinians, Americans, British, or 'bloody foreigners' in general.

YOU may not be antisemitic or otherwise xenophobic at all; but you come across as influenced by sources that are.

To give a random example, I'm very critical of Burma/Myanmar at the moment; but I don't think that Burmese people control my country's foreign policy. There's a difference.

[Tarc]

45. Not even worth my time

Ignorant swill like you who make baseless accusations of bigotry earn a swift trip the to the ignore list. Buh-bye.

[Phx_Dem]

49. You obviously don't spend much time in the IP forum

Because you are insulting one of this sub-forums most polite, respectful and thoughtful posters here. Completely uncalled for and undermines whatever little credibility you have.

[Vegasaurus]

51. Ditto Phx Dem

Leftish Brit is even handed, thoughtful, always listens to both sides, and is solicitous to all opinions.

I think you owe her an apology for your slander.

[notfullofit]

52. Very true, well said. nt

[Behind the Aegis]

55. How very sad!

You are so mired in your rhetoric, you failed to see the poster to whom you responded is neither "ignorant swill" nor one who "make(s) baseless accusations of bigotry." Then again, nothing surprises me here anymore, especially those who can't recognize bigotry unless it has "nigger," "faggot," or "kike" in the post. Anything else, is just those groups being 'too sensitive' or 'reaching' for an excuse.

[Shaktimaan]

59. Very true.

I noticed that despite what this guy said in this last, obnoxious post, LB didn't even accuse him of being a bigot. LB merely explained why I had an issue with his post, no one so far has actually come out and accused him of bigotry or of being anti-semitic. Hell, I even said that he was probably NOT an anti-semite, I figured it was more-than-likely that he just didn't really understand what he was writing.

I guess he was so primed for it he ended up jumping the gun a little with the whole "you can't criticize Israel at all in this country without getting branded an anti-semite" thing.

I suspect we were set up, actually.

[Shaktimaan]

47. Oh there you are.

Here's the thing, you clearly stated that you believed that Israel and its (primarily Jewish) American cheerleaders control US foreign policy for the entire middle east. So you repeated one of the key themes represented in the Protocols. All I did was point it out.

Here's a suggestion. If you persist in voicing support for theories that have been the mainstays of anti-semitic teachings over the past several hundred years, then don't be surprised if a few people mention that fact. This has nothing to do with criticism of Israel, there are plenty of legit criticisms of Israel to be made. Suggesting that they control our government isn't one of them.

You might want to look at the posts below my last comment to you where this was discussed in greater detail. As far as my being "an extremely pathetic individual" goes, I'm not the one regurgitating the same wild conspiracy theories outlined in "The International Jew" by Henry Ford and "Jewish Supremacism" by David Duke, now am I.

[LeftishBrit]

11. Comments...

'I read and re read the speech and couldn’t find anything in it that the current Likud leader Benyamin Netanyahu would find problematic....

Obama repeated verbatim Bush’s position regarding the two state solution, calling Israel a Jewish state, the need to stop new settlements and even his prejudging the results of negotiations by his support for Israeli sovereignty over a united Jerusalem. His call on the illegal Israeli occupiers to ease travel restrictions was conditioned with the caveat “consistent with its security.”'

Isn't this contradictory with the first sentence? Netanyahu does NOT appear to support a two-state solution, or the cessation of building new settlements.

Obama's views seem far more reasonable than Bush's or Netanyahu's. I agree that it would be better not to pre-judge the results of negotiations over *anything*, including Jerusalem; it is IMO America's role to help to facilitate negotiations and the implementation of decisions, but not to say what the decisions should be.


'Unlike Bush, Obama promises us that he will begin efforts for peace from the beginning of his term and not in its waning days. Why should we believe this particular promise when all previous ones have been reversed?'

I never fully believe the promises of a campaigning politician; but how have 'all previous promises' been reversed, when he hasn't even got into power yet?



'America’s black nominee ...libeled Arab oil producing countries by saying that “petrodollars are responsible for the killing of American soldiers and Israeli citizens.” How pathetic.'


Would you not agree that the oil industry DOES have a bad effect on American foreign policy? It's not just the oil producing countries; it's the oil industry in America itself. According to circumstances, they may pander to an oil producing country (Saudi Arabia) - or quite the evil opposite: invade and destroy one (Iraq). But either way, dependence on oil has a pernicious effect on foreign relations.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. A pathetic "article"

This sums it up for me....

It wasn’t as if he needed the Jewish money or votes. This has been the first presidential run which succeeded in circumventing large donors and prided itself with the million donors who gave less than $100 was suddenly kowtowing to a sector of America whose major source of power has been their ability to raise large funds.

Why was that part snipped out of the OP?

[notfullofit]

22. I was informed

by another poster not to post a complete article due to copyright infringement etc.
That's why I posted the link so everyone interested could read it in full.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. That is correct.

There is a 4 or five paragraph maximum. The link always has to be provided for that reason. However, when selective posting is done, it can draw questions as to why certain things were left in or out of the OP. Sometimes, articles are so long, that people will snip a story so that the "irrelevant" paragraphs are left out of the OP. Other times, posters will use this technique to 'prove a point' or change the nature of the post (which is against the rules). In this case, you 'snipped' the beginning of a paragraph, and frankly, a very important piece, IMO. I don't think you did this with either of the aforementioned reasons ('to 'prove a point' or change the nature of the post'), but I was wondering why that paragraph was left out of the OP.

(Apologies for misspellings, spell check doesn't seem to be working.)

Actually....it seems the functions weren't working while I had the linked article above opened in another window...how strange.

[pelsar]

39. its not AIPAC...its the americans.....

seems many americans are far more "zionists" than israelis are....dont talk to hamas, dont talk to syria, dont give back jerusalem or the westbank etc.

its has nothing to do with AIPAC, the jews or israeli influence, its simply what they believe (ah but to look at that seriously means the discount the jewish/israeli lobby...and thats one of the more "sacred cows" that have to be hit upon)

[LeftishBrit]

41. That's the point I was trying to make...

if Americans are more hawkish on such issues than many Israelis, then it's because of their own ideology, and their country's real or imagined interests - not because Israel is influencing them. IMO, it's much more likely that America is influencing Israel: (1) America is bigger; (2) Israel depends on American aid, not the other way round.

[notfullofit]

42. Pelsar you hit the nail on the head.

It is 'the Americans'.

America is foremost Christian.
What do Christians believe? The Bible.
What does the Bible teach? Israel belongs to the Jews, given to them by God.

'dont give back jerusalem or the westbank etc.'
What does the Bible say about Jerusalem? It MUST NOT be divided.

'its simply what they believe'
Correct, that is what Christians (most westerners) believe, who are we to go against God's word, nothing to do with AIPAC or politics.

Yep, it is 'simply what they believe'.

[azurnoir]

46. So you know that Christians are really behind the conflict

America is foremost Christian.
What do Christians believe? The Bible.
What does the Bible teach? Israel belongs to the Jews, given to them by God.
its simply what they believe'
Correct, that is what Christians (most westerners) believe, who are we to go against God's word, nothing to do with AIPAC or politics.

Yep, it is 'simply what they believe'.

So the last time you were in church the pastor extolled to his flock that Jerusalem had to remain in the hands of Jews?

Maybe in your neck of America, but not in mine
To be honest I had to call my sons Grandmother and ask her, haven't been in a church myself since 1972.
She said "huh?, it has never come up, why on earth would you ask"
you live in Fundie country, thankfully I do not

[notfullofit]

50. Anyone who has

any knowledge whatsoever of the Bible already knows that and does not need any pastor to tell them. It is the whole premise of the Bible and Christianity.

Ask your grandmother where God told Moses the Jews will live, ask her where is the Promised Land. While you are at it, ask her to read Psalm 83.

Nope, you don't have to be a fundie just because you happen, at this moment, to live in the south. Heck, I don't even go to church and don't believe in organised religion either.

[azurnoir]

56. The old testament said that

but I think Jesus kind of changed that perspective a bit. After all Christian Europe did not launch 9? Crusades to win Jerusalem and the rest of the "Holy Land" back for the Jews.

From what I have read todays Christians who want Jerusalem in Jewish hands are promoting this to fulfill apocalyptic prophecy, and in that anyone, Jews included that does not convert or accept Jesus as lord burns in hell for eternity.

[Phx_Dem]

57. I wonder if that "Left Behind" series of books influenced people

especially American x-tians. The "fundy" mvmt has been around for more than 100 years in the US, but until those books came out I never heard much from people about "end-times" theology. Course I don't seek out a lot of x-tian opinions....

[azurnoir]

58. I think it was the other way around

Left Behind came out of the fundie movement.
The first time I ever heard of the "Rapture" was in the early '70's from a glassy eyed, recently born again, coworker. All I could say was aha???, I was and am not very familiar with the new testament so it was not until lately that I found out that the rapture was not part of the bible at all, but invented in the 19th century.

[azurnoir]

44. So Israel wants to give East Jerusalem to the Palestinians?

Then why not? Who is forcing Israel to keep it?

I will give you credit on the last 2 things you cite that being Israel and Jews however AIPAC could be another story

AIPAC and Obama / Cheering toughness, silent on peace

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=990208&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=2#article990208

[pelsar]

48. not just jerusalem* also the westbank....

but its condtional...they cant use the land to shoot pesky rockets, mortar and launch other attacks on israel....a deal breaker if there ever was one...

gaza is the prime example.....


*more controversial then the westbank

[azurnoir]

54. agreed

except that IMHO a more "perfect" world perhaps East Jerusalem should not come under the auspices of any country, but rather a joint international team, the UN comes to mind but they are problematic for many reasons or a joint council of Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders and as I type that I am also imagining the contention ala Goldilocks and the 3 Bears too hard, too soft, too just right over just who would make up those leaders

[LeftishBrit]

60. I strongly agree with you in principle...

however, the success of such a policy would depend on the international team doing its job properly. At one time, it *was* under UN control; however they failed to protect it and war was the predictable result.

The importance of Jerusalem to three major religions makes international control both ideal and difficult to achieve.


'I am also imagining the contention ala Goldilocks and the 3 Bears too hard, too soft, too just right over just who would make up those leaders'

Indeed! A tough problem.