It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Astronomer68
Hardly seems worth the effort doesn't it?
If I wasn't so apathetic I would take the time to unravel your posting point by point and show where the external sources you cite were in the main either originated by or greatly influenced by the pro-Israeli lobby.
as with the authors of the original study you treat the facts like taffy and pull & stretch them to your liking. Other, inconvenient things are just not mentioned at all.
The authors of the original study are no more intellectually dishonest that anyone else, yourself included.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Can we all surmize that we need to change our patterns of behavior, if we plan on changing the system to address more of the needs of the people, rather than casting blame and hoping it all will magically auto-correct a polarized nation?
Blaming a group for taking advantage of opportunities is more a reflection on the opposition's lack of will and ability to organize.
Grassroots lobbies can become powerful forces too.
The problem with "The Israel Lobby"
I have a problem with The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by Mearsheimer and Walt. I don't think they go far enough. Instead of looking at the institutional frameworks for this lobby, they focus on personalities. Identifying individuals is not enough. This makes it impossible to understand the motivation of this lobby. If they spent more time discussing the connections between Israeli hardliners and the US military industrial complex, I think they could spend less time trying to justify their case. Follow that money trail and it is easy to demystify the tilt to Israel.
[...]
Mearsheimer and Walt do mention the money trail. They note that Israel spends most of its aid money without oversight. They are also correct to point out Israel can buy directly from arms dealers. What they don't point out is that because it receives this money up front, instead of in quarterly allotments, they can buy a lot of weapons and transfer them. In effect, Israel can make money on arms deals subsidized by US taxpayers. This is very useful for American arms dealers faced with embargoes. One glaring example of illegal transfers was recently reported in the press. No one has been able to explain how 5 helicopters sold to Israel turned up in the hands of Colombian drug lords. That's not the kind of thing that falls off the back of a truck.
Originally posted by IAF101
So do we believe that the authors of the Pro-Israel lobbies Study “don’t know” this angle to the Yom Kippur War even though they are Ph.D’s in History and hold titles of Professor in some of the most reputable institutes in America if not the World?
The United States also comes to Israel’s rescue in wartime and takes its side when negotiating peace. The Nixon Administration re-supplied Israel during the October War and protected Israel from the threat of Soviet intervention.
THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
Israel’s strategic value during this period should not be overstated, however Backing Israel was not cheap, and it complicated America’s relations with the Arab world. For example, the U.S. decision to give Israel $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an OPEC oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies.
This statement is yet another gem that its naivity for authors of such calliber is simply shocking. Firstly, the reason that the oil embargo was applied by the Arab oil producing states was because of massive American airlifts of military equipment to the Israelis just like the Russians were doing with the Egyptians.
Secondly, OPEC didn’t impose embargo’s on oil but only Arab oil producing nations.Lastly, the embargo was placed only on the US and not on ‘Western Economies’.
Surely professors in the field of international studies know that there is a difference between OPEC and oil producing Arab states,
a huge difference and also must know about the machination by the Arab states with regards to Yom Kippur War. Like for example, the war was started by Egypt’s sneak attack on the Israelis while the peace settlements was still going on after the 1967 war in the UN.
Also the results of this war which the authors claim as ‘costly’ for America to support Israel in fact worked in favor of the aggressors like Egypt and Syria with Israel’s withdrawal from the Sinai and returning to pre war borders. This however doesn’t carry much significance to the authors as they have concluded the results of the war before any actual study.
The oil embargo on the US was yet another tactic employed by Sadat to coerce America into forcing Israel to give up its claim over the disputed area of the West Bank. Such an embargo was premeditated by the Arabs and was NOT a reactionary measure as the authors would have us believe.
THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
Even if Israel was a strategic asset during the Cold War, the first Gulf War (1990-91) revealed that Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The United States could not use Israeli bases during the war without rupturing the anti-Iraq coalition, and it had to divert resources (e.g., Patriot missile batteries) to keep Tel Aviv from doing anything that might fracture the alliance against Saddam.
Or is it that the anti-Iraq coalition countries,[like Saudi Arabia -recognizes Israel, Jordan -recognizes Israel and Kuwait- at that time was itself was in no position to be choosy] were so against the idea of Israel participating that they threatened to back out from the fight even though Saddam was actively attacking them? To the reasonable and the initiated such arguments are dismal at best especially for alleged academicians.
Would we be biased in imagining that Israel was genuinely concerned about Iraq with Saddam Husseins unparalleled military build up & with Iraqi Sunni’s baying for Israeli blood, taking into account Iraq’s previous hostility towards Israel in general? Would it be wise on our part to forget that despite the ‘pro-Jewish’ lobbies apprehensions regarding the Iraqi build up, the USA didn’t act against Iraq until they attacked Kuwait and took over more than half of the world’s oil supplies, which are in OUR own interests?
Coming to the second sentence, this again is totally deceptive statement. Granted that the Palestinian terrorism is indeed a product of Israeli control of the West Bank but to claim that it is not random is absurd. Firstly, the very acts of terrorism that Palestinians terrorists have employed have been things like, shootouts, suicide bombings, rocket attacks of Jewish settlements etc all towards Israeli civilians and not directly on the IDF.
Though there have been attacks on IDF bases, the majority of attacks have been towards Israeli civilians with random acts of violence towards them. I am sure any reasonable person wouldn’t hesitate to call bus bombs, attacks of cafes and sporadic shoot-outs as “random” acts but unfortunately the authors of the study prefer to term these as ‘not random’ because that would make it easier to arrive at their conclusion.
THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
…..saying that Israel and the United States are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: rather, the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around………..
There is no question, for example, that many al Qaeda leaders, including bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians…….
This statement makes up one of the central argument against the pro-Israel stance of the US. Granted that many terrorist do find US support to Israel to be point of contention between the United States and the Arab World. But terrorism directly against America which is a very recent phenomena (started in the 90’s) while compared to the US-Israel relationship (goes back to the late 60’s). To say that American support to Israel is a main cause for the terrorist movement against the United States would be to say that the Arabs were either unaware or not concerned about the US-Israel relationship for nearly 30 years.
Or that America’s insistence on Israel to grant autonomy to the PA, the sign peace accords with Arafat in the 1990 and the PA in 2000 or America generous aid to the PA(BTW America is the largest contributor of aid to the PA ) are against the interests of the Palestinians and the Arabs in general.
This however defies logic, as the above have only improved the lives and the standing of the PA and have helped expedite the peace process.
The authors go on to claim that Israel treats its Arab citizens as second class and thus is at odds with American values of equality and justice for all. But this is yet again far from the truth as, not only are the Arabs citizens given equal rights and privileges but they are also have reserved seats allotted to them in the Kessnet apart from the right to own land, buy property and practice their religion freely without persecution unlike anything that is possible in the middle east. But I wont deny that there is indeed massive discrimination against Israeli arabs by the Israeli government and its jewish citizens.
Also it is claimed that Israeli citizen ship is solely by blood kinship but this is again incorrect as according the Israeli Govt. :
Acquisition of Israeli Nationality
Citizenship may be acquired by:
*Birth
*The Law of Return
*Residence
*Naturalization
The authors conclude their argument against the democratic credentials of Israel by claiming that Israel doesn’t give Palestinians proper ‘political rights’ when they have conducted two elections and have authority over the West Bank and Gaza which Israel has allowed them to form. P
lus Israel also has been a major donor of aid to the Palestinians and has supported their attempts at democracy along with the international community.
Prime Minister Golda Meir famously remarked that “there was no such thing as a Palestinian,”
In addition, Washington provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the United States has vetoed 32 United Nations Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel, a number greater than the combined total of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members.7
I mean, if I who has little academic standing in international relations or world history could attempt to refute their study then surely a qualified academician could easily shred apart the study. Why this has not happened and why have the authors, who are important academicians in their own right, come out with such sloppy scholarship is beyond me ? Its almost like a conspiracy.
Originally posted by Malichai
It was not their intent to write a historical study of the 73 war. They never said they did not know the things you laid out. And nothing you said disputes the part you quoted.
Willing or not the results were that Israel received Nixons backing with both millitary and political aide.
The "$2.2 billion in emergency military aid" was airlifted to Israel. How did you dispute the statement? You confirmed it.
The embargo was against America, the Netherlands, Portugal, Rhodesia, and South Africa. But thats not all they did. The accompanying cuts in production raised the price worldwide. Source
en.wikipedia.org...
Of course [the world price of oil] is going to rise," the Shah told the New York Times in 1973. "Certainly! And how...; You [Western nations] increased the price of wheat you sell us by 300 %, and the same for sugar and cement...; You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, redefined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid to us...; It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say 10 times more."
Source
- Sept. 15, 1973 - The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) declares a negotiating front, consisting of the 6 Persian Gulf States, to pressure for price increases and an end to support of Israel, based on the 1971 Tehran agreement.
- Oct. 6 - Egypt and Syria attack Israel on Yom Kippur, starting the fourth Arab-Israeli War.
- Oct. 8–10 - OPEC negotiations with oil companies to revise the 1971 Tehran price agreement fail.
- Oct. 16 - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, and Qatar unilaterally raise posted prices by 17 % to $3.65 a barrel and announce production cuts.
- Oct. 17 - OAPEC oil ministers agree to use oil as a weapon to punish the West for its support of Israel in the Arab-Israeli war. They recommend an embargo against unfriendly states and mandate a cut in exports.
- Oct. 19 - Saudi Arabia, Libya and other Arab states proclaim an embargo on oil exports to the United States.
- Oct. 23–28 - The Arab oil embargo is extended to the Netherlands.
- Nov. 5 - Arab producers announce a 25 % (global)output cut. A further five percent cut is threatened.
- Nov. 23 - The Arab embargo is extended to Portugal, Rhodesia, and South Africa.
- null
And for six years Israel occupied Arab land including the millions of people living there. They were liberating their poeople and their land.
It was costly to the US. If the Arabs were the aggressors its only because Israel invaded in a Sneak Attack in the 67 war and took the land that the Arabs were trying to take back.
By pre-war borders do you mean pre-67? Israel did NOT withdraw from Gaza, the West Bank, or the Golon Heights. And again, its not meant to be a historical paper. Not including it does not mean they excluded it.
You say it as if it were a bad thing from their point of view. Millions of Arabs, and Arab lands were taken by a hostile nation. Before the 67 war the West Bank did not belong to Israel, and Israel refused to assimillate the people.
If America were not supporting this we would not have been on their list of 'enemy nations'. The reason why they imposed the embargo was not their point, but the reason why America was on the receiving end.
For sending a couple of Patriot missile batteries to Israel, in exchange for Israel’s marked pacifism here despite being attacked repeatedly by Iraqi-Scuds despite no provocation on its part? Can we truly call this Israeli attitude a burden for the US ?
It was a political and financial burden, and it was a burden on the military because Patriots that should have been defening our troops were defending Israel instead.
The reasons you state only show Israel to be an even greater burden.
After taking Kuwait Iraq controled aroun 20% of the worlds oil reserves, not 50%.
That does not mean it is random. They always claim that attacks are retaliation for something Israel does.
On the contrary they are well planned out perposful desperate actions. A Palestinian does not wake up in the morning and say 'Gee, I think I'll go blow myself up in a shopping mall today'.
They were very aware of it but apparently had decided against violent action.
There were never any peace accords. Peace means a pacific settlement which has not been reached.
How has America expedited the peace process? Foot dragging would be a kind term. America alone has stood against the entire world denying a solution.
So the authors say Israel discriminates against the Arab Israelies, and you say its far from the turth, but you don't deny that there is massive discrimination?
The Israeli interim constitution refers to Israel as a Jewish State. This has many implications. While it does not exclude non-Jews it does not serve them either.
Source
Let us take for example, hundreds of Vietnamese boat people, some of them rescued on the high seas by Israeli freighters and brought to Israel, were granted full citizenship.
Israeli immigration laws, despite the way you make it sound, are highly racist
.. Citizenship be residence applies to those who were in Israel from it inception to 1949[?].... All others [very few] must go through the naturalization process and get approval from the foreign ministry.
Biased to the core it is.
Elections do not equate to democracy. Sovereignty is required and Israel has denied this to the Palestinians for over 40 years. What good does it do to elect people when a government that does not represent you is maintaining a military occupation over your territory?
To the best of my knowledge Israel has not given any aide to the Palestinians, and has done everything they could to get other aide to end.
If not Palestine what was it called from 1920-1948?
There was a nation called Palestine, and it was Arab Majority. It was not Sovereign, but it did exist. Even the Jews were palestinians then.
The really difficult parts were skipped right over like this.
In addition, Washington provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the United States has vetoed 32 United Nations Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel, a number greater than the combined total of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members.7
This alone is undisputed, and the single greatest example of the power of the pro-Israel lobby.
The RESULTS are ignored, and their spin on the history gets the focus when it is only included to keep the timeline straight.
Rather than attacking the foundations you sniped at the edges which is to be expected.
Could it be because their conclusions are correct? If it were so easy to refute you would find refutaions everywhere. Instead they are reduced to linking them to Anti-Semites which is the last straw of a defeated argument.
It is well known that the arab in Israel are infact of Syrian ancestry and have little or no connection with the state of Egypt despite their alacrity for war with Israel. Plus when the arabs lost the war in 1967, 56, 47 it would be imperative that all land gained by the victors would be their by the conventions of warfare.
What do imply by "interim", this is not Iraq to have an "interim" constitution ! You must be mistaken.
Also as for not serving non-Jews, you are wrong.
Jewish Virtual Library
Israel does not have a written constitution, even though according to the Proclamation of Independence a constituent assembly should have prepared a constitution by October 1, 1948. The delay in the preparation of a constitution resulted primarily from problems that emerged against the background of the alleged clash between a secular constitution and the Halacha (the Jewish religious law).
THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel".
Originally posted by Malichai
THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
Originally posted by Seekerof
Malichai, you are aware that some of the functions of a constitution are filled by the Declaration of Establishment (1948), the Basic Laws of the parliament (Knesset), and the Israeli citizenship law?
Originally posted by Malichai
Could you please show us where the 'conventions of warfare' allow taking land in war? The 1949 Geneva conventions sewed up the loopholes in the Hague Conventions. I believe you are mistaken about this.
ANNEX TO THE CONVENTION REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND
Section III
MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE
Article 42
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Article 55
The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.
Originally posted by Malichai
A very fine reply from IAF101, and I would like to respond to it.
.............................................................
Originally posted by Malichai
Actually its only a Declaration of Establishment although many refer to is as a Constitution. Israel has no constitution, and is in violation of its founding document for failing to produce one. Like in Iraq an interim constitution led to an elected government tasked with creating a constitution, and presenting it to the people for ratification.
Originally posted by IAF101
Plus when the arabs lost the war in 1967, 56, 47 it would be imperative that all land gained by the victors would be their by the conventions of warfare.
Originally posted by Deep_Blue
Oh I forgot USA fought bravely to liberate Kuwait back then. Hitler invaded France so the German should have been allowed to keep France (and most of Europe) according to the Law of Jungle that you are advertising.
Originally posted by IAF101
Well, I'm not aware of any ZogZog
Originally posted by IAF101
Plus when the arabs lost the war in 1967, 56, 47 it would be imperative that all land gained by the victors would be their by the conventions of warfare.