Israeli agenda behind the "War on Terror". "US professors accused of being liars and bigots over

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Guardian headline on the "Jewish Lobby" study by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer.


www.guardian.co.uk...

"Stephen Walt, the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and John Mearsheimer, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, published two versions of the essay, the Israel Lobby, in the London Review of Books and on a Harvard website."


The only version of the document I found is located here;

ksgnotes1.harvard.edu...$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf

Needless to say the only source reference I managed to locate came from a non-English news sourse.

It's a 82 page document, 42 of which is the body and 40 pages listing the 211 endnotes of references and sourser.

The essay focuses on the fact that the "War on Terror" is a Zionist/Neo Conservative agenda of Israels domination in the Middle East, outlining the history of coordinated corruption campaign of the American society, through political, legal, educational, economic and public opinion manipulation, and the use of US Armed Forces.

I have read the essay, cross referenced the endnotes, found no fallacy in either the topic of the issue, nor in supporting facts and references.

As outlined in the document, the fallout to such document was a completely predictable variable, and all statements made to the contrary are riddled with bios, fallacy, character assassination, threats, etc. All as expected.

A predicted and anticipated repercussion to Prof Walt;

"Soon after the publication of the article it was announced that Prof Walt would step down from his job as academic dean at the end of June. However, the Kennedy School and Prof Walt's colleagues said that the move had long been planned."

I have no doubt it was in fact planned, considering the state of the current reality and the focus point of the article.

The article, the study, whatever one wishes to call it, clearly identifies the agenda of war proponents, and slanderers of its opponents, responses of which leave no doubt in ones alliance.

Being of neutral political, religious and racial standing, I strongly support and applaud the initiative of Mr. Walt and Prof Mearsheimer, and find their logic to be free of hidden agendas.

Edit: Spelling. dang it.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by iskander]

[Mod Edit: External quote tags. - Jak]

[edit on 2/4/06 by JAK]




posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   
In another thread an Israeli soldier had stated that they should kick out all the Palestinians and put them behind the wall...3 more posts later and he replies to a member that was being critical 'I can tell you don't like Jews"


Why is it if you are critical of a countries Politics that immediately you are against their religion?



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I haven't had a chance to read the entire thing, but for those of you who haven't noticed, I LOVE a good debate. I'm planning to compose a quite large, quite well documented response. Expect it to be finished within the month.

The first few pages are rather unimpressive. The underlying point of US Support for Israel is clear, documented, and incontrovertable. The conclusions built thereupon, that Israel is the primary beneficiary, to the exclusion of the US, seems unlikely to be well substantiated. I have already begun to identify failures to acknowledge relevant facts and even a blatant post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy in relation to the effects of US policy.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
In another thread an Israeli soldier had stated that they should kick out all the Palestinians and put them behind the wall...3 more posts later and he replies to a member that was being critical 'I can tell you don't like Jews"


Why is it if you are critical of a countries Politics that immediately you are against their religion?




The article covers the tactic of silencing any criticism of Israel by labeling anyone doing so an Anti-Semite. Again, as mentioned in the article, it's only a tool that has been used by all cultures through history, "if you're not with us, you're against us".

As to the Israeli soldier and his opinions, they're his. My old friend went to Israel and volunteered to serve as an IDF paratrooper. He was on active duty. Two months before the end of his tour of duty, he requested and received an honorable discharge. Upon his return to US, he began working in the emergency room as a mail nurse, while attending medical college studding to become a surgeon.

After his military experience in various hot zones, his was so committed to becoming a doctor in order to save lives, it outweighed his commitment to a relationship he was involved in at the time. In order to commit all of his efforts to his studies, he terminated the relationship. She was a sweet girl, all of our friends liked her very much, yet we all understood that considering what he went through, it was his choice.

His view on the Palestinian situation mirrors one presented in the study.

But considering the "Effective IMMEDIATELY" thread;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I ask to focus on the facts presented in the study, and not the controversial aspect of it.

Considering the wealth of end-notes provided, there is a whole lot more to learn then what was covered.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The first few pages are rather unimpressive. The underlying point of US Support for Israel is clear, documented, and incontrovertable. The conclusions built thereupon, that Israel is the primary beneficiary, to the exclusion of the US, seems unlikely to be well substantiated. I have already begun to identify failures to acknowledge relevant facts and even a blatant post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy in relation to the effects of US policy.


Not defending Walt and Mearsheimer, per se', but being I do International Relation studies (International Conflict Resolution and Security)--on a high level--keep in mind that both are international relations/affairs scholars. I mention this simply because the both may be making assertions that come from an international relations studies perspective or spectrum, in respect to foreign policy decisions, etc., which they do cover in small detail.

Having said that, and having read the longer version of their working paper released by Harvard Kennedy School, I am of the belief that the paper contains an adequate and outright amount of half-truths, misconceptions, and misrepresentations that are undoubtedly uncharacteristic for such astute individuals in their respective academic fields of study. Further, most of what they have asserted in the form of half-truths, misconceptions, and misrepresentations 'fail the test', in respect to academic integrity and honest research, as well as not being balanced. In agreement, the unnamed gentleman that handles the first below linked site, agrees.

Further on this can be found here:
Stephen Walt's War with Israel
Will the real John Mearsheimer please stand up?

Furthermore, bear in mind that both are anti-war, in respect to the Iraq War, hence their stipulating that Israel was behind the US invading Iraq.
"An unnecessary war," Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2003









seekerof

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I haven't had a chance to read the entire thing, but for those of you who haven't noticed, I LOVE a good debate. I'm planning to compose a quite large, quite well documented response. Expect it to be finished within the month.

The first few pages are rather unimpressive. The underlying point of US Support for Israel is clear, documented, and incontrovertable. The conclusions built thereupon, that Israel is the primary beneficiary, to the exclusion of the US, seems unlikely to be well substantiated. I have already begun to identify failures to acknowledge relevant facts and even a blatant post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy in relation to the effects of US policy.


That's the spirit!

I grew up on debates. A kind of required education in my family.

My grandpa used to say stuff like;

"Watch out for men with clean hands and dirty shovels."

and

"Digging for the truth gets the dirt under your finger nails, but out of your soul."

and even something like this;

"Don't sit a chess player at a card table unless he's the one who fixed the deck."

Love the man, God rest his soul.

Know what I mean



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Having said that, and having read the longer version of their working paper by Harvard Kennedy School, I am of the belief that the paper contains an adequate and outright amount of half-truths, misconceptions, and misrepresentations that are undoubtedly uncharacteristic for such astute individuals in their respective academic fields of study. Further, most of what they have asserted in the form of half-truths, misconceptions, and misrepresentations 'fail the test', in respect to academic integrity and honest research, as well as not being balanced. In agreement, the unnamed gentleman that handles the first below linked site, agrees.

Further on this can be found here:
Stephen Walt's War with Israel
Will the real John Mearsheimer please stand up?

Furthermore, bear in mind that both are anti-war, in respect to the Iraq War, hence their stipulating that Israel was behind the US invading Iraq.
"An unnecessary war," Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2003

seekerof

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Seekerof]



Hi seeker,

and let the mudslinging begin!

Yet again, as asked for in Springers "Effective IMMEDIATELY" post, as I have made my best effort to point out, let's be respectful of our gracious host, and lets NOT.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Again, I respectfully request that personal opinions regarding authors and forum members, characterisations, slander, bias, (including any and all references to outside sources of such) >etc< will be kept out of this discussion. Feel free to disagree, but in a constructive, literate manner, so please keep finger pointing and other schoolyard nonsense OUTSIDE. Thank you all very much.

The focus point are facts presented.

Vagabond is taking an absolutely correct approach and I'm looking forward to his findings.

Moving on.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Actually, just to make sure, in order to avoid further unnecessary complication and "loop hole" debate and false authority syndrome referencing, again I ask that if substantiates his/her opinions by referencing an outside souse, please check that the source is free of bias and other agendas.

For example, unless someone is deliberately attempting to derail this debate, in order to remain unbiased, it is very easy for some one to run a quick check and confirm associations and political motivations of the reference used.

This one is under the very noble, patriotic web adorers AmericanThinker, implied impartiality, etc

www.americanthinker.com...

Let's take the author Ed Lasky (MBA degree from the Kellogg School of Management.), and quickly look up if he might have a agenda in discrediting the study in question.

www.isranet.org...

If need more, please feel free to continue your own search from here;

www.americanthinker.com...

And if satisfied, make a note and disregard similar notions in the future.

I mean let us all be careful here, it is indeed a sensitive topic, and if certain people either purposefully or carelessly wonder on thing ice, it will sabotage the good motives of debate for all of us.

Thank you all for your consideration.


Edit:Just to be diligent, an addition.

www.camera.org...

CAMERA is specifically referenced in the study, and one only has to read the study to learn what type of activities CAMERA is engaged in.

Unfortunately this leads either to questions of SeekerOfs motives, or lack of diligence on his part.

Yet again, since the focus point of this post is the topic of the study, I will again ask forum members to do their best and not create situation which present such questions of bias.

Let us all keep it clean, please, thank you.

[edit on 2-4-2006 by iskander]

Mod Edit: Fixed Link.

[edit on 2/4/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Actually, just to make sure, in order to avoid further unnecessary complication and "loop hole" debate and false authority syndrome referencing, again I ask that if substantiates his/her opinions by referencing an outside souse, please check that the source is free of bias and other agendas.

"...false authority syndrome referencing...

iskander, not busting on you here, but you got to be kidding me.
iskander, there is no true, neutral, unbiased, or agenda free source, not even an academic source, especially when it deals with Israel--there is only a pro and an anti, one side/position or another, and be assured that Walt and Mearsheimer are presenting an "anti," being contrary to everything that you are stipulating that you do not want: bias and agenda.


If we were to get your permission to post what you ask, there would be no permission getting cause there would be no sources to submit, other than what suits you, that would pass the iskander please-check-that-the-source-is-free-of-bias-and-other-agendas.


If I had posted sources promoting what you or they believed, you would have nothing to say about SOURCES, BIAS, and AGENDAS, correct?

Case in point:

Originally posted by iskander
Being of neutral political, religious and racial standing, I strongly support and applaud the initiative of Mr. Walt and Prof Mearsheimer, and find their logic to be free of hidden agendas.

Ironic that you say such--in bold above--and yet, when sources are presented countering your or their stance or position or take, you then post up some 'reminding' diatribe stating:


...by referencing an outside souse, please check that the source is free of bias and other agendas.

Further ironic that you say such, when it is plain as day that what Walt and Mearsheimer wrote was baised and agenda-driven. The irony expands when you then link to their writing, contrary to your own directive, again, because their writing is indeed biased and agenda-ridden, no matter the amount of "logic" you saw in it. Did you source verify them, as well? Me'thinks not. Even academia is not free from such things, again, Walt and Mearsheimer included. Stop deluding yourself, for it is evident that you indeed agree with their "logic," bias, and agenda.




Unfortunately this leads either to questions of SeekerOfs motives, or lack of diligence on his part.

My motives are clear and self-evident.
Further, my due diligence provided adequate proofs and evidences to indicate that indeed, you, as with Walt and Mearsheimer, are biased and having an agenda, all given under the guise of academia and "being of neutral political, religious and racial standing".
Moving on though....







seekerof

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskanderHi seeker,
and let the mudslinging begin!

Yet again, as asked for in Springers "Effective IMMEDIATELY" post, as I have made my best effort to point out, let's be respectful of our gracious host, and lets NOT.


Iskander, I'm not coming down on you, but I want to sort of clarify the rules to the best of my understanding.
Seeker, not unlike myself, can be aggressive, but his post was well within the rules. I saw no mudslinging. I saw a concise explanation of his views, which are opposed to the findings of this paper.
He was on topic, he didn't attack you, he didn't even come down on the paper very hard. He even put in a mild qualifier against my initial response to the paper.

Even though we quarrel, we're all ATSers here. He wave our differing opinions, but we're all here to Deny Ignorance. Don't see Seeker as an adversary coming to sling mud at you. See him as an intellectual challenge. If you feel that he's cutting loose on you in an unruly manner, you can disengage or complain to a mod, but try to give him the benefit of the doubt unless he's blatantly violating T&C.

When he's on topic and not attacking anybody, he's within the rules.


Again, I respectfully request that personal opinions regarding authors and forum members, characterisations, slander, bias, (including any and all references to outside sources of such) >etc< will be kept out of this discussion.


Seeker's comments weren't slander, and they were not about the authors. He explained that he's read the paper and gave his opinion of its content, with the added context of who wrote it in a non-abusive manner. That's legit. Talking about the authors in a respectful manner is acceptible. Suppose that the paper had been about Al Qaida's aims. Whether it was written by George W. Bush, Osama Bin Laden, or a UN commission on terrorism would be highly relevant, would it not?


Vagabond is taking an absolutely correct approach and I'm looking forward to his findings.


I do appreciate the nod. Don't see me as coming down on you. Also I hope you're not expecting me to be kid-gloves in the least when I put my response together.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Hi Vagabond,

I fully understand and appreciate your comments. Please understand that my comments on bios and slander were not attributed to the issue of personal attacks, but to referencing sources that do. I'm sure you agree that while one can conduct him/her self polity, they can opt to slander by proxy.

Please note that I have intended to approach, reference or respond to SeekerOf's comments on a personal bases, but only outlined the required boundaries of this debate.

I did not take his comments personally, because as I requested, in this debate there should be no place for individualistic opinions, but only a defined course of fact finding.

By virtue I have no interest in reporting anything to anybody, and always hope for mutual understanding.

I made a clear, concise request based not on my personal reservations, but on the guidelines outlined by Springer in his "Effective IMMEDIATELY" post, and again plead that the participants of this DEBATE respect such an approach, and not twist it into a personal argument.

If certain members chose not to abide by these clearly outlined guidelines, from here on forth let it be known that their agenda lies in derailing this debate, and be regarded accordingly by parties interested in conducting the debate on the grounds established.

To further clarify the purpose of the debate, its goal is to asses the factual validity of presented study by scrutinising the body of references included with the document, and cross referencing them to points made.

Impartiality of such an assessment must be secured by the investigative process based on the factual data.

Upon examination of collected evidence, participants of the debate are free to form their own conclusion to wherever the supporting facts prove or disprove the validity of the study.

Good will, and good luck.

P.S. Please excuse my misspellings.

[Mod Edit: Removed unnecessary full quote of preceding post. - Jak]

[edit on 2/4/06 by JAK]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:13 AM
link   
To clarify my intent of outlining the guidelines for this debate, I do so in order to prevent the use of various manoeuvres which are used to make an argument with out the support of substantiated facts, not to set the environment in which only my personal views points can be valid.

Considering that the intended purpose of this post is debate and not argument, I believe my approach to be sound.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
iskander,
I will post my reply in the next few days. I am a bit busy right now. I have prepared a little reply to the paper but I am only 1/3 of the way through 'paper' so it will take a little time.

In general it is obvious the a PAC (IPAC in this case) is a political organization that chooses to further it cause. IPACs activities can be construed as against US interest at times but this is expected. It is the US that needs to watch over its interests.
There is a political agenda of some people from all walks of life to see Israel side-lined in US foreign policy. This 'paper' comes to justify that stance but it is not accurate or honest in its bearings. I will try to bring up these points in my next posts.

I hope you and dana2006 will be there.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I tried to piece together a rebut for the first two sections and it is quite lenghtly - Here it goes:

Due to the size of the document and the numerous issues brought up (either with citations or without) I would like to rebut this document in a phased manner starting with the first two issues The Great Benefactor and A strategic liability.

The Great Benefactor
The paper makes the usual argument put up by Arabs and Israel-bashers relating to the US financial support to Israel that started in 1975 and continues till this day.
This is obviously true Israel but not as presented in the paper. The paper, although issued on March 2006, conveniently omits information the fact that aid to Israel has been dwarfed by aid to rebuilding Iraq for the last 3 years (since 2003). This trend is clear since Iraq will become a surrogate child of the US if the US plans come to fruition and will replace Israel as “the great benefactor”.
In addition, the paper does not mention the exorbitant aid package Egypt receives although it is rarely in line with US policies.
Historically US military aid to Israel started around 1974 following the 1973 war to counter Soviet involvement in the middle east (a clear US interest). Granted Israel has become an industrial nation with a high per capita income what was not pointed out though in the paper is the financial aid to Israel has significantly reduced since 2000 and is currently at $240 million with a clear downward trend.

The Lavi project although introduced Israel to US technology and made the US foot the bill for it was not a plane the the US had no need for but posed a threat on US interests which is why it was canceled. The LAVI reached the point in which it completed with the F-16.

The US has a direct interest in keeping Israel strong and technologically at the cutting edge. That is also the reason why every once in a while there are controversies regarding Israel's dealings with China – which always results in Israel reneging on agreements with China. Incidentally Israel has good relations with China which is also a US interest.
Israel uses most of US military aid on US products which supports US industries another US interest.

Regarding intelligence provided to Israel – well that is what friends do they share intelligence. Fact is that Israel provides tremendous amounts of intel to the US as well. All those Israel-Bashers who cited the book “by way of deception” by Victor Ostrovsky must have read what he said about the abundance of Intelligence Israel provided the US.

Regarding US assistance in the UN. Have you ever witnessed a more crooked group of politicians as in the UN – The food for oil scandal (exceeding $21 billion), the UN involvement in the killing and kidnapping of 3 Israeli soldiers on the Lebanese border AFTER Israel withdrew from Lebanon, the UNs consistent one sided condemnation of Israel while disregarding the aggressions of the other sides – As an example the condemnations of Israel during the Al-aqtsa Intifadeh which never condemned the Palestinians for bombing school buses, restaurants, temples and cafes even though it was Arafat's Fatah party who took responsibility for it. Therefore it is good that the US exists to BALANCE the inherent corruption and biased view there is in the UN. Hell it took the UN 60 years to recognize the Holocaust as remembrance event even though a solidarity day with the Palestinian people existed since the 70s. The UN condemnation of Israel is a hypocritical joke – No other country under the terror aggressions that Israel suffered at the hands of the Arabs since the early 1900s (before Israels establishment) would have acted differently.
The security council consists of China (harvesting organs from convicts, Tienemin Square, host of other atrocities), Russia (the countless massacres of Chechnians, destruction of Grosnia, the occupation of Afghanistan, shooting down of Korean airlines in the 1980s and a countless other atrocities), England (occupation of Ireland, beatings of Iraqis) and the US being the permanent members while the rest are in rotation (except Israel). I think that a better moral standing is required by the Security council before it can condemn any nation. It is a political forum of morally questionable states. This mechanism is not a mechanism that can be used as a forum for bashing any nation who is politically weak. The Arabs have the Muslim votes in the UN (over 50 countries), third world countries that are allied or dependent on oil rich Arab countries (additional dozen countries) and the condescending European who feel high and mighty by their moral perspective who are only now learning the error of their ways thanks to the Islamification of their respective countries.

Regarding Israeli settlement policies and the conflicts it causes with the US policy – As far as I recall, Israel is an independent state. Settlements have been an Israeli interest and therefore it is Israel that decides what to do within their domain. The issue of settlements is an issue that is debated in negotiations with the Palestinians. Since the Palestinians chose a path of war then the settlement issue will not be resolved by negotiation but probably based on Israeli unilateral actions which will include dismantling some settlement, moving others into other settlements and annexing settlements defined by Israel as necessary for Israeli interest. This is an issue which the Palestinians will loose out on because of their decision to abandon the peace process and elect HAMAS.

A strategic liability

The paper states that during the cold war Israel was a VERY valueable asset to the US but after the cold-war ended Israel has stopped being a US asset. Do you honestly think the cold war era is over? I was told by a Russian friend of mine that if I think the cold war is over I am a fool. You know what he is right. Putin is consistently stabbing the US in the back with Iran as he did with Iraq and Syria and that is what WE the commoners know.
REgardless, assuming the cold war IS over - Do you have any idea how much intelligence Israel provides the US? Did you know what covert operations Israel performs with the US and for the US? Did you know that Israel in desert storm provided the US with huge amounts of intelligence both before and during the war and also was covertly deployed there? Do you know that Israel provided the US with warfare tactics and counter terror tactics as a result of Israel's painful experiences in those fields? Do you know that the FBI uses Israeli hand-to-hand combat techniques? Did you know that Israeli pilots would train US pilots in their 'top-gun' facilities? Did you know that the Patriot missiles which the paper said that the US needed to “divert resources” to Israel's defense was actually an untested system that proved highly inefficient in the war. It was actually field tested at Israel's expense – The patriot actually increased the amount of debris the fell out of the sky causing more damage. The only true benefit was that it served as a psychological security blanket for the Israelis who were very appreciative of the gesture.

Saying that Israel “stayed on the sidelines” and was a “strategic burden” in the Gulf wars are inaccurate. Israel's very existence provides the US with docking stations, back-up supply reserves (huge US bases located in Israel with stockpiles of military gear) in a troublesome location.
It is summed up nicely in - Jewishvirtuallibrary.com



Since then, U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation has continued to evolve. Today, these strategic ties are stronger than ever. To cite a few examples:
Because of its strategic location and its unquestionable reliability as an ally, the U.S. has found Israel to be an ideal place for training, maintenance, and prepositioning of material and supplies.
More than 300 Department of Defense personnel travel to Israel every month.
Joint military exercises are regularly held. Israel has had more extensive naval exercises with the U.S. than any other country in the Middle East and has conducted training exchanges with special American anti­terrorist forces.
Israel's Haifa port has routinely been declared to be the best and most cost-effective facility of its kind in the region by senior Navy officials. Haifa receives approximately 40 U.S. Navy ships each year, hosting thousands of U.S. sailors and Marines.
Israel also makes other facilities available to the U.S. including hospitals, training areas, and bombing ranges in the Negev Desert. And most important, Israel is the only country in the area that the U.S. can truly rely on to provide open and unhindered access to its ports and facilities.
A Joint Anti-Terrorism Working Group was created.
A hotline was established between the Pentagon and the Israeli Defense Ministry.
A study found that Israel can help the United States in 13 of the 21 critical technological areas that the Pentagon has identified as vital to keeping American defenses strong. The U.S. continues to fund the research and development of Israeli weapons systems and military equipment including the Arrow missile, the Tactical High Energy Laser, the Barak ship self-defense missile system, Reactive Armor Tiles, Crash-Attenuating Seats, the Have-Nap missile and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

Israel's assistance in the 'war on terror' is obvious for people who are not agenda driven but are balanced. Israel provides a plethora of intelligence on terrorist organizations and their modus operandi and provides counter-terror consultation and training (as in Iraq to the Kurds). Israel is at the combat forefront with the Palestinian factions (terrorists by definition).

In contrast to the paper I think that the above substantiates the fact that Israel IS a strategic value to the US.

The argument in the paper actually tries to make a point that Israel's very existence is the bone of contention with the Arabs and as a result US support of Israel “complicated America's relations with the Arab world”. So what? The only 'good' the Arabs can provide the US is OIL! Where would the Arab world be today without their oil? The Arab countries are a collection of dictatorships with a backward warmongering culture. In the large portion current Arab contribution to the world's scientific community has been minimal if at all existent.
If the US needs to abandon Israel in order to improve its economic standing by brown-nosing the Arabs and allowing the Arabs to eradicate the Jewish country what will that say about the US? If the Arabs are bigots and strive for a Jewish free middle-east should the US support that? This is a morally bankrupt argument.
This whole Arab concept is one of Pan-Arabism which is fascist in nature. Therefore the problem is not Israel but the intolerance of the Arab nations.

There is not a bigger lie or a slanted view of the conflict when it is states

Palesitnians terrorism is not a random violence directed against Israel or “the west“; it is largely a response to Israel's prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza

Really, oh scholarly geniuses? Is that why Israel was under constant terrorist attacks prior to Israel's acquisition of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967? During the OSLO peace process when Israel was withdrawing from these territories terrorist activities skyrocketed. Did the cross border attacks from Lebanon stop when Israel withdrew from Lebanon? NO – Did the cross border attacks from Gaza reduce when Israel withdrew from Gaza? NO - West Bank and Gaza are an excuse! What do you call a bombing of a bus, restaurant or a pub? It is random BY DEFINITION – Arabs and Palestinians dies as well from these attacks. Just last week 4 Beduin Arabs died from Palestinian artillery fire from Gaza. This argument should have drained a large portion of these academics' credibility.

The paper attempts to link Al-qaida's attack on the US to is support of Israel. What it fails to say is that although a small portion of Al-qaida interest is anti-Israeli a bulk of it is anti-US because of Saudi Arabia's (the country of Mecca and Medina) close ties with the US and the Saudi preference to work with the 'infidel's' rather than consolidate a Muslim army to push Sadaam out of Kuwait. US involvement in what Al-Qaida perceived as an internal Muslim issue and the continued presence of the US on Muslim lands (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Sudan – All countries in which US citizens were killed) is the bulk of the problem the Al-qaida has with the US.
The papers claim that

Washington would not be nearly as worried about Iran, Ba'thist Iraq, or Syria were it not closely tied to Israel.

is another fantasy-land claim. Ba'athist Iraq invaded Kuwait NOT Israel which resulted in its subsequent attack by the US. Iran has been involved in anti-US policies since the 70s which included large scale counterfeiting of US currency, assisting insurgent elements in Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorists organizations in Lebanon, training and backing the bombers of the Khobar Tower in Saudi Arabia (1996), protecting Al-qaida members within their borders and probably using them for Iraqi insurgency. Finally Syria is on the US's @$#%-list for also allowing Mujhadin fighters into Iraq through Syria, assassinating Harriri in Lebanon and assisting insurgency in Iraq.
Israel has nothing to do with this. Although the agenda-driven paper seems to make a forceful attempt at doing this with no references whatsoever.

Regarding Israel's nuclear arsenal – note that since Israel's nuclear arsenal has become public knowledge (in the mid 80s) Israel was involved in less wars. A nuclear arsenal provides for a deterrent and therefore provides for a certain kind of stability. An Islamic bomb though is different since it is feared that it will become a Jihadist bomb not a tool for stability and deterrence.

I think that is enough for now.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   


Regarding Israeli settlement policies and the conflicts it causes with the US policy – As far as I recall, Israel is an independent state. Settlements have been an Israeli interest and therefore it is Israel that decides what to do within their domain.


I wish I had more time to address all you said, and I may write more later, but I could not let this statement stand without a reply.

The settlements were declared illegal by both The UN Security Council and International Court of Justice under the rules of The Fourth Geneva Convention of which Israel is a party.


Article 49

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.


Independent nation or not Israel does not have the right to transfer settlers to the occupied territories.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai
Independent nation or not Israel does not have the right to transfer settlers to the occupied territories.


First of all I have expressed my views regarding both the corrupt and politically motivated UN and the international courts as part of them. I can tell you my views on the issues:
I think that Israeli withdraw from the 'territories' should occur under an agreement with the palestinians that will end hostilities. A Palestinian entity without an army should be founded in terroritories decided between the sides to be the Palestinian entity. This will NOT include Palestinian control over the old city of Jerusalem or the cave of Patriarchs in Hebron - It will also not include the Jordan valley.
What must be remembered is that UN resolution 242 which the Palestinians USE relentlessly without knowing its meaning is that the 'territories' in question are 'disputed territories' and not 'occupied territories' and that its status must be resolved through negotiation. Even a full withdraw is not required by resolution 242 but from 'territories'.
The interpretation of 242 therefore becomes a problem Pro-Israeli groups would interpret it different from Pro-Palestinian groups but regardless, the wording was intended just as I mentioned above.
Legal opinions voiced on Israeli settlement activities only occured in the late 90s AFTER all of todays settlements have been established (GAZA has since been evacuted of it settlers and the areas were since used for launching missile attacks against Israel - Was a UN condemnation forthcoming against the Palestinians? - NO).
Moreover, 242 required all parties to cease beligerency and recognize each others right to exist.
Israel settlment activities, although controversial, is due to a lack of a negotiation partner for years after 242 was issued (1967). With this vacuum in place, the fact that still ARab countries did not recognize Israel's right to exist and a political shift within Israel - settlement activities expanded until the late 90s.
The UN and the international courts can babble all they want - they have consistently showed that they are pro-palestinian and impartial.
The 'international courts' have voiced their opinions and stated that 'It states that it is not convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives' although the security barrier has proven to be EXTREMELY effective against terrorism and would be even moreso if its course would have been more invasive into Palestinian territory (I cite the last terrorist attack in the settlement Kdumim which left 4 Israeli civilians 2 senior citizens and 2 teens dead).



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I would like to state that I'm still participating in this debate, and only awaiting for wider participation in order to keep it as debate, and avoiding from swaying towards argumentative exchanges.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Back in 2004 AIPAC offices were raided by the FBI and computers were confiscated from a key AIPAC employee regarding leaked classified documents concerning the US Policy on Iran. I never heard about this again and was curious if anything came of this and if it has any relation to whats going on today with American stance towards Iran. Was this their intention to incite something like this?

After reading this article I was curious as to what happened afterwards.
www.commondreams.org



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Well, it's certainly not the best-kept secret in the world that the Israeli's and the Iranians worked together to egg the U.S. on in the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003.

The Israeli's must've thought it was their birthday and Christmas day rolled into one when Bush got into power. What better way to get rid of a troublesome neighbour, Iraq, than by getting the Americans to do it for you.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Back in 2004 AIPAC offices were raided by the FBI and computers were confiscated from a key AIPAC employee regarding leaked classified documents concerning the US Policy on Iran. I never heard about this again and was curious if anything came of this and if it has any relation to whats going on today with American stance towards Iran. Was this their intention to incite something like this?

After reading this article I was curious as to what happened afterwards.
www.commondreams.org


Funny you should ask today. New news about the espionage trial.

Judge in Israel Lobbyists' Trial Told Evidence 'Overwhelming'





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join