# The Israel Lobby and Foreign Policy



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

Now this is an interesting development. The current issue of the London Review of Books features an article co-authored by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt and entitled "The Israel Lobby." This article is a blistering assessment of the effect of Israeli influence on American foreign policy. Some excerpts:

"For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread Ã¢â‚¬ËœdemocracyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides."

"As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons Ã¢â‚¬â€œ which is obviously undesirable Ã¢â‚¬â€œ neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed, because the blackmailer could not carry out the threat without suffering overwhelming retaliation. The danger of a nuclear handover to terrorists is equally remote, because a rogue state could not be sure the transfer would go undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished afterwards. The relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the US to deal with these states. IsraelÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s nuclear arsenal is one reason some of its neighbours want nuclear weapons, and threatening them with regime change merely increases that desire."

"The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, Ã¢â‚¬Ëœyou canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ Or as Ariel Sharon once told an American audience, Ã¢â‚¬Ëœwhen people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them: Ã¢â‚¬Å"Help AIPAC.Ã¢â‚¬Â

You get the drift. The article may be accessed here:

The LRB piece is a condensed version of a much longer working paper made available on the website of the John F. Kennedy School Of Government at Harvard. It is available here:

The longer paper is fully sourced, and is even more blistering in its assessment of Israeli influence within the U.S. government. None of this is new, as readers of the sources cited in the footnotes are aware. However, to date, such blunt denunciations of the "The Israel Lobby" have been confined to analysts and advocates ignored by the mainstream propaganda organs, such as Chomsky, Said, Norman Finkelstein, Paul Findlay, and others. Mearsheimer and Walt are hardly such marginalized figures. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, no less, and the author, most recently, of the very well-received _The Tragedy of Great Power Politics_. Walt is the academic dean and the Robert and Renee Belfer professor of international affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School. This is as mainstream as it gets. Such an irruption of direct speech on this matter suggests rumblings in the ruling class over the current state of affairs, both at home and abroad. Of course, the condensed version of the paper was published in the LRB, not the NYRB, so the rumblings remain merely that. Still, Kuhn taught us that paradigm shifts occur abruptly, when circumstances compel a sudden break in previous modes of thought. Something very interesting indeed may be afoot. Time, as always, will tell.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

So, what else is new? Ya gotta hand it to the Israeli lobby, they're go-o-od! It's interesting that anytime a politician suggests a somewhat more evenhanded policy in such matters, their career tanks: As mild and centrist a figure as Senator Chuck Percy of Illinois was, once he did so, he was out of office at the next election! John Connally had excellent qualifications to run for president. He made that mistake in the 1980 election, and his candidacy never got off the ground. (A case of the post hoc fallacy? Maybe, maybe not.) It is interesting that Howard Dean in the last election again suggested we "think outside the box" on the matter of Israel-Palestine-Middle East policy, and almost immediately thereafter, his candidacy, which had seemed a shoe-in, went down the tubes! 

I am not implying there is any insidious "Protocols of Zion" type conspiracy here. This is all public knowledge. It's just a very good example of how a powerful, extremely well-funded pressure group can sway public policy.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Be it ultimately gainfull or hurtfull, The U.S.A.- Israel connection is largely based simply on our boasting the largest jewish population of any nation aside from Israel.The last two afghan jews left a few years back, even though they personally hate each other. Even Ethiopia's Children of Sheba left. Yet somehow the american melting pot has lots of matza balls floating prominently and permanently in our slum gullion.We certainly didn't draft the Balfour Declaration. The tragedy is simply two peoples and one land. Israel is a de Facto reality and has been for 50 years.Like it or not, I doubt Israel will see a second Diaspora. The question then, is simply what manner of Israel the world at large, their immediate and usually hostile nieghbors and Israeli's themselves want and need. Maybe our support and relationship need review. But then again, so does that of Israel's enemies and critics. Fail, and the suffering of all parties can only continue.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> So, what else is new? Ya gotta hand it to the Israeli lobby, they're go-o-od! It's interesting that anytime a politician suggests a somewhat more evenhanded policy in such matters, their career tanks: As mild and centrist a figure as Senator Chuck Percy of Illinois was, once he did so, he was out of office at the next election! John Connally had excellent qualifications to run for president. He made that mistake in the 1980 election, and his candidacy never got off the ground. (A case of the post hoc fallacy? Maybe, maybe not.) It is interesting that Howard Dean in the last election again suggested we "think outside the box" on the matter of Israel-Palestine-Middle East policy, and almost immediately thereafter, his candidacy, which had seemed a shoe-in, went down the tubes!
> 
> I am not implying there is any insidious "Protocols of Zion" type conspiracy here. This is all public knowledge. It's just a very good example of how a powerful, extremely well-funded pressure group can sway public policy.


This is all mentioned in the longer paper. What I find interesting is that figures like Mearsheimer and Walt would launch such a direct assault on the Israel lobby. It's one thing to argue against the Iraq adventure, as M & W did and continue to do; but it is another thing altogether for two establishment types to speak so plainly about such a heretofore sensitive, if not outright forbidden, subject. To me, this bespeaks dissatisfaction with the status quo among people who matter. As you note, it is simply not done for a congressman or woman - outside the Black Caucus - to speak out against Israeli policy, as it amounts to political suicide. If one starts hearing rumblings in Congress about the Israeli albatross - well, something's up.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Hmm, if we stop supporting a thriving, technologically-advanced, open-trading democracy which is surrounded by neighbors who make no secret of wanting to destroy it, those aggressive neighbors will all love us!

That has to be the wussiest argument ever.

*"Buy the best, and you will only cry once." - Chinese proverb*


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> 
> Hmm, if we stop supporting a thriving, technologically-advanced, open-trading democracy which is surrounded by neighbors who make no secret of wanting to destroy it, those aggressive neighbors will all love us!
> 
> ...


 Yes. It's no time to fiddle when the barbarians are at the gates.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

I think that some of you are under the illusion that if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were resolved then all would be well with the world. Not so. If Israel ceased to exist tomorrow the Islamists would turn their attention to Turkey or the Balkans. Let us remember that in his statement after 9-11 bin Laden called for the reconquest of Andalusia. I suppose that the sober minds among you are skeptical of that desire too.


Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

What makes me skeptical is the fact that Bin Laden is a wild extremist and that it is the policies of Bush that are drawing otherwise reasonable Muslims into the fight against the west.

Is it now that you say there are no reasonable muslims and that they all want to conquer our lands, rape our women and drink our babies blood? And that the women of Vancouver Island had better get their burquas ready?

------------------


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

GMAC,

You believe that reasonable Muslims would join the "fight against the West"? Interesting. I just thought you were foolish I didn't know you were a apologist for terrorism.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> GMAC,
> 
> ...


Foolish? Yes, depending on the circumstances.

Not foolish enough to think that young men will not stand up against aggression done to their land and people.

Wouldn't you?

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Re-reading this, I think I know the answer to my own question..........

Karl, you have heard the phrase _*chicken hawk*_, right?

------------------


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> 
> Hmm, if we stop supporting a thriving, technologically-advanced, open-trading democracy which is surrounded by neighbors who make no secret of wanting to destroy it, those aggressive neighbors will all love us!
> 
> ...


Of course, that's not the argument.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


GMAC,

Just like those fine Irish young men that you have critized in other fora. [xx(]


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

> quote:You believe that reasonable Muslims would join the "fight against the West"? Interesting. I just thought you were foolish I didn't know you were a apologist for terrorism.


Gmac - making more friends I see.....


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> So, what else is new? Ya gotta hand it to the Israeli lobby, they're go-o-od! It's interesting that anytime a politician suggests a somewhat more evenhanded policy in such matters, their career tanks: As mild and centrist a figure as Senator Chuck Percy of Illinois was, once he did so, he was out of office at the next election! John Connally had excellent qualifications to run for president. He made that mistake in the 1980 election, and his candidacy never got off the ground. (A case of the post hoc fallacy? Maybe, maybe not.) It is interesting that Howard Dean in the last election again suggested we "think outside the box" on the matter of Israel-Palestine-Middle East policy, and almost immediately thereafter, his candidacy, which had seemed a shoe-in, went down the tubes!
> 
> I am not implying there is any insidious "Protocols of Zion" type conspiracy here. This is all public knowledge. It's just a very good example of how a powerful, extremely well-funded pressure group can sway public policy.


This is really stretching it. A reader could find you may not be suggesting conspiracy, but directly related occurances. What one would likely find is that when a candidate becomes undisciplined on the campaign trail, their candidacy has either sunk or is in the process of doing so.

Dean was all over the map when making such comments. Though not the same scale, casually putting forth the notion of altering our Israeli stance during the recent period would have similarities to a candidate verberally questioning the reasoning of having troops in West Germany or our role in NATO during the cold war. Such messages signal uncertainty, and the American public does not care for uncertainty in foreign policy. These were second tier candidates, and much else was in play besides the Jewish lobby.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JRR_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by NewYorkBuck_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just continuing on my quest to spread enlightenment.

Sometimes the seeds fall on rocky ground......

------------------


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In the case of Dean and Conally, I may be guilty of the "post hoc" fallacy, as I myself suggest. As for Dean having been a "second tier" candidate, a lot of analysts and pundits thought he all but had the Democratic nomination locked up, I seem to recall, before his candidacy tanked. The case of Percy is different. A lot of Zionist money defnitely went into his defeat. My source for that was the L.A. Times, not "The Spotlight" (do they still publish that thing, I wonder?) or anything questionable like that. Maybe Paul Simon would have beaten Percy with the big bucks from the Israel-lovers, but their dough sure didn't hurt his campaign effort.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Karl your Iran posts are becoming something akin to a wounded animal biting itself in pain. You want some crusade to balance Jihad. If you study those wars, you will find Christians slaughtered and enslaved each other with great enthusiasm before even reaching the Holy Land. I believe it was Richard Couer de Lion who had another royal ignobly shoved into mud and later paid dearly with imprisonment and ransom. It would behoove you to stop acting so much like that you fear. That we have different opinions does not by rote decree make us any of the insults and slurs or less worthy citizens of our various nations. I would dearly love to personally drag Osama back to ground zero and decapitate him on the 6 o'clock news with a dull butter knife. That I do not feel your enthusiasm for making war on Iran is my earned right. I have a Monty Python Crusader set of armour. I'll even throw in a halved set of coconuts for anybody who wants to enlist tommorow and 'walk the walk' along with 'talking the talk.' Enough is enough.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> 
> Hmm, if we stop supporting a thriving, technologically-advanced, open-trading democracy which is surrounded by neighbors who make no secret of wanting to destroy it, those aggressive neighbors will all love us!
> 
> ...


I do believe this is the first time the phrase "wussiest" has been used among the boards. Well done, VS.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Certainly many did believe Dean had the nomination to lose. But I would argue that prospect worried the DNC far more than the Jewish lobby. Dean was fantastic at rallying left elements of the party with red-meat speeeches; he was horrible, though, when shoved to forefront of debate and dialogue. To this day he avoids free exchanges on Meet the Press and other outlets, and rarely goes head to head with his RNC counterpart. If I were betting on conspiracies, my wager would be on a political hit by Clinton loyalists and long-term Democratic interests who feared a Dean candidacy would make fools of the party.


----------



## doccol (Nov 13, 2003)

Wow, the Israeli government, like every other government in the world, has a lobby and to several academics in Britain, this is startling news. Quite a revelation there.

Blaming Israel for the problems in the middle east is like blaming a rape victim for wearing a provocative dress. It is a specious argument. There is not a single democracy surrounding Israel. In Jordan, there are more Palestinians than Jordanians, yet they have no direct legislative power (by the way there are also more Palestinians in Jordan than in Palestine and Israel put together--but the are denied proper citizenship). All of these kingdoms maintain a slight grasp on power by creating a demon: Israel. They use this demon to tell their well-educated, but ridiculously poor populace, which generally has nothing approaching what we would consider as human rights, if it weren't for this country and America, everything would be fine.

I have traveled countless times throughout the middle east and the one conclusion I have been able to draw is that these totalitarian regimes want nothing more than to hold onto power. Demonizing Israel deflects criticism. Israel and the Jewish lobby are no more important to US foreign policy than the soybean lobby and its calls to oppose Lula in Brazil. 

I recently had the pleasure of attending at lunch where Martin Indyck was speaking. A former ambassador to several countries in the middle east who speaks several variants of Arabic, he had the following suggestion for anyone who wants to understand what is going on there: Go see Syriana (I kid you not). I think this is a far better answer than reading the British press, which is notoriously biased (having been a writer for a very prestigious British magazine, I can affirm that from first hand experience).


----------



## FlatSix (Feb 23, 2005)

Tell me, ol' Yck:

What's it like to have your greatest accomplishment in life be *serving as the voice of anti-Semitism on a clothing forum?*

----------------------

"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## doccol (Nov 13, 2003)

```
What's it like to have your greatest accomplishment in life be serving as the voice of anti-Semitism on a clothing forum?
```
Now, now flat six. As a Jew who has at least 1/2 his family living in Israel, I don't think we can throw around the anti-semitism card just because Ymcbingo wants to point out an ahistorical view on Israeli/Palestine relations written by a couple of fairly well-known British lefties/palestinian apologists. A dislike of Israel and its policies, does not necessarily equate to anti-semitism.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> Tell me, ol' Yck:
> 
> What's it like to have your greatest accomplishment in life be *serving as the voice of anti-Semitism on a clothing forum?*


Old habits are hard to break. Although I swore off this forum because of time constraints, I dropped in to the site over the lunch hour, as Iâ€™ve been in the habit of doing, and came across this tasty little bit from Flatman. I weary of dealing with the low-grade morons, war-mongers, and assorted digital vermin who frequently post here; but given the nasty and ludicrous nature of Flatlineâ€™s snipe, Iâ€™ll saddle up one last time and ride into the fray.

So, Olâ€™ Flathead, hereâ€™s the deal: I defy you to find _any_ statement that Iâ€™ve made in _any_ post on this forum that is in _any_ way, shape, or form anti-Semitic. Any statement, in any post, at any time, on any subject. Youâ€™ll have no more success with this than you would have finding and producing evidence that Nicholas Kristof is an "enemy of this country" who "gives aid and comfort to the enemy." Youâ€™ll recall that after you made these absurd comments regarding Mr. Kristof, I publicly challenged you to support your comments with some - any - evidence; and I even directed you to the location of many of Mr. Kristofâ€™s archived columns to assist you in building your case. You declined to accept my challenge then, of course, as you will skulk off and avoid my challenge now. Apparently, during the decade that you toiled "as a third-rate pro cyclist" you had many a hard landing on the cross-bar, which inflicted damage to your person over and above the serious head injuries that typically come with the sport. However, if you grow a pair anytime soon, feel free to engage me on the subject of the â€œanti-Semiticâ€ content of my posts. I dare you.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by doccol_
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


doccol, you may wish to revisit my initial post on this topic. The authors of the LRB article and the JFK School paper are not "a couple of fairly well-known British lefties/palestinian apologists." They _are_ two members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment; which, of course, is the entire point of my initial post. Here is Walt's bio:

And here is Mearsheimer's:

It is the identity of the authors, and not the allegations in their paper, that is noteworthy. A quick run around the 'net will confirm this, as the buzz it is generating on websites and blogs has more to do with M & W's standing in the academic community than with the substance of their paper.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## doccol (Nov 13, 2003)

I stand corrected on the authors backgrounds. Interesting with CVs like that they were only able to get published in the London Review of Books.


----------



## FlatSix (Feb 23, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> So, Olâ€™ Flathead, hereâ€™s the deal: I defy you to find _any_ statement that Iâ€™ve made in _any_ post on this forum that is in _any_ way, shape, or form anti-Semitic. Any statement, in any post, at any time, on any subject.


This one's easy. The whole purpose of your post was to provide support for, and to direct people to, papers which, in your own words, provide a "blistering" critique of Israel and her foreign policy.

I don't know if you have noticed, but killing Jews is the primary pastime of the people whom your repeated posted articles, b**chy little comments, and snide reponse so eagerly support. If supporting people who have made killing Jews their business isn't anti-Semitism, what is?



> quote:Apparently, during the decade that you toiled "as a third-rate pro cyclist" you had many a hard landing on the cross-bar, which inflicted damage to your person over and above the serious head injuries that typically come with the sport. However, if you grow a pair anytime soon, feel free to engage me on the subject of the â€œanti-Semiticâ€ content of my posts. I dare you.


Aw, you have Googled me. How sweet. Were you not an anonymous coward, I could do the same. But unlike you, I am not afraid to be a face and a name.

What's your name, Yck?

Are you comfortable standing up in front of this forum as someone who eagerly seizes on every anti-Israel piece of crap polemic you can get your hands on?

----------------------

"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is your idea of a retort? Criticism of Israel, blistering or otherwise, is anti-Semitism? What unspeakable bulls**t. Other than this article - the point of my posting you appear congenitally incapable of understanding - what "anti-Israel piece of crap polemic," in your view, have I posted? I've scarcely mentioned Israel in nearly 500 posts on this forum. I demanded that you find examples of anti-Semitism in any of my posts and this is the best you can do? Jews are killed in the century-long struggle in Palestine, so anyone who questions Israel's actions is an anti-Semite? Pathetic. So, then, anyone who criticizes Palestinian action or policy in this endless ordeal is "anti-Arab" or "anti-Islam"? And anyone who criticizes the current Burmese regime is "anti-Buddhist"? Or anyone who questions the wisdom of British foreign policy is "anti-Anglican"? Or anyone unhappy with India's current government harbors a ineradicable hatred for all Hindus? I'd credit you with borrowing this argument from the proponents of "The New Anti-Semitism,", but I fear that would be giving you too much credit. In either event, the "argument" is the very definition of specious. Man, are you a disappointment. You constantly bite off more than you can chew. And I didn't Google you, you fool: you've described yourself on this very forum as a "third-rate pro-cyclist."



> quote:
> Ah, let her do whatever she wants.
> 
> I barely attended high school, went to a lousy university, *pissed away a decade as a third-rate pro cyclist*, made one bad career choice after another, got into trouble which you would not believe were I to describe it, and I do better than most of the losers on this forum, hee hee. I certainly have more shoes!


I've wasted enough time responding to your imbecile posts on this forum; I sure as hell wouldn't waste time off this forum running an internet search on you. I've had enough of you, and this board. I shall now return to voluntary exile from AAAC.

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That article wasn't a blistering critique of Israel's foreign policy. As Yckmwia clearly stated, "This article is a blistering assessment of the effect of _Israeli influence on American foreign policy_." I read the paper, and found that it was, as Yckmwia noted, an analysis of the influence of the Isreal lobby in the United States, and the implications for the US of having so much of our foreign policy targeted at supporting Israel. The two authors are eminently qualified to ask and answer the question at hand.

While you may disagree with their conclusions (and they are the conclusions of the authors of the paper, not Yckmwia) calling Yckmwia anti Semitic for a link to that paper is ludicrous. I don't call people racist for posting links to Richard Lynn--I simply let people read and judge for themselves if Richard Lynn's arguments make sense. If I post a link to Stormfront does that make me a white supremacist? If I post a link to the Family Research Council does that make me an evangelical? If I post a link to the Nation of Islam does that make a black nationalist? If I post links to all three will it make your head explode? Is Harvard anti-Semitic for putting the paper on their website? That seems to be your argument.

Labelling Yckmwia an anti-Semite may not be as fun as tearing the side mirror off a car, but it is the intellectual equivalent of doing so.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by dopey_
> 
> Here is what the NYSun happened to write today about the paper Yckmwia cited: https://www.nysun.com/article/29470


One last time, and that's it I promise.

The first paragraph of the Sun's article says it all (I believe the Sun has published several pieces already on the paper.)



> quote:The furor over a paper co-authored by the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government about what is described as the far-reaching influence of an "Israel lobby" intensified yesterday, as it drew sharp criticism from a prominent Kennedy School scholar, President Clinton's special coordinator for the Middle East negotiations, and figures identified in the paper as members of the "lobby."


This is the whole point. I neither endorse everything in the paper, nor claim that it is the last word on the subject. As I've said several times, the substance of the paper isn't really noteworthy, as other critics of "the Israel lobby" have been making similar allegations for years. It is the "furor" caused by M&W's statute in the academic community that is unusual, if not unprecedented. It's one thing for Noam Chomsky or Edward Said to write such things, if for no other reason than public policy and foreign affairs are not their fields of _academic_ expertise. It is another thing altogether for two men of M&W's standing in the foreign policy/academic community to do this. Why did they do it? Just for the hell of it? I don't think so. They are not merely writing on their own behalf. The misadventure in Iraq, the constant threats to Iran, the prospect of an unlimited, endless "war on terror" appear to be creating a fissure in the American ruling class. This is happened in Viet Nam, and it appears that it _might_ be happening again. _That_ is what I've been trying to illustrate with this thread. It all might amount to nothing. Or it might not. For those interested in such things, it bears watching. Now I'm out of here. Adieu

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em." Louis Armstrong.


----------



## FlatSix (Feb 23, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> I've wasted enough time responding to your imbecile posts on this
> forum; I sure as hell wouldn't waste time off this forum running an
> internet search on you. I've had enough of you, and this board. I
> shall now return to voluntary exile from AAAC.


If only all anti-Semites were so easily vanquished.

*Bosthist*, I agree with you that linking to content is not the
same as creating content... but in Yck's case I think the only reason
he doesn't write his own opinion on this stuff is pure cowardice. 
Time and time again, this fellow posts offensive (or at least 
polarizing) content and then skulks away with his tail between his 
legs, claiming "I'm just the messenger!" And now, faced with the 
prospect of having to publicly affirm his viewpoint, he pens the 
usual trite Internet Forum Suicide Letter and "returns to voluntary 
exile", as if he were something other than a simple troll.

Every other "controversial" poster on AAAC is a contributor to the
original mission. marc_au may be a urine-drinking Jew-hater, but he
also knows the difference between a brogue and a slipper. 
globetrotter may be a one-man killing machine but he can also tell 
you where to find a decent men's shop. And so on. Only Yck stands as 
a fellow whose posts are pretty much all tripe snipped directly from 
the Democratic Underground or PLO sympathy sites. Why is this jagoff
even bothering to participate? It's simple; this is the only place 
where people will give his twisted viewpoint room to breathe out of 
mere courtesy.

Allow me to revise the *Sun's* statement:

_ The paper has won praise from anti-Semite and white supremacist 
David
Duke, is being distributed by the Palestine Liberation 
Organization's
mission to Washington, *and, of course, by that candy-ass coward
Yckmwia*,and has been lauded by a senior member of
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization._

This "Interchange" is meant to be an adjunct to the main forum, not
a dumping ground for bats**t crazy Jew-baiters. If Yck can produce
ten thousand dollars' worth of receipts from Ben Silver or something
like that I'll change my assesssment, but until then he'll go down in 
my book as a troll, plain and simple.

----------------------

"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## Threepwood (Mar 21, 2006)

The level of gentlemanly discourse is one of the reasons I have been attracted to this forum. It saddens me to see these vulgar posts in what I had hoped would be a forum where good manners would prevail. The posters who resort o these ungentlemanly tactics lower themselves and create sympathy for those they oppose.

I have seen several members of this forum attacked for anti Semitism unfairly. Iâ€™m sure if I were Jewish I would feel compelled to confront any attacks on my race in the most strident manner. However, branding anyone who disagrees with Washingtonâ€™s Israel policy a racist is unfair. I believe the Jewish community has quite a burden. They support the establishment of a state based on race. In Israel there is a right race and a wrong race All the while in America they are leaders in the equality movement. This horrible cognitive dissonance makes them resort to wild rhetorical toe loops and personal attacks. The unfortunate fact is that Israel was created because a group of people believe they have a divine right, because of their race, to take other peoples land and property. This is exactly the way the Naziâ€™s treated their victims. Victims become victimizers. I know many Jews and like all of them. I donâ€™t Like the effects of the balfour declaration.[V]


----------



## FlatSix (Feb 23, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Threepwood_The unfortunate fact is that Israel was created because a group of people believe they have a divine right, because of their race, to take other peoples land and property. This is exactly the way the Naziâ€™s treated their victims. Victims become victimizers. I know many Jews and like all of them. I donâ€™t Like the effects of the balfour declaration.[V]


Is there a special version of Godwin's Law which is called into play when Zionists are compared to Nazis?

"Reasonable", "gentlemanly" posts like this are exactly the reason why the stand against anti-Semitism can never be relaxed.

In this gentlemanly post, the actions of the Jews are compared to the actions of the Nazis. Just to remind everyone of the truth:

The *Nazis* killed six million helpless Jews in a program designed to exterminate the entire Jewish race and faith.

The *Jews* were given part of a disputed state by the forces which had previously subjugated it by force - which is the way human history usually works.

The *Nazis* herded millions of women and children into the gas chamber, melted the gold out of their teeth, performed experiments on them like animals, and became an eternal symbol of systematic evil.

The *Israeli Jews* were attacked from all sides in 1948 and defended their land with their lives, eventually triumphing.

The *Nazis* were brought to peace negotiation over the barrel of a gun.

The *Jews* have returned again and again to the peace table.

So-called "gentlemanly disagreement with Israel" is a gateway to traditional anti-Semitism; it's a "code word" for anti-Semites the same way other "code words" are used to send racist signals.

If you want the Jews out of Israel, just find another place where they will be safe. Will it be in Europe? America? Only if your memory is extremely short.

Sir, you demean yourself by comparing the Jews in Israel to the Nazis. Please reconsider your actions.

----------------------

"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## malinda (Aug 25, 2002)

*DIAL BACK THE RHETORIC. Andy and I tend to moderate this forum more lightly that others, but this thread is trying our patience.*


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Threepwood_
> 
> The level of gentlemanly discourse is one of the reasons I have been attracted to this forum. It saddens me to see these vulgar posts in what I had hoped would be a forum where good manners would prevail. The posters who resort o these ungentlemanly tactics lower themselves and create sympathy for those they oppose.
> 
> I have seen several members of this forum attacked for anti Semitism unfairly. Iâ€™m sure if I were Jewish I would feel compelled to confront any attacks on my race in the most strident manner. However, branding anyone who disagrees with Washingtonâ€™s Israel policy a racist is unfair. I believe the Jewish community has quite a burden. They support the establishment of a state based on race. In Israel there is a right race and a wrong race All the while in America they are leaders in the equality movement. This horrible cognitive dissonance makes them resort to wild rhetorical toe loops and personal attacks. The unfortunate fact is that Israel was created because a group of people believe they have a divine right, because of their race, to take other peoples land and property. This is exactly the way the Naziâ€™s treated their victims. Victims become victimizers. I know many Jews and like all of them. I donâ€™t Like the effects of the balfour declaration.[V]


I am not sure why you like "gentlemanly discourse", I would not charactorize you as a gentleman.

I am not sure that I would charactorize Y's comments here or in other threads as anti-semitic. I do not like most of what he writes, but I sure accept his logic and some of what he writes. I think that he is civil and clear.

threepwood strikes me as either very ignorant or an anti-semite, frankly. hard to say which. I would lean towards the latter, if just because of his "I know many jews and like all of them comment" but you never know.

I have no problem with anybody who feels uncomfortable about the amount of influence Israel has on the US. I have no problem with anybody who disagrees with israeli policy - I disagree with a hell of a lot of it, myself.

to me it comes down to this - Israel makes mistakes, and has done some things that aren't terribly nice. In its nieghborhood, it is an angel compared to anybody else. there is nothing that has been done by israel in any war that hasn't been done by the US, Britain, France and other major states, and israel has never touched the brutality of the various arab states. Sure, there are a lot of people who feel that they have been screwed over by Israel, but you can say the same about pretty much any country. if you spend a large amount of effort attacking Israel, it makes me wonder why. why aren't you spending that effort thinking about the places in the world taht are really evil. and, frankly, the only conclusion that I can come to is that you do it because the fact that israel is a jewish state comes into play.

back to this specific individual -

I believe the Jewish community has quite a burden.

no, they don't. some jews support israel, some don't. just like some blacks like fried chicken, and some don't. jews are individuals, don't burden any of them with anything.

They support the establishment of a state based on race.

Israel is a state that was built for the jewish people - you can see this as a culture, a race, a nation, a religion. out of the 200 or so states in the world, more than half have a nationalist element. in israel, an arab can be prime minister, certainly arabs have been members of parliment, generals, ambasidors and ministers. yes, the nature of the state is for the jewish people, how is that different from the nature of the state of france being french, or the state of greece being greek? in most arab countries, non-muslims can't own land. in most of the 27 or so arab states, jews can't live, and in at least 5, jews can't even visit. do you spend much time thinking about that?

In Israel there is a right race and a wrong race.

again, this is simply ignorance. an arab in israel has more political rights than he would have in any arab state, better healthcare, better educational opportunities. there are two laws in israel that differentiate between arabs and jews - the first is that arabs aren't drafted, they have to volenteer for the army. the second is that the government administers a fund of money that was donated by jews around the world to help jews buy housing, and that money is available only to jews. aside from that, their are no legal differences between jews and arabs.

All the while in America they are leaders in the equality movement.

again, some jews are, some aren't. repeat after me "jews are indivuals"

The unfortunate fact is that Israel was created because a group of people believe they have a divine right, because of their race, to take other peoples land and property.

this is not a fact. this is either ignorance or simple anti-semitism. I don't know if you are a bonehead or a racist. perhaps you could let us know. please go to the library, read a book or two, and let us know what you think. the state of israel was created when the valid and legal rulers of what is now israel invited jews in to live in a land that was sparcly populated, and jews came and bought land and worked hard to build what they have.

This is exactly the way the Naziâ€™s treated their victims.

now you are showing what a little piece of s**t you are. I have no words to express my contempt for you. feel free to discuss factual issues with israeli policies or actions. if you compare the situation of the palestians, who are basically complaining because israel makes it difficult for them to blow up children, with millions of civillians gassed to death, I have nothing but contempt for you, and you should not refer to yourself as a gentleman. I do not know what else you do hear, but no matter how well you may dress or groom yourself you will not be able to remove this stench from your soul.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by malinda_
> 
> *DIAL BACK THE RHETORIC. Andy and I tend to moderate this forum more lightly that others, but this thread is trying our patience.*


sorry, I didn't see your post before I posted.


----------



## Threepwood (Mar 21, 2006)

Im sorry this is so upsetting for you globetrotter. When you critique my post you should address the core intent of my arguments not some crudely crafted straw men. You have a vivid way of expressing yourself. Im sure it opens a lot of doors for you. This is probably the most common form of debate in your circle. It appears my advanced education and financial success happened despite a limited mental capacity and poor grasp of the world around me. By the way, Hell is populated by the supporters of evil, not those who call it by its name. I will give you one fact which should be enough and leave you with a question. 80% of all palestinian wounds are caused by shrapnel. Who kills more children israel or hammas?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Globe: Well said. Righteously said. And correctly said.

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

> quote:80% of all palestinian wounds are caused by shrapnel.


 Would that be from nails and other shrapnel in IED's and homicide vests? And if such is the measure, logic would dictate that close to 100% of Israeli and tourist wounds in homicide attacks are caused by shrapnel. Unless the homicide bombers have recently begun carrying AK-47's.

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Alexander Kabbaz_
> 
> Globe: I don't think I've totally - or even halfway - agreed with much of anything - if anything at all - that you have ever said. Until now.
> 
> ...


AK - thanks, I think


----------



## Threepwood (Mar 21, 2006)

Israel kills a many more innocent civilians with bombs than the palestinians.

2. I guess the thousands of palestinian refugees in jordan came from kansas and not the "depopulated" areas occupied by israel.

3. Using your logic globetrotter the usa would have been on the side of the angels after world war II by repopulating northern italy with people of celtic genetic extraction. They were there 1000 years ago. 

4. Antisemitism. the Jews and Palestinians are from the SAME semetic gene pool. By supporting the political policies of one semetic group over the other how can I be antisemetic. Whether star belly or plain belly they are all sneeches. If I was supporting france against israel then you could complain. In fact there are probably more arian genetics in European Jews after 1000 years in europe than there are in palestine with the galatians and crusanders. 

5. Fair treatment of jews verses arabs in israel. Globetrotter are you honestly saying that arabs who lives are controlled by the government of isreal are treated as equal citizens. 
Your inane argument that France should fairly be for the french you ignore that genetics play no part in the laws of france or any other civilized country as they do in isreal. 

I must have imangined that there were a disproportionate number of Jews leading the civil rights movement to thier percentage of the population. Must be my stupidity. 



The local orthodox priest Who married me had his family home destroyed by isreal because of his race how many jewish homes are destroyed. 

6. I guess the only moral stance for the palestinians is to hold still while the jackboot is on thier neck. 

7. By the way My first wifes first cousin and a good friend of mine was shot in the back by an israeli sniper while clearly marked as a journalist for the boston globe. He recently won the pulitzer prize. I got to watch his twisted body limp around my house this christmas.
He would be a poor fit for your clothing mr. Kabbaz. 

8. I subsequently sent a substantial amount of money to support a charity run by a spine surgeon member of my family to provide medical care to children injured by Israeli shrapnel. Once again Isreal wins the bomb children game 4 to 1. These are not vests these are bombs purchased mainly with my tax money.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Threepwood_
> 
> Im sorry this is so upsetting for you globetrotter. When you critique my post you should address the core intent of my arguments not some crudely crafted straw men. You have a vivid way of expressing yourself. Im sure it opens a lot of doors for you. This is probably the most common form of debate in your circle. It appears my advanced education and financial success happened despite a limited mental capacity and poor grasp of the world around me. By the way, Hell is populated by the supporters of evil, not those who call it by its name. I will give you one fact which should be enough and leave you with a question. 80% of all palestinian wounds are caused by shrapnel. Who kills more children israel or hammas?


no, you are presenting a fact out of all context, with no support, and, frankly, not very clearly. are you saying that 80% of wounds inflicted on palestinians are from Shrapnel? 80% of all wound inflicted by palestinians are from shrapnel? which? and what are your sources for this "fact"? and what do you understand from this?

you ask who kills more children - what is the significance of that question? at present, only one side is actually bombing the civillian centers of the other.

but those points have nothing to do with your repulsive post.

1. it takes an incredible, deep and broad misunderstanding of history, or a pure streak of anti-semitism, or a total disregard for the methodology of history, to write "They support the establishment of a state based on race. In Israel there is a right race and a wrong race All the while in America they are leaders in the equality movement. This horrible cognitive dissonance makes them resort to wild rhetorical toe loops and personal attacks. The unfortunate fact is that Israel was created because a group of people believe they have a divine right, because of their race, to take other peoples land and property."

2. It takes a streak of anti-semitism, or a total disregard for the truth, or a severe lack of education, to write "This is exactly the way the Naziâ€™s treated their victims. Victims become victimizers".

if you want, feel free to write "I dislike israeli policy X and believe that it is evil" sure, that is perfectly legitimate. to put the words that you did down you have to either be an anti-semite or a fool.


----------



## Threepwood (Mar 21, 2006)

lets talk about similarities with the nazis

The Nazi's practiced ethnic cleansing which is evil
Israel ethnicly cleansed sections of palestine which is evil

The Nazi's put Jews in ghetto's and denied them basic human rights
Israel forces palestinians into ghettos and denies them basic human rights
both are evil acts

Israeli's believe they are entitled to certain land because of thier race which causes and promotes evil
The Nazis felt they were entitled to exile people amd take thier land because of race which is evil.

The Nazis killed thier politcal enemies without trial
the Israeli's kill thier political enemies without trial 

Your main argument seems to be that because israel hasnt killed quite as many palestinians as the nazis killed jews thier actions are not morally compareable. I believe killing people because of race is camparable no matter what the number involved. 

I got the 80% Number from doctors without borders.

The point of my shrapnel argument seems to escape you so I will expain it in a way which will not require any thought on your part. Bombs are indiscriminate killers. whether Palestinian or Isreali, shrapnel kills the innocent and the target alike. If Isreal is killing more children indisciminately than the palestinians then they are not morally superior and are just as or more evil than the people they have subjegated.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Threepwood_
> 
> Israel kills a many more innocent civilians with bombs than the palestinians.
> 
> ...


again, this is drivel and crap. you are presenting fairy tales and sob stories as facts. go to the library, read a few books by college educated historians. I would be happy to discuss any points that you have, after doing soem research.

2. palestinians in jordan - take a look at any map made before 1921. what is the name of the area now called "jordan"? yes, more than half of the population of jordan is palestinian. the other 40% or so come from what is today Saudi Arabia. no historian has ever found any evidence (even though hundreds have spent their academic careers trying) to show that any palestinans were forced out of what is today israel into what is today jordan.

3. not at all - I never said that jews had any more right to israel than anybody else. why do today's citizens of israel have a right to the country? they were invited in by the legitimate government, they bought the land, they built up the land, they made the country what it is. see if you can find one piece of historical evidence that shows that, prior to 1975, any land was taken by force from any arab by any jew. you won't find it. yes, after almost 10 years, following the war of 67, of israel trying to negotiate a peace settlement with the arab states, israel started a stupid policy of settlements, and some land was appropriated for roads and military bases and so on. but this land that was taken by force represents a tiny fraction of the land in israel and the palestinian areas. the vast majority of this land was bought and paid for with money and by consent of buyer and owner.

4. the term anti-semite has a clear meaning in english. you know it, we all know it.

5.a. - in israel, arab citizens are treated just like any other citizens, with the exeption of the two laws I mentioned before. in the territories? sure, it is a b**ch living in the territories. but youhave to wonder how that happened - for 19 years the palestinians launched thousands of terror attacks on israel from teh territories. so, in 67, israel took over the territories, after jordan used the land to launch attacks and shell israel. for 20 years or more, the palestinians in the territories had free access to all of israel. they paid no taxes, but were able to get on a bus and go anywhere they wanted in israel to work. they had access to all israeli medical facilites and educational facilities. they were not made citizens, because they did not want to be part of israel. aside from voting rights, they had every right of any israeli. after 20 years like this, they launched a war on israel, and expressed a clear desire to become independent. israel, in an attempt to move towards this situation, allowed the palestinians to have an armed force, which the palestinians used to attack israel, in a war that caused thousands of deaths. as a result of this, the palestinians now are in a situation where they are not comfortable, and do not have free access to israeli markets. to complain about this is like killing your parents and asking for clemancy as you are an orphan.

5.b. genetics is not part of the rights in israel. being jewish is. groups can define how one belongs to a group. jews in israel are lily white, and ebony black. they come from argentina, india, poland, ethiopia, spain, iran. from all over the world. but they are all part of the "nation". every nation has a way of deciding who is part of that nation. and many people who are not part of the jewish nation are citizens of israel. there have been arab generals, arab mayors, arab ministers.

5.c." The local orthodox priest Who married me had his family home destroyed by isreal because of his race how many jewish homes are destroyed. " - again, this is a fairy tale. give some facts, and we can judge. no body has his home destroyed because of his "race" in israel. but, since you ask - about 250,000 jews were pushed out of their homes in arab countries between 1948 and 1968, just because they were jewish. many of those jews were descended from people who had lived in these countries for 2,500 years.

6. first, for almost 30 years the palestinians had more rights in israel and in the territories than they had in any arab state. if they felt an injustice, they had access to courts of law, to the press, and to a wide range of political options. for 10 years negotiations have been gong on aimed at a solution. their was no reason, no possible justification, for the palestinians to chose the path that they did. you brought up the nazis - during the 1930 and 1940's, 11 million civillians were murdered by the nazis. tens of millions of people were displaced, had all their worldy possetions taken from them, were raped, were starved, were enslaved. at no time did a jew, or a gypsy, or any of the other persecuted people blow up a german school, or kill german women and children in acts of terror. the palestinians, even though they have an area the size of the united states that consists of 27 arab states that they could consievably settle in, and even though they were not robbed of their possetions, or raped, or enslaved, or massacred, found that the best reponse to the situation would be to kill innocent civillians. palestinian terror attacks against civillians have been going on since long before there was a state of israel. there is no jsutification what so ever for this activity. yes, they have a good argument to discuss their suffuring. no, killing kids is not the right way.

7. s**t happens. that is what you get for being in a war zone. I am sure he thought that he was well marked. he obviously wasn't, or he wouldnt' have been shot.

8. great - in all probability the money you give is being used not to help poor palestinian kids, but to kill innocent civillians. yes, kids do get hurt on both sides. and, believe it or not, I do not give more value to one side than the other. but israel doesn't just drop bombs on civillians - logically speaking, if israel wanted to do that, their were simply be no more palestinains left. many, many, young palestinians are involved in the conflict. their parents should keep them at home. and, in many cases, adults use residential dwelling as firing positions to fire on israeli soldiers, drawing fire. all of these unfortunate deaths would be avoided if the palestinians would solve their issues at the negotiating table, and not by killing civillians.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Threepwood_
> 
> lets talk about similarities with the nazis
> 
> ...


I am not even going to justify a response to this repuslive piece of propoganda. all I can hope is that you have children who will one day look at you in shock and disbelief and say "is it true that you believe this? daddy, are you really an anti-semite?"


----------



## Threepwood (Mar 21, 2006)

Thank you for an entertaining evening. Ask not for whom the bell tolls


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

All I know is that Israeli mothers don't dress their kids up as suicide bombers. Israelis mothers don't dream of the day when their children kill innocent civilians. All I know is that an Arab sits on the Israeli supreme court while most Jews have had to flee Arab lands. I for one am glad for the special relationship with Israel. I think anyone who values Western civilization should be glad that Israel is on the frontlines of the war against terror - again I am certain that if Israel were to cease to exist tomorrow that the Islamists attention would focus on the Balkans and Turkey.

Israel is far from perfect and is probably the worst country in the Middle East except for all the rest. 

Karl


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

actually, you piece of racist s**t, I am going to address these points. 




TW The Nazi's practiced ethnic cleansing which is evil
Israel ethnicly cleansed sections of palestine which is evil

GT - for 60 years, historians have been searching, with no luck, for some evidence that israel forced arabs to flee in 48. conisdering that about a third stayed put with no adverse affects, and those that stayed went on to recieve full rights, with the best political rights, medical care and education that any arab recieved anywhere in the middle east, it would be hard to charactorize this as ethnic cleaning. 


TW The Nazi's put Jews in ghetto's and denied them basic human rights
Israel forces palestinians into ghettos and denies them basic human rights
both are evil acts

GT can you identify one palestenian ghetto? the palestinians reproduce in great numbers. the advances of israeli medicine and the availability of food donated by israel has allowed them to increase in numbers due to lower child mortality than anywhere else in the middle east. nobody was forced anywhere. if you live in a little area, you need to be careful how many kids you have, or you need to move someplace bigger. both options are open to the palestinians. 

what human rights are the palestinains denied? they have better medical care than any other arabs. up until they started using their schools as military bases, they had better educational facilities (paid for by israel) than any other arabs. in 1967, there were no universities in the palestinian areas. now there are 4. there were only 2 or 3 high schools, now there are dozens if not hundreds. they have freedom of the press, they have municipal elections, they have electricity and plumbing (which they didn't have before 1967 and still much of egypt and jordan don't have). up until they launched this latest war, they had total freedom to move around israel where ever they wanted. they didn't pay any taxes. what human rights were they ever denied?




TW Israeli's believe they are entitled to certain land because of thier race which causes and promotes evil
The Nazis felt they were entitled to exile people amd take thier land because of race which is evil.

GT the basic idea of zionism is that the israeli people, the jewish people, have the right to a land. for almost 120 years, it has been attempted to negotiate what this land would include. this attmempt to peacefully set up a homeland was met with violence and terror, by people who didn't want jews to live near them. who is the one who is restricting where a person lives because of his religion? israel, where anyone can buy land, or jordan, where a jew cannot buy land, by law? 

TW The Nazis killed thier politcal enemies without trial
the Israeli's kill thier political enemies without trial 

GT - israel has never killed a non-combatant political enemy without trial. look at two perfect examples of this - shiek yassin, who was the leader of hamas for 20 years. he was captured and convicted of ordering several deaths in the 80's. he spent 10 years in jail, he wasn't killed. as part of a political settlement, he was freed, with the understanding that he would not be involved in terror operations anymore. he took an active role in planning and arranging several terror attacks. he was warned, but didn't stop. as he was in the palestinian areas, where israel had no control, and he was actively waging war on israel, he was killed by a bomb dropped by a plane. 

in 1985, 3 terrorists highjacked a bus, and killed 6 or 8 passengers. two of the terrorists were killed in a gun battle, one was captured. a department head of the internal security service, what is often called the shin bet, killed the terrorist while taking him away from the gun battle. this man, who was a department head in one of the most powerful organizations in the country, who had been a senior officer in the army, and was well connected to the heads of the government, was investigated and found guilty of this killing, and was striped of rank, had his future destroyed, and sent to prison. in a country that "kills it political enemies" would that happen?


TW Your main argument seems to be that because israel hasnt killed quite as many palestinians as the nazis killed jews thier actions are not morally compareable. I believe killing people because of race is camparable no matter what the number involved. 

GT - no, my argument is that you are making stuff up, and you are comparing things that are in no way similar. the US and red china both use passports and have taxis, that doesn't make the US a communist country. 



TWI got the 80% Number from doctors without borders.
The point of my shrapnel argument seems to escape you so I will expain it in a way which will not require any thought on your part. Bombs are indiscriminate killers. whether Palestinian or Isreali, shrapnel kills the innocent and the target alike. If Isreal is killing more children indisciminately than the palestinians then they are not morally superior and are just as or more evil than the people they have subjegated. 

GT - first, I doubt that you got this number from doctors without borders. do you have a link? secondly, I find this number hard to believe. let me tell you why - this would suggest that there is bombing going on in the palestinian territories. there are hundreds of observers, humanitarian workers, and official governmental oberservers in the palestinian territories. in the rare instances when something does happen to a palestinian kid, it makes the media. we are not hearing at all about bombing of civillians in the palestinain territories. in the largest battles of the last war, artilary wasn't used, and explosive tank shells weren't used. this is extremly well documented - of course there were about 10 reporters on the scene for every palestinian fatality, so if these weapons had been used, it would have been documented. 
more importanly, what does the number mean? if you are saying that some palestinians under the age of 18 are getting wounded, I woudn't disagree with you. there are thousands of palestinians under the age of 16 who are bearing arms and attakcing israel. they may be young, but they are combatants, and as such, are fair targets. if you are equating them with kids on their way home from school getting blown up by bombs, then you are a sick individual.

anyway, crawl back under what ever rock you came from. if you feel like it, get a library card and read a few books. although I am guessing that burning books (and the occasiona cross) is more you r taste.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Well this thread certainly imploded, n'est pas?


----------



## Pb2Au (Mar 23, 2006)

This may be a very poor topic for my first post at AskAndy, but I am curious: what is it about this subject that invites such invective? Mearsheimer and Waltâ€™s paper appears to be factual (although I certainly do not have sufficient subject matter expertise to say so with authority), and therefore the assertions themselves can be tested and thereafter substantiated or contradicted.

Yet the opportunity for reasoned discourse seems to be forever subsumed in vitriol or ad hominem attack. Nevertheless, and although I am Canadian (born and reared in England), American politics do interest me. Does anyone want to discuss the paper itself?

Oh and lastly, hello.

Pb2Au


----------



## Threepwood (Mar 21, 2006)

Into the valley of death rides Pb2au


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Pb2Au_
> 
> This may be a very poor topic for my first post at AskAndy, but I am curious: what is it about this subject that invites such invective? Mearsheimer and Waltâ€™s paper appears to be factual (although I certainly do not have sufficient subject matter expertise to say so with authority), and therefore the assertions themselves can be tested and thereafter substantiated or contradicted.
> 
> ...


this is a sensitive subject, basically because it is an ink blot test issue. how you relate to israel is a pretty good indication of how you assimilate information - whether you look for facts or react emotionally to propoganda, how you relate to your government, how you relate to foringers, how you relate to the concept of good and evil, etc. you can tell a lot about a person in how he relates to this issue.

in terms of the article - yes, the israeli lobby has a lot of power. probrably more than is healthy, but that is an indicator of the nature of the political system in america.


----------



## Pb2Au (Mar 23, 2006)

I am sorry, but I disagree: there is nothing so special about Israel and its place in the community of nations that makes discussion of its policies a Rorschach test of a person, his or her capacity to reason, or his or her moral values.

Israelâ€™s past and present are factual, and facts are objective (although they may be interpreted subjectively). Thus, as long as you do not accept assertions as truth unreasonably â€“ that is, you do not accept as truth what is said on certain web-sites that revere Hitler or in movies such as â€œCast a Giant Shadowâ€ â€“ a discussion of Israel is no more or less soul-revealing than a discussion on Nepal. Why would you believe otherwise?

On the paper, in a democracy is it acceptable to allow one special interest group to appropriate foreign policy to â€“ as alleged â€“ the detriment of the nation? If not, whose failure is it: the electorate, the representatives, or others?

Collegially,

Pb2Au


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

Ha'aretz has a commentary on the Mearsheimer and Walt article: 

Globetrotter (or anyone else with firsthand knowledge):

What can you tell me about the politics of Ha'aretz? I don't know enough about the paper to know which direction they're coming from.

Thanks,

Charles


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> Ha'aretz has a commentary on the Mearsheimer and Walt article:
> 
> ...


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Pb2Au_
> 
> I am sorry, but I disagree: there is nothing so special about Israel and its place in the community of nations that makes discussion of its policies a Rorschach test of a person, his or her capacity to reason, or his or her moral values.
> 
> ...


sorry, I disagree and stand by what I said. look at the case in point here. I am sure that, aside from a mild dislike of jews, threepwood is a basically well educated person, who usually makes decisions rationaly. I am sure that if he had to write a report for work on the history of France, he would go to the library and find books written by historians and anthropologists and university acredited profetionals and study the facts and make his choices based on that. here, in dealing with Israel, he has chosen to accept a basket of myths, some close to the truth but slightly distorted, and some with no relationship to reality at all.

I am sure that this is the case with almost everybody - the "facts" that you believe about this are probrably half incorrect, just because there is so much clutter concerning this out there. there are 15 million people who have some kind of positive emotional connection with israel, and maybe a billion who have some kind of negative emotional relationship with israel, and maybe 10 million who are convinced that there whole life is terrible because ISrael ****ed them over.

the bottom line is that if you go to a library, and select books from a north american or european publisher, written by a historian or anthropologist or political scientist, trained in his field by an acredited university, you will find a very specific and factual narative of the history of israel and the conflict. there is a reason that 99% of the books or articles that have a pro-palestinian slant are written by people with no training in historical methodology - the most important writers are an english professor and a linguest.

look at these two naratives:

in the second century AD the jews were exiled from what is today israel, jordan, lebanon, syria and palestine (I will refer to this as "Palestine")
from the 2nd century, until the 19th century the jewish population stayed at approx. 10% of Palestine. in some cities, including jerusalem, jews were a slight majority, for periods (in jerusalem, including most of the 19th century)
from the 15th until the early 20th century, palestine was part of the ottoman empire - a muslim empire that covered most of the islamic world, and all of the arab world and used arabic letters.
in the 19th century, the population of palestine was so low that the ottomans brought in populations form many places to raise the tax base this included sudan, egypt, armenia, bosnia and the caucasian mountains. it also included making agreements to allow large numbers of jews from within the empire, as well as from europe, to come to palestine. 
from about 1880, the numbers of jews in palestine jumped. jews came with capital and western industrial knowledge, and purchased large tracks of land. the majority of the land was owned by absentee landlords, mostly muslims who lived in beruit and damascus, and farmed by share croppers. 
from the late 19th century, local arabs took to attacking the jews who were moving in. part of the issue was religious, much was simply about economic fear - they realized that they could have their land bought out from under them. 
during wwi, the british government captured palestine from the turks, splitting off lebanon and syria, and starting a mandate. the balfour declaration supported a "homeland" for the jews in palestine. at this point, nobody, inlcuding the zionists, invisioned a full fleged state. 
during the years between the world wars, there were hundreds of pograms against jews in palestine. in one, the population of hebron, a city that has had a constand jewish presence for 3,000 years, was wiped out. 
in the 20's, the british split what is today jordan off from palestine to create a state for the arabs of palestine. that was the origional and explicit concept - to leave about 25% of the state for the jews, and for the larger piece, jordan, to be a state for the arabs of palestine. this was not accepted by the arabs. 
in 47, the UN voted to partition the western part of palestine into another arab state, and a jewish state. the jewish body accepted this. the arab body attacked, along with armies from 7 arab countries. the majority of the popluation of the state of israel, at this time, were immagrants coming out of the horrors of the holocust, and were met by armies of well trained and well armed proffetional soldiers. 2% of the total population of israel was killed in this war, making it similar to the effect that wwii had on russia. 
during this war, about 75% of the arab population of what is today israel pulled out. why they did so is the single most disputed fact of the history of the conflict. in 60 years, no historian has been able to find any facts that show that israel made them leave. there is huge evidence that the arab leaders and armies pushed the popluation to leave, in order to create an easier battle situation. in any event, the people leaving thought that they would be coming back shortly, after israel was destroyed. much of the world was confident that israel would be destroyed. the arab armies and leadership made it very clear that they intended to destroy israel and kill all the jews. 
those arabs who chose to stay have been made full citizens. in the israeli declaration of independence, there is a paragragh welcoming the arabs with full rights and asking them to join the state with full rights and in peace. arabs who stayed went on to become judges, ambassidors, a ministor of the government, generals in the army. they recieved the same access to education and medical care that jews did. 
over the next 20 years, hundreds of thousands of jews from arab coutries were exiled from their countries, and had their houses and possetions confiscated. the present demographics of israel is such that more than 50% of the jewish citiznes of israel had 2 or more grandparents who were born in the range of the ottoman empire. 
over this 20 years, hundreds of terror attacks were launched into israel from the nieghboring countries. this was before israel had an inch of the west bank and gaza.
during this time, the borders of israel were not recongnized by anybody, arab states, israel, european governments or anybody. during this time, the borders, on each side, shrunk - jordan, syria and egypt each took land by force from israel. in the case of syria, this was substantial. each of these states shelled population centers in israel regularly. 
in 67, after egypt fired on israeli ships, reported repeatedly that it was going to attack israel, and moved forces greater than israel's army to attack positions on israel's borders, israel attacked and destroyed egypts army, capturing the sinai and gaza. after jordan shelled jerusalem and brought forces to the border, and would not commit to a cease fire, israel captured the west bank. after syria attacked, israel captured the golan.
for 10 years, israel made it very clear that they would exchange every inch of that territory taken for a peace treaty. no one was allowed to build on that land, and the hundreds of jews who owned land in the west bank and gaza were not allowed to go back to the land, so as not to create a situation that would not allow negotiations. 
in 67, at an arab summit in sudan, the arab states, including jordan, egypt and syria, and the representatives of the palestinian people, delcared that they would never negotiate with israel, never make peace, never recognize israel. 
in the mid seveties, israel made peace with egypt, and returned everyinch of the sinai. when no syrian, palestinian or jordanian leadership was willing to negotiate peace based on the return of land, it was decided to allow jews who owned land in the west bank and gaza to move back, and it was decided to allow jews to buy land in these areas. 
during the first 20 years after 67, palestinians from the west bank and gaza were allowed free access to israel. they could work in israel, without paying any tax. they had access to the educational facilities, as well as the medical facilities. israel built an electrical grid and a water grid for them, as well as paved roads and telephones. 
after 67, the military focus of the palestinians moved to lebanon, thousands of palestinians moved to lebanon, changing the demographics and launching the lebanese civil war. lebanon was used, up until the present, as a base for launching thousands of terror attacks on israel. 
in the late 80's, the palestinians launched the first intafadah. as the palestinins didn't use "hot" weapons, no firearms, almost no palestinians were killed. this consisted of 5 years of riots, attacks with knives and axes, terror attacks and so on. 
following the intafadah, and the first gulf war, a peace initiative was started to create a palestinian independent state. as part of the process, israel pulled out of most of the territories, and allowed tens of thousands of palestinian military into the territories, with about 30,000 rifles. 
over the next decade, the palestinain forces have launched thousands of attacks, using these weapons as well as locally manufactured explosives, against israeli population centers. thousands of people have been killed, and tens of thousans have been maimed. these attacks were launched, in parallel to ongoing peace talks, as a means of pressuring israel. the upper leadership of the palestinians too acive roles in the planning and execution of these attacks. 
between the start of the peace process, and today, many of the freedoms that the palestinins had enjoyed have dissappered. most of these "freedoms" were given to the palestians by israel, as gestures of good will over the years, but make no sense to give to people who are activly waging a war against you. what are the limitations? - palestians can't freely work in israel any more. that makes sense, doens't it? palestians can't come into israel without special visas. that also makes sense, no? where as palestinians used to have access to israeli medical and educational facilities, now they don't. nothing that the palestinians had before 67 has been taken away, they simply don't have access to the rights and privledges that they were given by israel, as a part of their being under israeli rule.

every single point, letter and dot of the above narative can be verified by any number of academically acredited sources.

here is another narative

my family has always lived here
my grandfather told me that we had a farm that produced wonderful fruits, and we always had enough to eat, and we were happy
the jews came, and my grandfather had to leave
now we live in a hovel, while a jew lives in my wonderful farm and eats my wonderful fruits
I live off of dough fried in oil, which I get from a charity organization. I have 12 children, and I can't afford shoes for them. we all live in two rooms. often, at night, I hear shooting, and I have heard from several people that the jews have killed several children in the next village, so I am scared for my family. 
all I want is to have back what my grandfather had.

the above narrative, can be heard from any one of 5 million or so people, all of whom believe every word of it.

the whole question of the conflict is very sensitive, because of how many people are involved, and the very diffent perspective that is held by them all.


----------



## Pb2Au (Mar 23, 2006)

I appreciate that with the Israel Lobby â€" as with any other â€œissueâ€ â€" there is more than one viewpoint (I practiced constitutional law for several years before leaving for the more bucolic pastures of public service and am well aware of differing viewpoints). However, the paper â€" in its tenor and tone, its apparent scholarship, and on the basis of the stature of its authors â€" appears to present an evenly balanced perspective, without the visceral language in your above examples. That is, _prima facie_, the report appears credible.

If, however, the authors misstated or skewed a fact, I would be interested in knowing the differing viewpoint (without unnecessary emotional language) so that I could then undertake ordinary research to come to a reasonable and educated opinion on the matter myself.

In the main, do you differ with the authorsâ€™ conclusion, research, premise, or something else? Once we know the issue in contention, we can join as gentlemen on the issue. If, however, your disagreement is solely due to the subject matter or â€" from my perspective an unfounded â€" allegation of bias, then I can disengage and do research on pea coats (which is what first led me to AskAndy).

Collegially,

Pb2Au


----------



## Threepwood (Mar 21, 2006)

BRAVO!!


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Pb2Au_
> 
> I appreciate that with the Israel Lobby â€" as with any other â€œissueâ€ â€" there is more than one viewpoint (I practiced constitutional law for several years before leaving for the more bucolic pastures of public service and am well aware of differing viewpoints). However, the paper â€" in its tenor and tone, its apparent scholarship, and on the basis of the stature of its authors â€" appears to present an evenly balanced perspective, without the visceral language in your above examples. That is, _prima facie_, the report appears credible.
> 
> ...


PB,

I am not clear about what you are asking. are you asking why people feel strongly about this particular article? I don't think that any body has. are you asking why people feel strongly about the israeli arab conflict?

what is the question?


----------



## Pb2Au (Mar 23, 2006)

I am sorry: I should have made myself clearer. I am only interested in the article. However, it may not be possible to disassociate the article from the greater conflict; particularly, in light of the treatment afforded the initial poster of the article (I make the last comment as an observation â€“ I do not know the history of the individualâ€™s postings).

I suppose what I am most interested in is what I perceive as the authorsâ€™ motivation to be: will this article act as a springboard for revised American foreign policy? As an aside, I will state that I believe that this limited issue can be discussed without unnecessary referral to whether current American foreign policy is correct.

Collegially,

Pb2Au


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Pb2Au_
> 
> I am sorry: I should have made myself clearer. I am only interested in the article. However, it may not be possible to disassociate the article from the greater conflict; particularly, in light of the treatment afforded the initial poster of the article (I make the last comment as an observation â€" I do not know the history of the individualâ€™s postings).
> 
> ...


P, I do not find fault with the article. I did not suggest that Y, although I do not agree with a lot of his postings, is an anti-semite. I think that it is perfectly valid for americans to discuss whether or not any lobby group, be they tabacco lobbyists, israel lobbyists or child car seat lobbyists, have on their government.

but, to some extent, this expands to a bigger picture. If you believe, as some do, that it is both a moral and a practical obligation to support israel, then israel lobyists are more like people trying to push child car seat legislation. if you believe, as some do, that israel is evil, then you will react towards israel lobbyists as though they were lobbying for selling ciggarettes in school cafeterias.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Globetrotter, I don't hold any particular position on the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, I simply don't have the knowledge.

However, your attempts to paint Israel and it's Jewish creators as beyond any blame for the current situation are so hopelessly one sided as to be comical.

You fail to mention Jewish terrorism against Arabs and the British in the 30's and 40's, and you gloss over the effective ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from areas of what is now Israel before and during the 1948 conflict, since acknowledged by Israeli military commanders at the time.



------------------


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Globetrotter, I don't hold any particular position on the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, I simply don't have the knowledge.
> 
> ...


gmac,

1. I wouldn't say that israel is not to blame at all. I do believe that the blame is so disproportionatly one sided as to be almost totally on the side of the arabs and palestinians. israel has made several mistakes - possibly the biggest one being the settlement activity, but in retrospect it is very understandible how they got to that position. and, of course, there is the origional sin. 120 years ago, when arabic speaking, muslim leaders, who had been in control of palestine for 400 years, encouraged jewish immigration to palestine, of course the jews, who had had a 2000 year connection with israel, and who didn't have their own state, and who were being persecuted around the world, should have told the ottomans that they didn't want to come to israel, because perhaps in 50 years the local inhabitants would get upset.

2. yes, I didn't mention the terror attacks by some jews against arab targets in ther 30's. I wasn't writing a book. I also didn't mention a lot of other things. I would say, and stand by it, that there was approx. 5 times as much terror in the same period by arabs against jews. as a matter of fact, that period was called the "arab revolt" by the british. and, 2 more important facts - the official zionist leadership was stounchly against any such activity and worked with the british to arrest any people involved in these activities, and any such activities started years after arab attacks on jews had become rutine.

3. I would request that you find any such references to "ethnic cleansing" in 48, or just before, or just after, by a college educated historian or an israeli official. I say that sincerly - there are a few events that people have blown out of all proportion, and some of them were pretty terrible, but there was nothing that would fit into the accepted definition of "ethnic cleansing". if you can find anything like that, you will have succeeded where hundreds of researches have failed over the past 60 years.

4. I stand by what I said - each and every fact that I wrote is verifiable and has been researched endlessly by university educated and accredited historians. you may not have noticed, but that was intended to be tilted towards israel, just like the second "narative" was supposed to be tilted toward Palestinians. yes, some of the history of the past 120 years was left out. the point is, that there are many ways of looking at the situation. the palestinians have suffured, and they have caused suffering. I think that you first point, that you do not have the knowledge, is very important. you will get from the media a lot of information that is false or misleading. if you go to the library, or to amazon, and take out 5 books, written by real historians, you will get a picture that is overwhelmingly one sided, and pro-israel.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Globetrotter, I don't hold any particular position on the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, I simply don't have the knowledge.
> 
> ...


That sounds like knowledge to me. Hmmmm! Is there a position in there too? Come on gmac, stop trolling by pretending you don't have a position and then proceeding to try and discredit GT's post. Your intellectual dishonesty is quite transparent.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope



> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> Come on gmac, stop trolling by pretending you don't have a position and then proceeding to try and discredit GT's post. Your intellectual dishonesty is quite transparent.


I was simply pointing out that his position was extremely one-sided and demonstrating that with a couple of examples. He responded to that with a pretty strong argument and I'm going to leave it there.

You, however, seem more interested in talking about me and my perceived flaws.

Why is that?

------------------


----------



## Threepwood (Mar 21, 2006)

I find most dissapointing that globetrotter resorts to childish reducto ad personum. If I want to read vulgar posts laced with four letter words Im sure there would be a home for me on the MTV website.
I spent a little too much time toying with him two days ago and watching his explosive silly posts. I havent been called names for 25 years and reacted poorly to my first experience. If I offended any members of this forum I appologize. After I saw a member of this forum obscenely attacked for talking about loud people and saw the same thing beginning on this thread I jumped in the fray. 

Now, Mr, Globetrotter I tolerated your vulgar analysis of my personality I will anaylize you for a moment. In another post you refer to your paycheck being "blown" on clothing so I assume you work for someone. If that is the case dont you think you should be spending the workday earning your money instead of posting over 800 times on a clothing forum. which you appear to be visiting during working hours. If I had a 4 year old son and the kind of income which forced me to compromise the quality of my and/or families clothing I would spend a lot less time playing fantasy toughguy on the internet and more trying to be a better provider for my children. Now even if my schedule allowed me to pay mediocre attention to my carreer by choosing my own hours I would still feel compelled to focus during the working hours (your first post yesterday was I think at 8:30 am.) on my pathetic career.
You mocked my childrens voices as a way to sling mud. 
Usually when someone has a child they develop compassion for all people with children and children in general. When you to suggest that palestinian mothers should bear the guilt for thier dead children it reveals a lack of moral center. This is the same kindness which ,if you were decent, would stop you from polluting this forum with your obcenity laden posts.
Instead of hiding out on your computer memorizing the JDL website you should spend some time trying to develop the human characteristics which lead to success in life like Hard work, compassion, maturity, a concern for the needs of others. Ask yourself "do i respond to stress immaturely" "is this forcing me to retreat from the world"? The world does not reward people who react to stress in the way you do. 

I will never again adress you or anyone else who uses the lanquage of the gutter. 

Generally folks who are compelled to move from place to place are running from something, unfortunately they bring themselves wherever they go. 

Once again you cant be antisemitic by supporting one semite against another. Racisim is about race.


----------



## malinda (Aug 25, 2002)

*This is addressed primarily to Globetrotter and Threepwood - but the rest of you had better take notice and heed this final warning:

STOP THE AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.
STOP THE NAME-CALLING.
STOP THE FOUL LANGUAGE.​My next action will be to summarily lock this thread without another word.

Malinda*


----------



## Pb2Au (Mar 23, 2006)

I do not mean to be critical, but I must make this observation. The paper at issue is, in part, about censorship â€“ certain ideas cannot be discussed; and if they are, a myriad of means will be used to shut down further discussion. Thus, your very sensible rule â€“ which merely proscribes uncivil conduct â€“ while laudable can become a very effective tool for censorship.

If I do not want an issue discussed, I behave poorly; and my reward for behaving poorly is that the issue I did not want discussed is locked down.

Collegially,

Pb2Au


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Pb2Au_
> 
> I do not mean to be critical, but I must make this observation. The paper at issue is, in part, about censorship â€" certain ideas cannot be discussed; and if they are, a myriad of means will be used to shut down further discussion. Thus, your very sensible rule â€" which merely proscribes uncivil conduct â€" while laudable can become a very effective tool for censorship.
> 
> ...


P, I am not sure that I understand your point, but I believe that I may. I do not believe that anybody here is disputing this particular article. as a matter of fact, I think that I have said a half dozen times that it is proper for americans to be examining the relationship of lobbyists with their government. What raised the little "firestorm" was TW's assertations that israel was evil, and his use of language that suggested to me, at to several other people here, that he was an anti-semite.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Threepwood_
> 
> I find most dissapointing that globetrotter resorts to childish reducto ad personum. If I want to read vulgar posts laced with four letter words Im sure there would be a home for me on the MTV website.
> I spent a little too much time toying with him two days ago and watching his explosive silly posts. I havent been called names for 25 years and reacted poorly to my first experience. If I offended any members of this forum I appologize. After I saw a member of this forum obscenely attacked for talking about loud people and saw the same thing beginning on this thread I jumped in the fray.
> ...


cute. you know, deep in your heart, that you are a racist. you have to live with that. I know, in my heart, who I am. I have to live with that.

care to address any of the other issues? you have dragged up some old anti-semitic propoganda and posted a variety of falsehoods about something that you are too lazy to check the facts on. care to back up any of your stuff with facts?


----------



## malinda (Aug 25, 2002)

> quote:Thus, your very sensible rule â€" which merely proscribes uncivil conduct â€" while laudable can become a very effective tool for censorship.


This has been discussed previously. Obviously you are new; hence this restatement:

Censorship is imposed by governments. AskAndy is not a government. It is a privately owned web site. You are admitted here by the benevolence of its owner. It is neither totalitarian nor democracy. One of the rules imposed by the site owner is that those who wish to discuss issues here must do so in a civil manner.

If you cannot subscribe to that concept you are free to leave at any time you wish to a place which has no such constraints. If you cannot express yourself within those guidelines your account will be closed.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Threepwood_
> After I saw a member of this forum obscenely attacked for talking about loud people and saw the same thing beginning on this thread I jumped in the fray.


So it's you...Why don't you go troll somewhere else?


----------



## Pb2Au (Mar 23, 2006)

Malinda, 

Firstly, you are correct: I am new here.

Secondly, you are incorrect: censorship can be found in both the public law and the private law.

Thirdly, I have only been civil.

Fourthly, you appear to have misunderstood my comment. All I stated was that with rules such as yours, the discourteous can effectively stifle the exchange of ideas (and I would assume the Interchange is about the exchange of ideas).

Lastly, you may close my account if you wish.

Pb2Au


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Pb2Au
> 
> Lastly, you may close my account if you wish.
> 
> ...


_

Right, why would you care? You'll just get another ID and to come back trolling. It's not like you come to AAAC because you are interested in being part of a community of like-minded clothing enthusiasts. You just get off on incitement and trolling._


----------



## Threepwood (Mar 21, 2006)

Youve got it, Threepwood, Yck,gmac,jlibourel, pb2au: they are all me Grandwizard David Duke master of disguise


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by EL72_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought you liked jumping in and being rude? In an attempt to raise the level of discourse of course....

------------------


----------



## malinda (Aug 25, 2002)

Children:

I have grown weary of checking this thread for ad homs, flames and trolling. Give it a rest.

Malinda


----------

