When Genocide is Permissible

[hangman]

I'm saying we face no real economic consequences, and few social consequences in our everyday lives. What's all this about Iraq?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm saying we face no real economic consequences, and few social consequences in our everyday lives. What's all this about Iraq?

Well that explains the confusion...I thought the

same ideology that destroyed the US's that is destroying the Israelis'

was referring to the 'moral cred' that was being talked about. If it wasn't then the Iraq thing was pretty much a throw from left field before the pitch.

 

[NovaKart]

There is still some difference between 7 concurrent threads on the same issue, and 7 such threads on the same issue by the same poster

Makes you long for the days of Tom Petty threads?

 

[Domen]

I never create 7 concurrent threads on the same issue. That would be too easy.

I prefer to transform 7 already existing threads into threads on this issue! That's a challenge.

 

[Leonel]

Makes you long for the days of Tom Petty threads?

Hahaha oh yeah those were the days.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

This really says a lot about the government that the US considers to be it's greatest ally.

 

[Phrossack]

What benefits, if any, does Israel provide for the US, anyway? It really seems like a one-sided relationship.

 

[Tahuti]

What benefits, if any, does Israel provide for the US, anyway? It really seems like a one-sided relationship.

Being Pro-Israel gets you elected. Most Americans don't care about the entire conflict, but of those who do, most are Pro-Israel.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Being Pro-Israel gets you elected. Most Americans don't care about the entire conflict, but of those who do, most are Pro-Israel.

Being pro-Israel gets your campaign funded by AIPAC. Most politicians don't care about the entire conflict, but of those who do, any who aren't pro-Israel keep their mouths shut.

On this subject Americans' opinions just don't matter.

 

[Tahuti]

Being pro-Israel gets your campaign funded by AIPAC. Most politicians don't care about the entire conflict, but of those who do, any who aren't pro-Israel keep their mouths shut.

On this subject Americans' opinions just don't matter.

America simply is a very Pro-Israel nation. If there was criticism to the extent you seem to imply, there would have long been a counter-lobby. This is why it is futile to have a similar lobby in Europe - in spite of having some strong sympathisers is right-wing circles - because the Muslim community and mainstream Leftists (who are aligned with the former) simply would pop up a counter-lobby. So there is relatively much sympathy for Israel, and relatively little for Palestine, so AIPAC. Reversing that order and you are approaching tinfoil hattery.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

America simply is a very Pro-Israel nation. If there was criticism to the extent you seem to imply, there would have long been a counter-lobby. This is why it is futile to have a similar lobby in Europe - in spite of having some strong sympathisers is right-wing circles - because the Muslim community and mainstream Leftists (who are aligned with the former) simply would pop up a counter-lobby. So there is relatively much sympathy for Israel, and relatively little for Palestine, so AIPAC. Reversing that order and you are approaching tinfoil hattery.

America is more simply a just don't care nation. Out of 435 current races in progress for congress I would bet that in less than a quarter of them is 'stance on Israel' considered worth talking about by any candidate, and that's with the current attention. If people really cared about Israel in large numbers they wouldn't need AIPAC.

In that background a hugely funded PAC can pretty much do what it wants on Israel and Palestine. AIPAC doesn't fund candidates so they can run as pro-Israel, because not enough voters care if they are or aren't. AIPAC funds them to run as pro-whatever people care about so they can get into office and be pro-Israel. Usually they fund both sides. If they are crossed, they will surely only fund the opponent next time though, so they are seldom crossed.

As to a pro Palestinian PAC...you are kidding, right? Political influence in America can't be bought with sand and homemade rockets. It takes money, and more than a lot of it.

 

[Tahuti]

America is more simply a just don't care nation. Out of 435 current races in progress for congress I would bet that in less than a quarter of them is 'stance on Israel' considered worth talking about by any candidate, and that's with the current attention. If people really cared about Israel in large numbers they wouldn't need AIPAC.

As long as the ones who do care are fairly Pro-Israel, America's Israel policy will remain.

As to a pro Palestinian PAC...you are kidding, right? Political influence in America can't be bought with sand and homemade rockets. It takes money, and more than a lot of it.

AIPAC has plenty of money because America has quite a few Israel supporters willing to support it with money. The same cannot be said about Palestine. That said, AIPAC isn't a particularly big lobby when measured in donations to candidates. The Oil lobby is considerably larger, for instance, though they also face competition from environmentalist lobbies.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"Former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw reportedly said during a debate in the British parliament that “unlimited” funds available to Jewish organizations and AIPAC in the US are used to control American policy in the Middle East." quoted from The Times of Israel. Of course they went berserk about it being an 'anti-semitic diatribe' but I figure quoting them is less likely to generate a 'he didn't say it' response.

 

[Mouthwash]

1. The article was an independent blogger, was being hosted by the Times of Israel, and was immediately shut down in response.

2. This is a despicable thread that had no business being made.

 

[Phrossack]

It's amazing and sad. If any other country deliberately sank one of its military vessels and called it an accident, the US would've gone to war. Instead, it slavishly obeys a country that never helps it and does nothing but cause problems for the US. With friends like these...

 

[peter grimes]

In that background a hugely funded PAC can pretty much do what it wants on Israel and Palestine. AIPAC doesn't fund candidates so they can run as pro-Israel, because not enough voters care if they are or aren't. AIPAC funds them to run as pro-whatever people care about so they can get into office and be pro-Israel. Usually they fund both sides. If they are crossed, they will surely only fund the opponent next time though, so they are seldom crossed.

This is totally accurate. Just today I was reading a blogpost about how AIPAC operates. They don't directly fund candidates, but they DO connect candidates with donors or donor bundlers.

They don't demand that candidates support Israel. But they DO work to un-elect candidates that are not pro-Israel.

Some relevant stuff from the article the blogpost was talking about:

“What AIPAC wants can be summed up very succinctly: a powerful Israel free to occupy the territory it chooses; enfeebled Palestinians; and unquestioning support for Israel by the United States.”

...The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that analyzes political contributions, lists a total of thirty-six pro-Israel PACs, which together contributed $3.14 million to candidates in the 2004 election cycle. Pro-Israel donors give many millions more...

...candidates who challenge AIPAC can find their funds suddenly dry up. Two well-publicized cases are those of Representatives Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and Earl Hilliard of Alabama, both African-Americans. In 2002, McKinney and Hilliard were alleged to have made statements or taken positions critical of Israel, and their primary opponents received large amounts of pro-Israel money. Both candidates had limited public support and ended up losing. Cases such as these occur infrequently: a candidate’s position on Israel is rarely enough by itself to cause defeat. But it can have a very large effect on fund-raising.

...Israel “is never the sole thing” that causes a defeat, he proceeded to give a list of several politicians who had suffered because they had offended AIPAC.
…

Partly as a result of such giving, says one Hill staffer, “We can count on well over half the House—250 to 300 members—to do reflexively whatever AIPAC wants.”

This is absolutely despicable. I cannot stress enough how much we need to separate money from politics and electioneering. If nobody were allowed to give money to any single candidate or party this whole whorish business could be avoided. But I doubt we'll see anything like that unless Lawrence Lessig's little PAC can make some waves.

 

[Mouthwash]

It's amazing and sad. If any other country deliberately sank one of its military vessels and called it an accident, the US would've gone to war. Instead, it slavishly obeys a country that never helps it and does nothing but cause problems for the US. With friends like these...

Because Israel has vested interest in sinking US military vessels? I'd imagine that an Iranian or North Korean attack would provoke war. A German or British attack while around hostile waters wouldn't even be viewed as a diplomatic incident.

This is totally accurate. Just today I was reading a blogpost about how AIPAC operates. They don't directly fund candidates, but they DO connect candidates with donors or donor bundlers.

They don't demand that candidates support Israel. But they DO work to un-elect candidates that are not pro-Israel.

Some relevant stuff from the article the blogpost was talking about:


This is absolutely despicable. I cannot stress enough how much we need to separate money from politics and electioneering. If nobody were allowed to give money to any single candidate or party this whole whorish business could be avoided. But I doubt we'll see anything like that unless Lawrence Lessig's little PAC can make some waves.

Norman Finkelstein shows how ridiculously out of proportion the 'Israel Lobby' is blown up: http://www.gregoryharms.com/harms_2013.06.13.html

Walt is dubious, and Mearsheimer is a verified antisemite. I can prove it, but I'm not feeling up to hunting down sources right now.

 

[peter grimes]

Then your claims will remain mere allegations, potentially slanderous. Don't expect us to do your homework for you. Back up your claims or they will be roundly ignored.

 

[Mouthwash]

Then your claims will remain mere allegations, potentially slanderous. Don't expect us to do your homework for you. Back up your claims or they will be roundly ignored.

I will; that's why I said "right now."

 

[peter grimes]

OK, cool. Just remember that ad hominem replies don't address the arguments these guys make. So calling someone an anti-Semite is totally irrelevant to the task of debunking his claim.