# Another Israeli mole uncovered - Why does Israel feel it can spy on us with impunity? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 28, 2004, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-israeli-mole-uncovered-why-does-israel-feel-it-can-spy-on-us-with-impunity/261885 "2004-08-28T01:45:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-israeli-mole-uncovered-why-does-israel-feel-it-can-spy-on-us-with-impunity/261885/161 "2004-09-03T06:22:24Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Ahhhh. > Now that the phrase is refined, I can grok it. > So we are not ‘owned’ by any group, that is an hyperbole: > instead, the political process lends itself abuse by special interest groups with lots of cash. IMHO. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Capt\_B.Phart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc29f/32.png) [@Capt\_B.Phart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt_B.Phart)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-israeli-mole-uncovered-why-does-israel-feel-it-can-spy-on-us-with-impunity/261885/162 "2004-09-03T10:18:27Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Ahhhh. > Now that the phrase is refined, I can grok it. > So we are not ‘owned’ by any group, that is an hyperbole: > instead, the political process lends itself abuse by special interest groups with lots of cash. Or groups that claim to have some influence on voting patterns. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-israeli-mole-uncovered-why-does-israel-feel-it-can-spy-on-us-with-impunity/261885/163 "2004-09-03T12:17:30Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Actually, no, they’re not euphemisms. [you look it up](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=euphemism) > They’re not attempting to make anything less harsh, and if they’re not factual, then they’re wrong. > > First, you’d do well to know what the words you are using **mean** before you accuse someone else of anything. > > Second, if I used the euphemism “Person X and person Y were intimate.” instead of saying they were fucking, Yeah, and if I used the euphemism, “Congressman Dingleberry is “bought and paid for” by Lobby A”, instead of “Congressman Dingleberry prostitutes himself and betrays his constituency to Lobby A for financial gain”. > [@](#): > > Yes, I refuse to answer as your question is both loaded and ridiculous. No, you refuse to answer because if you did honestly answer it, you would be confirming my “opinion” that those who take contributions for financial gain in exchange for votes for the benefit of a lobby’s interests, could accurately be described as being “bought and paid for”. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-israeli-mole-uncovered-why-does-israel-feel-it-can-spy-on-us-with-impunity/261885/164 "2004-09-03T12:33:17Z")
> [@Capt B. Phart](#): > > Or groups that claim to have some influence on voting patterns. _ **AND** _ groups that claim to have some influence on voting patterns. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-israeli-mole-uncovered-why-does-israel-feel-it-can-spy-on-us-with-impunity/261885/165 "2004-09-03T13:14:53Z")
I think Israel would be better off without AIPAC and the others. As long as Sharon and his group realize that they can manipulate the US Congress, they have no invcentive to reach an accomodation with the Palestinians. So, we get the same thing over and over…Isreal “agreees” to “negotiations” (meanwhile building houses in the West Bank at a furious pace. At the same time, Arafat knows what is going on, and so refuses to negotiate in good faith. That is why we have ahad a continuous string of "peace agreements"and talks since the Carter administration, with no tangible results. Each side knows that it can cheat, and get away with it. How to break the logjam? Announce to AIPAC that henceforth, they all must register as foreign agents, and their finances must be a public record. I don’t see this happeneing, however! ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-israeli-mole-uncovered-why-does-israel-feel-it-can-spy-on-us-with-impunity/261885/166 "2004-09-03T13:49:12Z")
Good article today on aggressive Israeli espionage: [http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20040903/ts\_latimes/israelhaslongspiedonussayofficials](http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20040903/ts_latimes/israelhaslongspiedonussayofficials) ---
**Author:** ![Capt\_B.Phart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc29f/32.png) [@Capt\_B.Phart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt_B.Phart)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-israeli-mole-uncovered-why-does-israel-feel-it-can-spy-on-us-with-impunity/261885/167 "2004-09-03T13:57:56Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > _ **AND** _ groups that claim to have some influence on voting patterns. Ok I’ll meet you halfway: - _ **AND/OR** _ groups that claim to have some influence on voting patterns. 🙂 As an aside; I heard someone on the Sudanese government side claiming that the only reason America was protesting about events in Sudan was because of the “Black lobby” that controls US politics! ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-israeli-mole-uncovered-why-does-israel-feel-it-can-spy-on-us-with-impunity/261885/168 "2004-09-03T16:23:51Z")
> [@Capt B. Phart](#): > > Ok I’ll meet you halfway: - _ **AND/OR** _ groups that claim to have some influence on voting patterns. 🙂 It all amounts to _about_ the same price, despite the differing currency. The question becomes with whom do we allow our officeholders to conduct this sort of business. IMHO, just as artificial persons are not given the ability to vote, neither shold they be given the ability to lobby out legslatures or the abuility to contribute to election campaigns. This would force artificial persons (PACs in particular) to have to lobby the relevant electorate at large instead of merely select individuals. PACs would have a vested interest in educating the electorate. It would pit the forces of the PACs against the scourge of rational ignorance. PACs would be forced to spend their lobbying money keeping the electorate informed as to why their agendas deserved to be considered by the electorate’s politicians when they formulate and enforce laws, rules and regulations. If this were to happen, it would be very much more a case of which PAC can “have some influence on voting patterns” rather than which PAC can afford access to politicians. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-israeli-mole-uncovered-why-does-israel-feel-it-can-spy-on-us-with-impunity/261885/169 "2004-09-03T19:46:51Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You’re gonna have to cite that one, **Raze**. Not saying I don’t buy it, but that’s a big 'un. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Pardon? > Or is this another ‘opinion’ that doesn’t have to be backed up with facts? No, they are statements of fact. A “cite” is not requisite. If you doubt the statement, then challenge the statement Just come on out and say, “I don’t believe it” or “That’s not true”. Put some credibility on the line. The requireing of a “cite” for opinions, euphemisims, hyperbole or any figure of speech has decended to the level of pettiness. pet•ty adj., -ti•er, -ti•est 1. of little or no importance. 2. of lesser importance or merit; minor. 3. having or showing narrow ideas, interests, etc. 4. showing meanness of spirit. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-israeli-mole-uncovered-why-does-israel-feel-it-can-spy-on-us-with-impunity/261885/170 "2004-09-04T15:42:25Z")
> [@Razorsharp bolding mine](#): > > **No, they are statements of fact. A “cite” is not requisite.** If you doubt the statement, then challenge the statement A cite isn’t required for a statement of fact? And it’s petty of me to expect proof? If you say so. > [@Razorsharp](#): > > Just come on out and say, “I don’t believe it” or “That’s not true”. Put some credibility on the line. Burden of proof is over your head, not mine. All I have to do is say “prove that.” The person putting credibility on the line is the one making the claim, I’m not about to prove the negative. Sorry. > [@Razorsharp](#): > > The requireing of a “cite” for opinions, euphemisims, hyperbole or any figure of speech has decended to the level of pettiness. Had someone argued that it was merely a figure of speech with **no relation to reality** then it could slide. But as soon as you start saying that it is factual, you **must** provide proof. Opinions must be based on fact, or be wrong. Euphemisms must represent a real situation, or be lies. Hyperbole must be based on a real occurance or be simple bombastic rhetoric. As for the fact that proving that Israel ‘owns’ us is ‘petty’, I disagree. This is of vast importance. The answer to this question has great merit The political landscape of our country is a vast and important subject Nobody has been anything but polite. But please, if someone asks you to prove your contentions, tell them that they’re using non-adult debating tactics, and they’re being petty, and they kicked your dog. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2004, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-israeli-mole-uncovered-why-does-israel-feel-it-can-spy-on-us-with-impunity/261885/171 "2004-09-06T17:35:46Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > A cite isn’t required for a statement of fact? Not necessarily. Take the statement, “The liberal agenda has been detrimental to traditional American society.” It is obviously an opinion that is held as fact by the one making the statement. No, a cite is not required, just as a cite is not required of the statement, “Israel owns America” or “Congressman Dingleberry is bought and paid for”. Now, as for statements regarding events that have been covered in the media, sometimes the asking of a cite is the equivilant of holding up of a hoop to jump through. For instance, my statement regarding former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjimin Netanyahu’s statement, “They don’t hate America because of Israel, they hate Israel because of America.”, **Elucidator** say’s that she doesn’t really doubt it, but I need to cite it anyway. That’s B.S. > [@](#): > > And it’s petty of me to expect proof? Yes, it is petty to **demand** proof after being provided circumstantial evidence that backs up the opinion or figure of speech, especially in an on-line forum. > [@](#): > > Had someone argued that it was merely a figure of speech with **no relation to reality** then it could slide. But as soon as you start saying that it is factual, you **must** provide proof. I don’t recall anyone saying that it was a **fact** that “Israel owns America” or it was a **fact** that so-and-so was “bought and paid for”. Therefore, asking for a cite on either figure of speech, is a petty debate tactic. > [@](#): > > Opinions must be based on fact, or be wrong. > Euphemisms must represent a real situation, or be lies. > Hyperbole must be based on a real occurance or be simple bombastic rhetoric. You were given the circumstantial evidence that the opinion was based on, but you demand proof. You set the bar rather high for an opinion, don’t you think? > [@](#): > > As for the fact that proving that Israel ‘owns’ us is ‘petty’, I disagree. > This is of vast importance. What **fact** are you talking about? Damnit, “owns” is an obvious figure of speech based on a plethora of facts that comprise the “special relationship” that modern-day Israel is afforded by the United States government. Can you not see that? I think you can. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2004, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-israeli-mole-uncovered-why-does-israel-feel-it-can-spy-on-us-with-impunity/261885/172 "2004-09-07T06:14:50Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > Not necessarily. Take the statement, “The liberal agenda has been detrimental to traditional American society.” It is obviously an opinion that is held as fact by the one making the statement. Yes… and obviously, someone “holding it as fact” doesn’t make it a fact. > [@Razorsharp](#): > > No, a cite is not required, just as a cite is not required of the statement, “Israel owns America” or “Congressman Dingleberry is bought and paid for”. So, if one were to say “ **Razorsharp** is in the pocket of group X and does whatever they say…” you wouldn’t want them to prove their claims or stop making shit up? If you were in fact associated with group X but not at their beck and call, would you want them to at least use language that was true-to-facts? > [@Razorsharp](#): > > Now, as for statements regarding events that have been covered in the media, sometimes the asking of a cite is the equivilant of holding up of a hoop to jump through. Why is it a hoop to ask you to prove your statements? Even ‘common knowledge’ may not be had by 100 percent of a population. Doesn’t fighting ignorance mean that you have to show someone facts in order to eliminate their ignorance and replace it with knowledge? > [@Razorsharp](#): > > For instance, my statement regarding former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjimin Netanyahu’s statement, “They don’t hate America because of Israel, they hate Israel because of America.”, **Elucidator** say’s that she doesn’t really doubt it, but I need to cite it anyway. That’s B.S. Why’s that bullshit? If someone hasn’t seen proof of an event, why shouldn’t you give it to them, even if they don’t doubt it? What is the harm in providing factual confirmation? > [@Razorsharp](#): > > Yes, it is petty to **demand** proof after being provided circumstantial evidence that backs up the opinion or figure of speech, especially in an on-line forum. Circumstantial evidence backs nothing up. That’s why it’s circumstantial. Moreoever, I think it’s somehow less-than-honest to use hyperbole and expect it to be taken as anything close to factual. There is a huge difference is connotation, denotation , and application between "Israel owns us"and “Pro-Israel lobbying groups contribute a lot of money to the political process.” > [@Razorsharp](#): > > I don’t recall anyone saying that it was a **fact** that “Israel owns America” or it was a **fact** that so-and-so was “bought and paid for”. Funny, because… > [@Razorsharp](#): > > By the use of the word “own”, it is obvious that it is opinion. Although “own” could be quite apropos with regards to certain bought-and-paid-for members of congress. Or were you not being serious when you said that there are certain members of congress who are “bought and paid for?” > [@Razorsharp](#): > > Therefore, asking for a cite on either figure of speech, is a petty debate tactic. Had you not waffled and simply said “this is just a figure of speech that has only a passing isomorphism with reality.” then I could’ve let it slide (but I still wouldn’t suggested a more-factual-less-semantically-sloppy construction). But you attempted to prove that it was both an opinion and thus not applicable to challenges of proof, and a fact and thus susceptible to challenges of proof. > [@Razorsharp](#): > > You were given the circumstantial evidence that the opinion was based on, but you demand proof. Heavens forefend! > [@Razorsharp](#): > > You set the bar rather high for an opinion, don’t you think? Nope. I think that opinions should be allowed for personal preference; and that opinions dealing with external reality should be held to ruthless standards of proof. > [@Razorsharp](#): > > What **fact** are you talking about? You made the claim that asking for proof of Israeli ownership of US government is petty, I assumed that you wished your statement to be taken as a fact, and not a baseless assertion with no relation to reality. Was I wrong? Were you not saying that asking for proof of that nature is petty? > [@Razorsharp](#): > > Damnit, “owns” is an obvious figure of speech based on a plethora of facts that comprise the “special relationship” that modern-day Israel is afforded by the United States government. Can you not see that? I think you can. It is a figure of speech that is both misleading and inflammatory. Why cling to a figure of speech that is, at best, only slightly connected with reality rather than formulating a semantically accurate argument? If someone said “Israel owns our government.” Why should we be expected to let that slide? Or would we be acting in the interest of truth if we revised it to a factually-correct “there are certain PAC groups which donate large amounts of funds and thereby achieve a measure of political leverage.” Why should “Israel owns our government” be any different from “The Jews control the media.” “The Republicans control the media.” “The Liberals control the media.”? Don’t they have to be based on facts or be inaccurate? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-israeli-mole-uncovered-why-does-israel-feel-it-can-spy-on-us-with-impunity/261885.md?page=8)