To the extent that that’s true, it’s worth noting that Nasser’s tone changed by the time he was in office, it doesn’t mean that the crimes of the Nazis should have resulted in punishment for the Palestinians, and that yes, Arab nationalism is backward, as I said.
Funny… the splinter factions which were granted amnesty upon the founding of Israel also changed their tones once they got into politics. Hrm, what’s the term for when you have two sets of standards for the same event, depending on which group you’re looking at?
It’s called a double standard, and I don’t hold one, since I don’t think the US should support someone like Nasser or someone like Begin/Shamir etc.
“Blacks who steal are proof that their race is degenerate and dangerous. Whites who steal are proof of the dehumanizing aspects of poverty. But I don’t hold a double standard, because I think that both blacks and whites shouldn’t be fed alive to tigers.”
Demonizing the Zionists due to six one hundredth of one single percent of the Zionists, and due to splinter groups’ membership being reintegrated into Israel society after they’d changed their tunes…
Absolving the Palestinians of the Grand Mufti’s alliance with Hitler, and Nasser of his own actions because he later changed his tune. No, that’s not a double standard at all, because you’ve tried to change the subject and argue that the US shouldn’t support either one. (By the way, I particularly enjoyed your bullet point earlier about how the US doesn’t need to be involved in the region, since the US is involved in the region and we keep the balance of power stable with military aid. :smack: )
Of course, what was it that you tried to take the Zionists to task for due to the actions of 300 outlawed, hunted men? And what was it you denied? That “Nasser never said anything praising Hitler”? Evidently you truly are completely ignorant about yet another fact that is basic knowledge, and has been for, literally, years now.
[
](http://www.archives.gov/iwg/reports/hitlers-shadow.pdf)
[
](Nazi find sheds light on Egypt's sensitive past)
Double standards?
You?
Nawwwwwwwwwwww!
By the by, since it should be clear to you that Pappe is not a valid source to cite for anything other than entertainment value, you gonna cite any of your fictional claims which I’ve pointed out? Or just gonna keep changing the subject every time you’re caught in another error? Either’s fine.
I was citing Gilbert Achcar’s book. It wasn’t my own claim. I searched around for it last night, and that was the first thing I found. Speaking of double standards, do you know about all the Nazis/Fascists/Japanese imperialists who were quickly recruited by the US and others right after the war, in order to prevent leftist victories in various and sundry places? I know better than to lionize Nasser, even without the Nazi connections.
The only reason I first brought up the Lehi/Stern affair in the first place is because most people don’t know about it, and it throws cold water on the usual way that Zionists are depicted in the US. I already said that, by itself, this episode would not condemn Zionism and/or US aid to Israel. Their actions do not smear all of Zionism. You’ll notice I didn’t include anything about it in the bullet points earlier, because it’s comparatively unimportant.
Speaking of poor reading comprehension, I wrote earlier that American military aid in the region makes the regimes more powerful, and thus more potentially dangerous. The US should cut off everybody, for that reason among others. Israel won victories long before they received American aid. Even if they deserved my tax dollars, they are wealthy and capable of defending themselves. The same is true for most of the other recipients in the region, and in any case, none of them deserve it.
Uh-huh. You just repeated it uncritically. This is a variant of JAQing off, known as Just Citing Other People’s Answers. :dubious:
This proposal has a familiar ring to it - it’s reminiscent of the early 1940s isolationist group America First, which wanted to cut off all aid to warring parties in Europe (their real target being Great Britain), while superficially insisting that both sides were equally bad:
"In order to defeat the president’s pro-British agenda, Committee members insisted the crimes of the western powers were as great as those of Germany. Their arguments usually began with a formulaic denunciation of Hitler, without any serious examination of his actions. This was followed by a detailed catalogue of the sins of the allies."
Yes, there are striking similarities between the arguments and attitudes of America Firsters and certain critics of Israel.*
*Charles Lindbergh would have looved Mearsheimer and Walt, but that’s another story.
Here’s what you actually said,. emphasis mine:
Saying that he was “pointing out” something does indeed make it your claim. That’s the difference between “he pointed it out” and “he alleges”.
You evidently don’t know what a double standard is. As you’re trying to demonize the Zionists due to the actions of the leadership of a 300-man-organization’s relationship with the Nazis, and you’re handwaving away Nasser’s own Nazi connections, your argument is based on a double standard. One that, gee whiz, just so happens to allow you to demonize Israel. Go figure.
Like I said, you’re arguing with people here who know far, far more about the actual issues than you do. Bringing up more stuff because you think that people don’t know it? Probably not a good idea. Also, just as I stated, you are attempting to demonize Zionism in general due to the actions of the leadership of an organization that, at its height, accounted for one six hundredth of one single percent of the Zionists. To start with, that’s the Fallacy of Composition, one of the two roots of virtually all bigotry, prejudice, and racism. And, as pointed out, your attempt to demonize Israel is based on a double standard, and I’d wager that your ‘explanation’ is more than a little self-serving. You didn’t, after all, tell us anything about Nasser’s Nazi connections, even though most people don’t know about that, and as the Egyptian government of the time period isn’t depicted as having Nazi connections in most US media, you could’ve “thrown some cold water” on that, as well.
But you didn’t.
Curiouser and curiouser.
I’ll use the tried and true Sesame Street Bullshit Detector song, “One of these things is not like the other”.
Well, gee… you did indeed try to smear all Zionists with their actions. Swing and a miss, OLP.
Nope, no problems with my reading comprehension. Rather serious problem with your claims, though.
Did you, in fact, argue that US military aid to the region is a stabilizing factor? (emphasis mine)
Who’d a thunk it?
Really, if you just got a hold on that wild rhetoric, started actually citing things (you totally missed the joke about how you’ve given up the habit of citing the people you’ve read who’ve informed your views), and had a logically consistent argument instead of trying to aimlessly flail against Israel and “Zionists” (along with their ‘undue influence’ of the American media and potential agents posting on the SDMB), this stuff wouldn’t happen to you.
I assume you know that states like Iran are sending military and other assistance to terrorist organizations like Hizbollah and Hamas in Gaza. Do you agree that this makes Hizbollah and Hamas more dangerous? If so, I assume you will equally condemn it. Would you like to do so now, or is consistency not a concern?
Regards,
Shodan
Then I should have used different language: “Here’s what Gilbert Achcar says. I found it interesting, but I don’t know if it’s true.” I knew about the way Nasser was explicitly compared to Hitler and Mussolini in 1956, and that was always treated by present-day historians as hyperbole on the part of people like Anthony Eden.
I have a problem with Zionists, a problem with Ba’athists, a hatred for any and all monarchies, and an even deeper hatred for theocrats. What’s left in the Middle East… Lebanon! That’s it! In any case, I don’t trust the major powers to act with good intentions, and/or not to screw up and cause more problems than existed previously.
The Allies were made up of regimes attacked by the Axis, and/or those with certain obligations (“entangling alliances”) due to treaties they signed. The Swiss and the Swedes were ready for war, but kept doing business with both sides, since they were never attacked directly. Public opinion, especially in Switzerland, was very anti-Nazi. Had there been no Pearl Harbor attack, and nothing comparable afterward, the US would have probably continued in the same role: doing substantial business with the Allies, on clearly sympathetic terms, but with no direct involvement. The Axis reached their high tide in 1941 anyway, and were running out of steam by the end of the year. That’s part of what made the Japanese do something so rash.
Try and think of a political program that could bring together Churchill and Mao.
Yes, it does. It’s a mistake on the part of the Iranians. Their foreign policy has usually been smarter than that. It makes more sense to do this kind of thing in one’s near-abroad than on the other side of the world, but even so, I oppose it.
But do you not see why I should feel more responsible for my own country’s actions than another’s? This comes up all the time. I’ve been in anti-Zionist protests, only to have Zionists ask me things like “why don’t you protest Assad?”
Obviously, it’s because my government does not support Assad! It’s not tied in any way to my voice, taxes, or vote.
See, double standards. It’s OK for Americans to build bases in other people’s countries, sail the Navy into intimidating positions close to other countries, and engage in all other kinds of interference, but it would be treated as an outrage here if China or Russia or Iran or anybody did something like that in this hemisphere. It’s OK for Israel to clandestinely build nuclear weapons (aided by espionage) and never disclose their existence, but it’s a scandal for anyone else. Do we all know how it looks for the only country in the world to use nuclear weapons to try and control who else can construct them? Imagine if anybody else but the Israelis had attacked ships full of supplies for people caught in a place like Gaza.
I’m deeply thankful to Noam Chomsky for decades of plainly explaining such double standards and hypocrisies, and if it took somebody like Ron Paul to bring it to a wider audience, so be it.
So OLP’s model for policy towards the Middle East is WWII-era Sweden? :dubious:
So the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor to take pressure off the Germans and Italians? Interesting take on history, to say the least (virtually all historians, after they stopped laughing, would note that Japan attacked the U.S. because it believed America was thwarting its goal of Far East domination).
And of course German sentiment against the U.S. was rising even before Pearl Harbor because the U.S. was providing war aid (including convoy protection) to Britain. It is very likely some provocation would have drawn the two countries into conflict even without Pearl Harbor (note the glee with which Hitler declared war on the U.S. shortly after 12/7/41).
But maybe they didn’t teach that in your history courses. It’s amazing what students are not taught these days. My favorite example is Mrs. J., when she was working as a university reference librarian, being approached by a student wanting to know what war it was that was going on in 1943. He was a journalism major. 
Your government does indeed support numerous Arab governments as well as the Palestinian authority with many millions of taxpayer dollars annually. So, how many anti-Egypt and anti-Palestinian protests have you participated in?
Precisely.
Ask Noam Chomsky to explain. 
It looks to me like a Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Israel is not a signatory to this treaty. Iran is, but is violating it and lying about it.
It would probably be ignored, or at least there would be fewer agent provacateurs trying to use it as a tool to beat the Israelis over the head.
Sure. But if you want to be responsible, you would want to be a lot more careful about who you believe, and who you condemn based on those beliefs when they are false.
Your sources are biased and one-sided to the point of being complete horseshit, and you are using them as a basis for your attitudes towards Israel. That’s not being more responsible for your own countries actions. It’s being, at best, gullible, and at worst, deluded.
Regards,
Shodan
I didn’t know anything about any of the posters on this board before I posted here. I didn’t mention anything about Nasser’s WWII-era activities because, unlike his later career, I had never studied that subject before.
You said that you approved of Irgun’s actions. They were larger than Lehi/Stern, and correspondingly more significant during the war, and afterward as their members were rehabilitated. And besides, you’re missing the whole point: I’m opposed to ethnic (or worse, religious) definitions for states. The Grand Mufti’s actions pale in comparison to the European fascists, and if anybody absolutely had to give up territory for a “Jewish state,” if should have been Europeans, not Palestinians.
That’s what smears Zionism.
Let’s try again: You don’t have to worry about Israel being conquered because of the “Samson option,” and it would be even less likely if the US wasn’t arming people to the teeth. Plus, I don’t like the idea of weapons flowing to vile monarchies any more than I like them going to Israel.
I didn’t miss the joke, I just didn’t think it was very funny.
What’s with all the scare quotes?
It seems you are as well informed on WWII as you are on the subject of the Middle East. The phrase “entangling alliances” refers to WWI, not WWII. The entangling alliances caused a fight between Austria-Hungary and Serbia to become a war involving all of the European great powers. WWII was started by Hitler invading Poland, there were no entangling alliances. Germany had no allies (discounting the puppet rump state of Slovakia), and the Allies consisted of Poland, Britain and the Commonwealth and France.
Cite?
No direct involvement? The US was already in an undeclared shooting war with Germany in the Atlantic. The US Navy was escorting British convoys with orders to shoot on sight any U-Boats they spotted. The USS Niblack depth charged a German U-Boat on April 10th, 1941.
Wrong, the high tide of the Axis in terms of territory they controlled was in late 1942. Running out of steam at the end of 1941? That’s grossly untrue, there was enough steam to keep the war going for four more years, Germany was able to go on the strategic offensive in the USSR again in summer 1942, and production of war materials by Germany didn’t peak until 1944.
Utterly untrue. Japan attacked in December 1941 to seize oil it was being denied by the US embargo in order to be able to continue its war in China. Japan only had two realistic options; withdrawal from China or take sources of oil in the Dutch East Indies by force. If it did neither, its economy was going to come to a grinding halt from lack of oil.
No, you made that up.
Care to cite any of your posts on the Dope in opposition to Germany, Japan, Ireland, etc…?
They do exist, right?
Having already pointed out to you that there was never any such thing as “Palestine”, nor “Palestinian territory”, I can only assume that you simply do not know or care about the factual accuracy of your claims, and you’re just saying whatever sounds good to you.
So first you state that the US should stay out of the region, and one of your examples for why that is it that the US being in the region increases regional stability. Then you deny you said that. Then I quote it. Then you repeat what you just claimed you never said. Does that strike you as a good set of tactics?
What, that you’re utterly unable to provide cites for your fictions, and the closest you came was citing Pappe. And then you get all annoyed when it was pointed out that he’s an admitted propagandist whose screed are, to put it mildly, factually questionable at best? Yeah, I can see why you wouldn’t find it funny. I’m pretty sure quite a few of your opponents in this thread do, especially since you’ve been using your credentials as an Appeal To Authority over, and over, and over again.
Reading comprehension, eh?
I already pointed out, specifically, why the word “Zionist” has no real meaning post 1948. Tom elaborated on that point for you, too. Of course, you’ve also been involved in repeated goalpost shifting. Hilarious goalpost shifting, for anybody who actually knows the facts of the issues, so the joke may be lost on you. See, you redefined “Zionism” to mean “the efforts to prevent the exercise of the right of return”
Prince Bandar went on record as saying that if Arafat didn’t accept the Taba negotiations/Clinton’s Bridging Proposal, it would not be a “shame”, but a “crime”. What’s in that Bridging Proposal (which you should have known, honestly)?
[
](Clinton Bridging Proposals for Final Palestine-Israel Peace Settlement)
In other words, Bandar was specifically, explicitly, strongly supporting a proposal which would most likely have ended up with Palestinians being resettled in a nascent Palestine. So by your own, (heh) logic, Prince Bandar is a Zionist.
Do you realize yet how absurd your argument looks to anybody who actually knows about the issues?
Cut and paste error. That should read about you denying your stance, me quoting it, and then you pretty much just repeating it with “Yeah, but not” added in.
Not necessarily Sweden. Any non-interventionist would do.
As for the Japanese, they were taking the pressure off themselves (the oil situation) and ended up putting a colossal avalanche of pressure on themselves. Some in Japan were worried about this, but in a hierarchical system of power and privilege, not all voices can be heard, or given equal weight. There is no consensus, just deference to authority. See, an anarchist/consensus teachable moment!
I’ve been in two protests against the US-backed neoliberal dictatorship of Mubarak, and I would go to one tomorrow against the Muslim Brotherhood theocrats, but I have to go to work. Someone I know (he’s Egyptian) plans to torch the Muslim Brotherhood flag.
I would love to talk to Prof. Chomsky about all of this, if I somehow got the chance.
Speaking of bias, I don’t like to use corporate media sources, but maybe you do: “U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb.”