As anyone can see in this thread? Are you saying that people from the Israel Lobby are posting here? Or that those who oppose your position are doing so because they have been duped by the Israel Lobby?
I know these rules are more recent but, didn’t we blockade the south during the civil war?
So for purposes of determining if Israel has any obligations to Gaza, they are in a state of non-statehood but for purposes of determining whether they can legally be blockaded, they are a de facto state?
OK I get that and we have already had the discussion of whether or not blockading chocolate goes to far so we don’t need to do that again but doesn’t that make the Hamas rocket attacks of Israel justified?
It seems part of the problem is that Israel has got a fencepole stuck in its ass. Go to war, make peace, or annex Gaza and naturalize the Gazans. They don’t seem to see any ofthe possible resolutions as preferable to the current situation.
They spread their propaganda, so the latter is a fair assumption. The first might be true also, but it’s much less likely.
OurLordPeace, you should stop wasting your time now. The posters here defend Israel and everything she does as if they were hungry, mongrel dogs guarding the last few scraps of food. You’ll make no headway here, those calories would better spent quilting or sewing. StraightDope may fight ignorance, but this is one topic that the masses are wholly resistant to that fight. Give up before it’s too late and you get sucked into this black hole of a debate.
- Honesty
No, the contention is that for the purposes of determining if Israel has any obligations to Gaza, they are in a state of non-occupation.
Not sure what is meant by “justified” here. Can Hamas attempt to fight the Israelis? Sure, if it is at war with them - and take the consequences.
However, if their sole method of “fighting” is to randomly bombard Israeli civilians, that’s pretty crappy. Note that not even Israel’s enemies claim it does that to Gazans, and of they started, there would be a huge outcry of protest.
The real problem here, of course, is that Hamas is in no position to actually fight the Israelis and win. Hence, under the usual accounts of “just war” theory, they should not fight. All of their legitimate goals are better served by, say, not peppering the Israelis with random rockets.
Why are you putting this all on the Israelis? It is Hamas that refuses to make any sort of peace. The Israelis did make war on them, beat the shit out of them, and forced them to declare a “unilateral ceasefire”, but Hamas resolutely refuses to acknowlege that being beat = needs to make peace.
Israel has no desire whatsoever to annex Gaza, and why should it? That would require further massive violence.
So, we can assume you have ether been duped by the “Arab Lobby” (or in fact are part of the “Arab Lobby”) by the same token? 
Naturally, I myself don’t believe that for a second - but then, I’m quite capable of believing, however naively, that people can actually look at facts and reach different conclusions from me, and talk about it on the Dope, without being either a shill or a dupe.
OurLordPeace,
Thank you for rejoining us.
I notice you must have missed my questions so I’ll ask them once again.
You earlier posted a link to IfAmericansKnew.org., an organization you presumably respect and see an excellent source for information.
The Director of the organization you’re quoting claims that Israeli soldiers were killing Palestinian children and dragging away their bodies to harvest their organs.
She also claims that the “Blood libel” the idea that medieval Jews kidnapped and murdered Christian children to make Matzoh “has a basis in fact”?
She strikes me as a rather untrustworthy source.
**
Please explain why you think someone who makes claims like that isn’t a kook? **
Also, do you believe that Israel is killing Palestinian children to harvest their organs and do you believe that “the blood libel” had “some basis in fact”?
Finally, where are you getting your Masters because its hard to a place thats as “well-regarded” as you call it, would allow the use of such kooky sources?
Thank you.
I don’t know for sure, but I do know that Ms. Weir (whom I have met, briefly) mentioned her (often Israeli) sources in a letter to the Guardian, as well as a longer article that appeared in Counterpunch. It makes sense in context, and it bears investigating. It’s not like she pulled it out of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion or anything like that.
Finnagain is right, I got my degree from American University’s School of International Service. I must have mentioned it on this site at some point.
“It makes sense in the context”?
So then you do believe that the charge that medieval Jews did kidnap and murder Christian children to make them into matzoh “has a basis in fact” and that Israeli soldiers regularly shoot down Palestinians in the street and drag them off to have their organs harvested?
Would you mind explaining because such beliefs strike me as rather bizarre.
Were such beliefs common and considered non-bigoted at American University.
+1. Never mind ridiculous “warnings” for those wanting some sense of fairness in the situation and inhumane situation. Re: posts favoring/equating Palestinians and Israelis. As can be seen in this very thread.
I’ve given up a while back and just consider it a “site-bug.” Not gonna change.
I took a quick look at the sources, and what everyone was saying. There’s an Israeli historian/rabbi who wrote about an episode in which some Italian Jews were involved in some unsavory business which provided the kernel of truth behind the “blood libel” myth.
As for the modern charges of organ harvesting, it seems really controversial, with at least one American expert on the subject maintaining that Israeli military personnel have been involved in that. Notably, hasn’t the Kosovo Liberation Army been charged with doing the same thing to Serbs?
That’s the context to which I refer. As far as I can tell, only looking into it briefly, it merits a closer look. These two topics never came up during my studies.
Yes, and I was actually surprised at how long it took before someone began to cry “Anti-Semite!!!111one!!!eleven!!!”
No, because I haven’t made any excuses for any of the different elements that might have such a lobby. I agree with Michael Scheuer that it would be great if somebody could do an expose` of the Saudi Lobby. I also agree with ex-AIPAC member M.J. Rosenberg that, in order to deflect the “anti-Semitism” charges, it helps to point out that the U.S. shouldn’t be supporting the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara either.
I just had an idea.
This is going to sound kind of crazy, but…
…how about actually trying to engage in a productive and educational discussion with the posters in this thread? You know, using facts and cites and logic and reasoning?
Yeah, I told you it was crazy.
This comment is utterly moronic and borders on anti-Semitism.
Toaff’s work was discredited years before Weir’s idiotic Counterpunch article.
Amongst other things most of Toaff’s “evidence” were statements extracted under torture.
Only someone who was a bigot, a complete moron, or both would have thought that there was any truth to the idea that “the blood libel” had a basis in fact.
I have to say, for someone who claims to be a scholar, your research abilities and resources have appeared to appear remarkably weak.
Certainly one wouldn’t expect someone’s who’s Master’s thesis was regarding the Israel/US relationship wouldn’t make the truly amateurish mistakes you’ve made and one would think he could refer to more scholarly research and cites than the ravings of an anti-Semite who believes that the “blood libel” was real.
Why didn’t you at least refer to Professor Muhsaad’s research?
He’s more regarded in modern academia than either Walt or Mearsheimer. They’re regarded as clowns, he’s regarded as a serious scholar. The only difference is that he’s not as well known on the internet.
Then your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. Damuri didn’t challenge a single one of my assertions with facts, he’s just JAQ’ing. But I notice you’ve again tried to change the subject. Does this mean you will not, or can not support your fictitious claims in the face of someone who can actually challenge your nonsense and cite the facts? Is there any particular reason why you can’t provide even a single citation for your factually inaccurate claims, besides, ya know, the fact that they’re factually inaccurate?
No, I’m trying to get you to flesh out your absurd Conspiracy Theory spew. You seem.. resistant. And you’re still utterly unable to explain why the ‘people who look like them’ just so happens to be “Zionists”, and not, say, rabidly-anti-Israel Europeans. Just one of those coincidences, eh? It’s so terrible that you’re being persecuted for your opinions on the dope. I feel for ya.
I’m glad you can name drop Said’s work.
Care to actually provide anything to substantiate any of your claims which I’ve pointed out are fictional? No?
Ahhhh yes, when beaten on the facts, especially on the Dope where people can spot the bullshit your argument is caked with, cite their own claims, and point out that you haven’t cited any of yours… allege a Zionist Conspiracy Theory that either has brainwashed people (which is why they must disagree with you, of course), or there are actual enemy agents posting in this thread (it’s not a paranoid argument if the “Zionists” really are out to get you, right?)
Of course, polls consistently show American support for Israel is reliably high, and support for Palestine is reliably low. Naturally, while some might point to that as the factor which allows pro-Israel policies to be the general trend in American politics, others with more perspacitity point us to the dastardly Zionist conspiracy that ‘unduly influences’ the media, dovetails with Hollywood, and brainwashes Americans to be their pawns. It’s a good thing we have you to explain the nuances of this situation to us.
Oooh, token Israelis to shore up a failed argument. That’s also a novel tactic. Totally unexpected. Never seen it before.
Neither is true. And, naturally, neither are they novel or based in facts. (you really should work on that.) As matter of fact, we’ve done this debate. There was one single rogue administrator who used his staff for his own personal profit in illegal transactions.
Didn’t they teach you to fact-check back in grad school?
[
Would you like to warn us of the danger of witches, along side Israeli organ thieves?
Actually, your argument seems to be delusional, as nobody has accused you of anti-Semitism. I know it’s a popular tactic to preemptively hop up on the cross and declare that you’re suffering Zionist Persecution[sup]tm[/sup], but you’re imagining it. Of course, you still haven’t given any reasons that have even a fingernail’s grasp on reality as to why it just happened to be “Zionists” who unduly influence the media’s agenda (or whatever weasel wording you’d like to use), why your opinions are steely eyed realism, while others’ are the result of Israel Lobby brainwashing (if the posters in this thread aren’t actual Israeli agents of propaganda. Hey, it could happen, though it’s unlikely, you inform us.)
There are certainly quite a few reasons why one might hold such silly views. From ignorance, to blind partisan parroting, to willful ignorance, to myopic ideological consistency, to more unsavory charges that aren’t really GD fare. Interesting, however, that quite often whenever anybody trying to sell Conspiracy Theories about Zionist Influence is challenged, they respond with “Stop calling me an anti-Semite!!!”
It is entirely possible that an Israeli historian has documented the first occurrence of the blood libel. It is remotely possible that some Jew murdered some Christian child, contributing to the story. (Humans being the odd and murderous bunch we are, it would almost be unlikely that in the past 1900 years, no Jew ever murdered a Christian child. Certainly, lots of Christians have murdered Jewish children.)
However, discovering the first occurrence of the tale of the blood libel is not the same as finding some “kernel of truth” in an event that has never happened.
The claim of the blood libel is so clearly false that numerous popes, (hardly a group noted for their friendship with or concern for Jews), have condemned the tale. That is why the second word in the phrase is libel. It is false. It never happened. And anyone who would publish any part of it may be dismissed as someone with no interest in history.
The organ harvesting story has a tiny bit more to it, but as presented in the above links it is nothing but lies intended to smear Israel.
The reality is that, with a small population, Israel does not have a large donor pool for organ transplants. One or more doctors at the forensics lab at one hospital harvested corneas, heart valves, and, occasionally, skin from victims of violent deaths (it was a forensics lab) for a few years until they were told to stop. Since they considered the bodies “theirs,” (again, it was a forensics lab), they never sought permission for that harvesting.
The people from whom most of the harvesting was taken tended to be Israeli soldiers, although the administrators admitted that Israeli civilians and Palestinians were also the subjects of such harvesting.
Several years after the practice was ordered to cease, it appeared as a rumor in the country. Given the hostility between the Israelis and the Palestinians, it was not long before the tale changed from a forensics lab harvesting from victims of violence to “the IDF is killing children to steal their organs.” After several inquiries, no evidence of a single actual murder for harvest has turned up. (The various anecdotes have been shown to have been invented, either from speculation by grieving families or invented from whole cloth.)
At this point, between republicizing tales of the blood libel and reprinting without citation or investigation anecdotes that misconstrued the (admittedly bad) practice of harvesting organs from victims of violence with obtaining the permission of their families, I would not believe anything that the author of that site published. Honesty is not her intention.
Amusing to see one of the accusations Weir makes against “the Israel Lobby” - that they’re the reason the media doesn’t talk about the USS Liberty.
It’s true. How much coverage do you see the attack on the Liberty getting in the average news broadcast?
And you know what else isn’t be reported? Lyndon Johnson’s re-election campaign and the Apollo 1 disaster.
I just wish Weir would tell us who is behind this. All she’ll say is that it’s “the Israel Lobby”. But who are these people? She never says.
But we have clues to work with. They’re pro-Israel. They have a lot of money. They control the media and entertainment industry. They’re strong in academics. They have “personal and family ties” to Israel. If we put these clues together maybe we can figure out who these mysterious people are.
Woody Allen, Adam Sandler, and Noam Chomsky?