So Will The Sky Fall If The UN Declare Palestine a State?

[ElvisL1ves]

Not sure about “offensive” to describe Hagel’s comment, since such conflation is common, but would you settle for “crude and ignorant”? No, he wouldn’t be a good choice for SecDef, but that would be more of the reason than would his resistance to rolling over for the yahoos. That would actually count in his favor.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@ElvisL1ves

Not sure about “offensive” to describe Hagel’s comment, since such conflation is common, but would you settle for “crude and ignorant”? No, he wouldn’t be a good choice for SecDef, but that would be more of the reason than would his resistance to rolling over for the yahoos. That would actually count in his favor.

You think it’s “common” to refer to AIPAC as “the Jewish lobby”?:dubious:

Can you name me some prominent American officials or journalists who do so?

Also, once again, since you’re claiming that your comment IOKIAJ was meant as a smack at “Israelis and pro-Likud people” then why didn’t you say IOKIAI(it’s okay it’s an Israeli) instead of IOKIAJ(It’s okay, it’s a Jew)?

Also, once again what makes you think the people you’re attacking are more supportive of Likud than either Kadima or Labor?

Thanks.

[RedFury]

The Bogus Case Against Chuck Hagel

@James Fallows

…You can argue in favor of Chuck Hagel for this role: a bipartisan pick, combat-veteran cred, cautious realist-centrist record over the years. Or you can argue that someone else would be better: perhaps Democrats should promote their own Democratic national-security team; others have worked more closely with Obama; maybe Hagel’s worldview has grown more dovish than Obama’s, and so on. That’s all fine.

What is poisonous, and should be resisted, is the effort to rule out Hagel through the bogus charge that he is anti-Israel or, worse, anti-Semitic. This campaign is charmingly being led by William Kristol (also here) and others at Kristol’s Standard, with predictable backup from the WSJ op-ed page, the WaPo’s right-wing blogger, and its often-neocon main editorial page. Incredibly, this is part of the Post’s ed page case against Hagel: " ‘The Defense Department, I think in many ways, has been bloated,’ [Hagel has said]. ‘So I think the Pentagon needs to be pared down.’ " It’s amazing that the paper offers the quote as if it discredited Hagel. In fact it is an argument in his favor, and it echoes what, for instance, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has said about a military budget that is twice as high as it was ten years ago.

But the nastiest comments have been about Hagel’s views on Israel. The WSJ delicately puts the point this way, under the headline “Chuck Hagel’s Jewish Problem”:

Prejudice–like cooking, wine-tasting and other consummations–has an olfactory element. When Chuck Hagel, the former GOP senator from Nebraska who is now a front-runner to be the next secretary of Defense, carries on about how “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here,” the odor is especially ripe.

And, just as subtly from Kristol today, “Hagel also has a record of consistent hostility to Israel over the last decade.”

There’s an olfactory element here all right. It’s the stench of trying to remove someone whose policies you dislike with the damning accusation that underneath it all is outright bigotry. One of the big, supposedly damaging bits of evidence against Hagel is his having said to the author of a book on US-Israel relations:

@Hagel

“I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator… I support Israel, but my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States, not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I’ll do that.”

Of course, that is what any United States senator should say – whether the other country in question is Israel, Britain, Germany, Canada, Japan, or any other allied but different power. And any Israeli, British, German, etc official should and would put the interests of his or her country first…

Much more at source. Neocons at it again.

[Malthus]

@RedFury

The Bogus Case Against Chuck Hagel

Much more at source. Neocons at it again.

I don’t think you have to be a “neocon” to find some of that stuff he said obnoxious. Of course I don’t know the context of his quotes, and in fact don’t know a lot about the man other than what’s written in this thread, but:

1. Description of AIPAC as “the Jewish lobby”. Maybe it’s just a slip on his part, but surely you can imagine why not all Jews would be happy with that description?

2. “I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator… .” - of course no US senator is an Israeli senator. So why is he saying this? On its face, the “innuendo” is that other, unnamed politicans are, in fact, acting in loyalty to Israel (and not to the US).

Combine the two and you get the impression, perhaps unfounded, of a man who does not differentiate between “Jews” and “hardcore professional pro-Israeli lobbyists”, and believe that some politicians have “divided loyalties” or are outright more loyal to a foreign nation than to the US - unlike himself.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@Ibn_Warraq

Because tempers have flared on this subject and I wanted it clear I wasn’t trying to imply anything.

I didn’t see anything accusatory in your questions and am still perplexed why you would think so.

@RedFury

[Much more at source. Neocons at it again.

Pretty much, J street endorses him.

@Malthus

I don’t think you have to be a “neocon” to find some of that stuff he said obnoxious. Of course I don’t know the context of his quotes, and in fact don’t know a lot about the man other than what’s written in this thread, but:

1. Description of AIPAC as “the Jewish lobby”. Maybe it’s just a slip on his part, but surely you can imagine why not all Jews would be happy with that description?

2. “I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator… .” - of course no US senator is an Israeli senator. So why is he saying this? On its face, the “innuendo” is that other, unnamed politicans are, in fact, acting in loyalty to Israel (and not to the US).

Combine the two and you get the impression, perhaps unfounded, of a man who does not differentiate between “Jews” and “hardcore professional pro-Israeli lobbyists”, and believe that some politicians have “divided loyalties” or are outright more loyal to a foreign nation than to the US - unlike himself.

I wonder…did he say some of the things he said or did conservative, neocon sources say these things he is said to have said.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Ibn_Warraq

You think it’s “common” to refer to AIPAC as “the Jewish lobby”?:dubious:

Yes. Not gonna waste time citing it.

then why didn’t you say IOKIAI(it’s okay it’s an Israeli) instead of IOKIAJ(It’s okay, it’s a Jew)?

Because, as I’ve stated before, some, even perhaps most, of the most vocal pro-Israel yahoos choose not to actually go *live *there. This very thread contains examples.

Also, once again what makes you think the people you’re attacking are more supportive of Likud than either Kadima or Labor?

I really don’t think that requires explanation, does it? Please.

[Trinopus]

@ElvisL1ves

. . . Because, as I’ve stated before, some, even perhaps most, of the most vocal pro-Israel yahoos choose not to actually go *live *there. This very thread contains examples. . . .

How is this in any way meaningful? I might support Britain over Ireland in the Troubles; is that opinion less valid because I don’t choose to move to Britain, or Ireland, or Northern Ireland? I might support India over Pakistan in the Kashmir issue; again, do I actually have to move to Kashmir to have a right to my opinion?

This doesn’t make an ounce of sense. Do you actually restrict your opinions to those regarding places you physically reside?

[FinnAgain]

He’s just insulting people whose arguments he can’t address let alone refute.
Let him have his fun.

[tomndebb]

@ElvisL1ves

Because, as I’ve stated before, some, even perhaps most, of the most vocal pro-Israel yahoos choose not to actually go *live *there. This very thread contains examples.

Referring to other posters as “yahoos” is not appropriate for Great Debates.

Knock it off.

[ /Moderating ]

[tomndebb]

@ElvisL1ves

Yes. Not gonna waste time citing it.

I could see where links to storm front would be problematic for your position.

[RedFury]

@tomndebb

I could see where links to storm front would be problematic for your position.

Does this article seem to you, Tom, to come from a neo-nazi site?

Israeli settlements leave U.S. odd man out at U.N. Security Council

Unreal the measures you’ll take to defend the whole US/Israel alliance. Of course that is not a topic for this thread yet ATMB is a lost cause b4 it even starts. But you should at least admit that you are just as ‘impartial’ on this issue as you claim I am not.

[RedFury]

Dedicated to one of my most ardent fans:

Top five reasons Obama should pick Chuck Hagel for SecDef

My fav:

He’s got the right enemies. Hagel does have one political liability: Unlike almost all of his former colleagues on Capitol Hill, he hasn’t been a complete doormat for the Israel lobby. In the summer of 2006, for example, he incurred the lobby’s wrath by calling for a joint ceasefire during Israel’s war with Hezbollah. Pressed by the lobby, Bush & Co. rejected this advice and let the war drag on, even though prolonging it made Hezbollah more popular in Lebanon and cost additional Israeli lives. Hagel has also been outspoken in calling for the United States to be more evenhanded in its handling of the peace process, and he’s generally thought to be skeptical about the use of military force against Iran. Needless to say, such positions are anathema to Israel’s hard-line supporters, some of whom are already attacking Hagel’s suitability for SecDef. For the rest of us, however, Hagel’s views are not only sensible – they are in America and Israel’s best interest

Cheers.

[ElvisL1ves]

@tomndebb

I could see where links to storm front would be problematic for your position.

Where the holy fuck did you get *that *from? Explain or withdraw, please. :rolleyes:

[ElvisL1ves]

@Trinopus

How is this in any way meaningful?

It’s a way to help separate those expressing principled, thoughtful positions from your typical Internet tough guys.

[ElvisL1ves]

@tomndebb

Referring to other posters as “yahoos” is not appropriate for Great Debates.

Knock it off.

[ /Moderating ]

That, followed immediately by a suggestion that I’m representing Stormfront. :rolleyes:
Knock it off.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@ElvisL1ves

That, followed immediately by a suggestion that I’m representing Stormfront. :rolleyes:
Knock it off.

Ok, so then when I asked you to name some prominent American officials who referred to the ADL as “the Jewish lobby” which you insisted was “common” you insisted that yes it was and you weren’t going to waste time proving that.

I call bullshit.

If your statement was correct than it should be easy for you to cite four prominent American officials who’ve referred to AIPAC as “the Jewish lobby”.

Please do so.

[ElvisL1ves]

How about you explain why it’s worth the bother?

Or, if you’d rather do the same thing as **tomndebb **and insinuate that I’m a neo-Nazi for daring to point out a bit of hypocrisy, then good day to you.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@ElvisL1ves

How about you explain why it’s worth the bother?

Or, if you’d rather do the same thing as **tomndebb **and insinuate that I’m a neo-Nazi for daring to point out a bit of hypocrisy, then good day to you.

If despite your earlier claims you’re still refusing to substantiate your claims that you could easily find prominent American officials who referred to AIPAC as “the Jewish lobby” then we can safely assume that you pulled your claim out of thin air.
That said, I’ll make it worth your bother. Please name four prominent American officials who’ve referred to AIPAC as “the Jewish Lobby” and I’ll give 20 dollars to the charity of your choice.

If you still refuse, every reasonable person would have to assume you made a foolish claim and are too proud to admit you stuck your foot in your mouth.

[FinnAgain]

@ElvisL1ves

That, followed immediately by a suggestion that I’m representing Stormfront.

I’ve seen some truly… interesting… levels of reading comprehension and an enjoyment of persecution fantasies in my time on the Dope, but this is just weird. He pointed out that you couldn’t cite anything substantial about “The Jewish Lobby” because it’s a term that racists and mouthbreathing idiots who don’t know any better, use.

But now you can say that you’ve been called an anti-Semite, a neo-Nazi and a cute fluffy bunny. Or anything else you’d like to imagine. You really are being persecuted horribly. I weep.

[Ibn_Warraq]

It’s a bit amusing watching Elvis whine that he was called a neo-Nazi(which he wasn’t) after he insinuated the Israelis were modern-day Nazis.

Anyway, Elvis, calm down Tom didn’t insinuate you’re an anti-Semite.

You stupidly claimed that it’s common to refer to AIPAC as “the Jewish Lobby”. Tom pointed out that that’s a term in the US usually only used by anti-Semites rather than a “common” term.