Yeah I know what AIPAC stands for. The ADL might be a Jewish organization but it is also a fairly pro-Israel organization. The web of pro-Israel lobbying organizations in DC melds almost seamlessly into the Jewish lobby. There is very little controversy that the Israel/Jewish lobby exerts a lot of influence in DC. So do a lot of other interests like the gun lobby, the insurance lobby, real estate lobby, etc., and like these other lobbies, people wonder if this outsized influence is in the best interests of the United States.
No not my camp. I was responding to the comments Red was making about the whining coming from your camp about how the whole world is against Israel because the whole world is anti-semetic.
One theory on why the whole world is anti-semitic (or at least feels comfortable being anti-semetic is because the world is not used to Jews being in a role other than the victim.
Or a slip considering how much the Jewish lobby bleeds into the Israeli lobby. I have no reason to believe that the typical Jewish politician has any more loyalty to Israel than Patrick Moynihan had to Ireland. But the lobbyists are a different matter and they exert influence. I think there are some political figures (particularly neocons like Doug Feith) who I do suspect of having dual loyalties, as an aside, the suspects are not all Jewish.
How many anti-Israel Jewish lobbies are out there? To a greater or lesser extent, a lot of these Jewish lobbies identify very closely to Israel.
I thought the folks trying to undermine Lugar were Republicans, partly to show everyone what happens to RINOs and partly to try to undermine Obama.
I think I am missing some context to your comment. If you feel like it when you get a chance perhaps you could fill me in. Are you cluing me in to a pattern of Republican behavior, with their behavior toward Hagel and Lugar as examples?
That’s the same thing as implying that ElvisL1ves is a neo-Nazi, If the only people who refer to “the Jewish lobby” are the neo-Nazis on Stormfront, and ElvisL1ves refers to “the Jewish lobby”, and would only be able to produce a cite from Stormfront, then it follows that ElvisL1ves must be a neo-Nazi on Stormfront. QED.
It never helps to Godwinize a thread, especially from a mod. And especially (as **ElvisL1ves **noticed) immediately following an official Mod Note. tomndebb is using his mod position to try to intimidate. Which is unfortunate. tomndebb cannot seem to debate without accusing those who disagree of bad faith.
The main reason why they shouldn’t is because it isn’t a state. If they are going to declare Palestine a state how about the Assyrian Empire, or the Kingdom of Gondor? It makes a mockery of the UN if they admit entities that aren’t actually sovereign states, but simply want to be.
A sovereign state, strictly speaking, is any entity that other sovereign states recognize as one ; no more and no less. At this point, 68% of UN member states do recognize Palestine as a sovereign state.
I do not have the voting breakdown regarding the Kingdom of Gondor on hand, but I would assume it’s a little below that.
On the other hand, making Palestine into an officially recognised sovereign state would end the conflict there, since presumably they’d have to regard themselves as sovereign to qualify.
I disagree with that; sovereignty is not a popularity contest. If a majority of the world decided not to recognized my country’s sovereignty (as many of them already fail to do), would that mean that it doesn’t exist? Of course it wouldn’t. That’s because sovereignty is descriptive, not prescriptive. If a state holds land it’s a sovereign state, and the rest of the world be damned.
Officially speaking, and realpolitik speaking, yes it would.
Take Somaliland for example: it “exists”, it has an autonomous administration, it holds land (or claims to, anyway), they even have a flag (:)). But nobody else wants to recognize the sovereignty of Somaliland, nor is interested in guaranteeing it. So, on paper, it isn’t a “real” state.
Besides, “Palestine” (as in, people self-identifying as Palestinians) holds land, so that particular criteria for statehood would be met regardless, wouldn’t it ?
If you’re going to continue making anti-Semitic insinuations about how “the Jew” is naturally prone “to terrorism” I’d recommend finding better sources than what looks like an Islamist blog from Pakistan.
Did you actually read the article?
I ask because the blogger you’re using as your cite is so ignorant of the Palestine/Israel conflict that he thinks the Deir Yassin massacre was carried out by the Stern Gang when anyone with an even cursory knowledge knows that the leaders and most of the guerillas/terrorists who carried out the massacre were members of the Irgun.
The fact that you actually cited this does little to inspire confidence in your own knowledge or understanding of the conflict which has supposedly convince you that “the Jew” is by nature “a terrorist”.
There are only three explanations.
A)You didn’t read the blog post.
B)You read it but didn’t care that it’s grossly factually inaccurate.
C)You honestly didn’t know the Irgun, not Lehi, was the main group behind the massacre.
No, I did not make the claim that you re attributing to me.
Your logic is as poor as your grasp of what has been posted.
ElvisL1ves responded in the affirmative to a question as to whether it was “common” to refer to the AIPAC as the “Jewish” lobby. (So, we are talking about a large group of people’s use of a word, not whether ElvisL1ves uses the word.)
He further noted that it was so common that he did not have to provide citations to support his assertion. (Again, the assertion has to do with the actions of some unidentified large group of people, not of ElvisL1ves.)
I then pointed out that it would be problematic to provide citations since they would mostly tie back to a notorious, anti-semitic web site. (Once more, we are talking about other people who are not even members of this board, much less the specific member, ElvisL1ves.)
Nothing in that exchange suggests that ElvisL1ves is a member of that other web site or even that he has any regular contact with it, such as reading it. It says ONLY that IF he sought out citations for his claim, that the bulk of such citations would have to be taken from that and similar sites. The citations might be found through Google or any number of other methods, but they hardly require that ElvisL1ves be in any way connected to that site or any other.
No. We see another example of you wading into a thread to make one more silly claim in order to make a personal attack on me.
I made no claim that anyone who attacked Israel was anti-semitic. I noted that a very specific anti-semitic phrase was more likely to appear on an anti-semitic site.
I have no idea why ElvisL1ves would think that that particular anti-semitic phrase was in widespread use, and I have offered no opinion on that topic. I just noted that his claim–whatever its motivation–was not supportable.
That you would immediately take the view that I had accused ElvisL1ves of being a member or supporter of that particular website is ludicrous. That you further claim that it is the only reasonable explanation for that exchange would seem to indicate that you “cannot seem to debate without accusing those who disagree of bad faith.”
Tom, you are certainly great at posting a whole lot of nothing to defend an indefensible comment. Unless you propose we parse head-side-up & looking sidewards. As your supporters/defenders can & obviously do. Meanwhile, Elvis, Shodan & myslef, hard as you may find it to believe, can read and parse just fine w/out turning into pretzels.
But yeah, you certainly rule the roost.
Congrats. Must be an awesome feeling. Or something…
He made a rather blatant, and rather ignorant personal attack on me which you have not warned him for.
I suggested he should be pay more attention and read the posts on the thread and he wouldn’t make such jaw-droppingly foolish mistakes as not noticing that quotes he was triumphantly citing came after criticisms I’d offered and that I’d already noted them.
Particularly when we’re talking about a person who freely admits that he holds Jews to dramatically different standards, has extremely homophobic opinions, and is an anti-semite who thinks Jews can’t be trusted?
Please explain why his rather inept attack on men is considered kosher while my response is considered to be crossing a line.
Again, I’ll confess to being shocked since he specifically accused me of being stupid, while I merely pointed out that his extremely stupid argument made him look stupid warranted a mod note to me.
Would you mind explaining what I said was more noxious and in violation of board rules than what he said about me?
I admit that I missed his less than clever play on the word “assume,” but your blatant use of the word “stupid” was more difficult to ignore.
You have employed the word “stupid” about a dozen times in the last couple of days while he has made one ironic reference to “Sherlock.” You have now used your objection to my Modding to launch several more insults. You are really not helping your cause.
Both of you need to back off on the personal comments or take it to The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
ETA: Take further comments to ATMB.