That’s one king-sized conspiracy theory there!
Any…um…evidence?
You certainly could do your own research, but then again, I am 110% certain it won’t change your views, but there are tons of them – calling it a ‘conspiracy’ is just a way to mud the waters. For instance:
This one is shields up; truth hurts: Bias and Distorted Media Coverage of Israel/Palestine
US media turn a blind eye to the Israeli occupation
Though it;s just not in the US – but the UK at least presents dissenting views:
BBC’s coverage of Israeli-Palestinian conflict ‘misleading’
And on and on and on.
World’s full of anti-Semites and Israel haters for all you know – outside the US.
Stay in your trench.
Followed by a bunch of opinion blogs. ::: shrug :::
It would be just as easy to put forth the conspiracy theory that, cowed by their universal dependence on Arab oil, European nations are directing their news media to shape the news to favor the Palestinians.
Holding that the U.S. generally gets it wrong is one thing. Escalating to the absurd notion that
when there has never been a single other viewpoint that the U.S. government has been able to “control,” simply turns you into a CT proponent.
I took a look at this site and found the following quote:
“Americans are also not shown visual imagery of the occupation on their nightly television screens. Americans are not shown scenes of terrified Palestinian children hiding under their kitchen tables as their refugee camps – literally bursting with civilians – are under fierce attack.”
Believable - unless you actually watch American news or read American newspapers.
What fantasy world are these Israel-lobby-suppresses-the-truth people living in?
Listen, Jack. Red isn’t just blowing smoke here. The Zionist conspiracy that controls the United States’ government and media as an act of Dual Loyalty to the Jewish State? Man, a conspiracy that can do all that, that’s serious business! And I believe he can indeed fill us in with actual, verifiable, citeable facts.
And not links to Electronic Intifada this time, either.
Last time he mentioned the subject he had an extensive list of potential Zionist traitors in the US government. It was a very thorough analysis on Red’s part; an errant Greek Orthodox gentleman whose name somehow wound up on the list was promptly removed from consideration with not one word of protest from Red. I am certain that that he is not just offering up a tired old Conspiracy Theory about treacherous Jews dominating a nation’s government, media, and very cultural dialog itself on behalf of Global Jewry.
Surely that list has come to some form of fruition.
Red will provide cites and, armed with the Truth, we can finally take our nation back from the Zionists.
I think what’s going on is this: They KNOW that Israel is a terrible, evil country, basically the worst country in the entire world. And yet the United States and the American people support Israel to a large extent. Therefore there must be some agent which is twisting information and suppressing the truth about Israel. And the obvious candidate is AIPAC and similar organizations.
So their conclusion follows from their premise. The problem is that their starting premise is incorrect.
See, this to me seems purely wacko CT stuff, right up there with Truthers and Birthers.
I’m not an American and I can admit without any patriotic impediment that America has lots of flaws … but control over the media “from the Gov on down” on any issue really isn’t one of them.
I believe there are good, understandable reasons why in general Europeans and Americans have a different approach to the ME conflicts involving Israel. That list of reasons doesn’t include ‘one of those sides has been led astray by a conspiracy controlling the media they consume’. It also does not include ‘one of the sides of the argument is effectively shut down by accusations of bigotry’. If one’s argument depends on some combination of those two points, it isn’t very solid.
I’m afraid you are missing my point.
The question was - in effect - the assertion that a candidate for SecDef would not get much flak for saying he’ll put the interests of the US ahead of those of (say) Turkey. The implication was that only putting one’s interests ahead of Israel would attract flak.
My point was it isn’t the statement, but how the statement was made and the innuendo cast by it. Even a completely neutral and even laudable statement can be offensive in context and depending on the wording. I gave an example of how one could say ‘I’d put America’s interests above those of Turkey’ in a way that, I think, would on fact be likely to attract "flack’.
What’s interesting is that, (unless I missed it), not one anti-Israel Doper in this thread has flashed to the fact that even saying “As a [US political position] I won’t place Israel first” is a patently absurd and nonsensical strawman. So odd, in fact, as to suggest that the speaker, at best, simply doesn’t comprehend the world around him very well. Nobody of any worth in the history of the United States, has ever suggested that anybody place Israel before our nation’s welfare.
I truly wonder, now, whether or not the anti-Israel folks posting in this thread understand that people can disagree on what course of action the US takes with regard to various geopolitical concerns without in fact wanting to put any other nation before their own home. And if they do understand that, do they understand just how poisonous it is to respond to honest disagreements on policy by suggesting that those on the other side of the aisle want to sacrifice their own home for a foreign power?
Ah well.
Obviously, he’s actually serving the pro-Israeli agenda by providing such an exaggerated version of the anti-Israeli agenda. Except…
That’s just what they want us to believe!
So now the standard is that you need “people of worth in American history” to put Israel’s interests ahead of America’s for there to be a problem with the level of influence that the Israel lobby has in DC?
I don’t think Jack LaPierre is anyone of worth in American history but I think the NRA has too much influence as well and it has been bad for our country.
While Finn’s wording was a bit odd, this is merely a semantic game.
For “worth” substitute “influence” or something similar.
In a nation of over 300 million people, you can find someone to believe just about anything. So what?
If one is going to assert that any individual or group is asserting excessive or anti-democratic power, then one needs to demonstrate that. It is one thing to disagree with the actual objectives of AIPAC or any other pro-Israel lobbying group or legislator. That opposition is to be expected and even welcomed in the course of political discussion.
Finn’s point is that claims of dual loyalty or claims of placing Israel’s interests ahead of those of the U.S. need to be demonstrated because it is a particularly pernicious form of well-poisoning. In effect, rather than arguing the actual policies, one is attempting to shut down discussion by crying “treason!”, and the ones making such claims are actually the ones opposing democratic action by cutting off discussion. That such claims are false exacerbates, rather than mitigating, the situation.
Yep, Tom got it in one.
I used the phrase “nobody of worth” to avoid people trying to find some wingnut somewhere on the 'net who said that America should put Israel first, or what have you. The point is that nobody worth listening to/with any political clout/what-have-you has ever demanded that we place another nation, let alone Israel, before our own. Instead, what we see is a difference of opinion on how the US should be interacting with the Middle East in general and Israel in specific. And instead of arguing policy or pragmatics, many people (as we’ve seen in this thread) accuse those who disagree with them of being traitors to their home, if not outright foreign agents and/or, as Red posits, part of a global conspiracy to dominate the entire US government, media and cultural dialog on behalf of The Jewish State. The reasoned objection to Hegel’s quote isn’t that he’s supposed to be a US politician and not an Israel one: megaduh. The objection was that he was using a strawman and suggesting that those who have different foreign policy objectives must believe that they’re supposed to serve a foreign power before their own homes.
And given the facts that such charges aren’t simply untrue, but echo millenia of anti-Semitic tropes, it behooves those using such claims to, at the very least, verify them. And ideally, those who are quite so eager to accuse someone of “Dual Loyalty” or “Israel-Firster” status? Well, they should think long and hard as to whether or not their claims have any merit, and raze them if they find they don’t. Ideally before making those claims publicly. “Person A holds Position B which I believe isn’t to our advantage”, by the way, is not evidence of DL or IF status. “Person A holds Position B which would require that America spend/sacrifice C” still isn’t evidence of DL or IF, unless you’ve got more to go on. Otherwise everybody who suggested, say, that we continue to contribute US dollars as aid to foreign nations? Well, all of them would be “[Foreign Nation] Firsters” with “Dual Loyalty” to whatever nations they think should get US dollars.
This, however, would be an absurd claim to make and nobody in their right mind would make it. This seems obvious. Equally curious, but much less obvious, is why the anti-Israel crowd, so eager to claim that they’re being persecuted as “anti-Semites” despite lacking any evidence to substantiate that claim, is not only eager to shut down honest discussion with cries of treachery, but only reserve such claims for those who think we should have certain policies in place with Israel and not, say, with Madagascar.
Thats fair. So the issue is whether or not someone can provide any evidence that supports the notion that AIPAC exerts undue influence over US policy in a way that promotes Israel’s interests over US interests?
If you want to challenge AIPAC’s positions, then argue for why the balance between US/Israeli interest is improper in your estimation, and argue for what it should be. Alleging treachery when your only proof is that someone disagrees with you, however? Weaksauce. And a sign that your argument has virtually nothing but innuendo and Conspiracy Theories.
If you find your argument boiling down, over and over, to “the people who disagree with me, and the majority of Americans who do not agree with my rhetoric, disagree with me either because they’re enemy agents or are duped by enemy agents?” Well… it might just be time to reexamine your perceptions.
Well, no.
It would be nice if someone could define what they mean by “undue” influence. Being successful does not exactly prove that it’s “undue”. In addition, it would be useful to explain just how AIPAC is promoting its interests over that of the U.S., any more than other lobbies (on behalf of another nation or policy) promote their interests over those of the U.S.
One could argue that lobbying on behalf of the Palestinians promotes their interests over those of the U.S., or that lobbying for aid to Egypt and other Middle East nations promotes their interests over those of the U.S., or that lobbying on behalf of African relief promotes African interests over those of the U.S, that lobbying on behalf of senior citizens promotes their interests of those of the U.S., that lobbying on behalf of breast cancer research promotes the interests of breast cancer patients over those of Americans who don’t have breast cancer, etc. etc. etc.
But that comes across as forms of well-poisoning too, as well as really really dumb. “How dare you promote a particular policy I don’t agree with” sounds rather un-American, if you catch my drift. :dubious:
Which is it? False or exacerbated? Any chance you – or anyone else might come clean?
Obama defeats the Israel Lobby
It’s a start.
So, just so I know how hard to laugh, are you honestly now upgrading your Conspiracy Theory from the ZOG to claiming that International Zionists control the SDMB, too?
Because, seriously, that’s awesome if you’re really ready to claim it.
He’s saying that because the claim is false, it exacerbates the situation.
… exacerbates doesn’t mean “does Jewish-type stuff to it?”