Actually, they have a powerful military because my grandfather sold them a censoredload of ‘scrap metal’ back in the late 40s.
Or, at least, that’s how the family story goes.
What is the purpose of foreign aid to Israel? Can’t they pay their own bills? Is this aid granted forever by some old dusty paper or just temporary until they can get on their feet?
Sorry, I realise that but I was disagreeing with part of Cmkeller’s post rather than specifically answering the OP.
C K Dexter Haven,
What made the King David Hotel different was the way that the bombers did not care that they killed (a) innocent civilians and (b) their own people. If you are arguing that you can’t have terrorism against military installations then I guess the Pentagon on September 11th wasn’t terrorism either.
I wish I lived in your fantasy world. Do the rivers run with beer there?
Did you ever attend history class in high school?
The reason France is an ally is because there would be no United States of America if it were not for the French.
Forget the source of the information.
Focus on the information itself (if you can do that without your brain exploding).
I’m well aware of the role of France in the American Revolution, 2Thick.
I’m also aware that that was a couple of hundred years ago.
But my point wasn’t that France shouldn’t be an ally. My point was that France IS an ally, despite being a royal pain in the ass on many occasions. Yet the people who routinely question the U.S.'s alliance with Israel never seem to ask about France.
Because Israel is floating on oil!
What?!!
If history is not important then why drudge up WWII and Vietnam?
nitpick
kamikaze ring a bell? And I do not know how familiar you are with the Vietnam war, but suicide attacks were used extensively on Americans and S. Vietnamese. Especially in the Tet Offensive. The only thing “new” about it is the , what did you call it?, theological justification to blatantly slaughter innocent men women and children specifically.
2Thick, are you being annoying on purpose?
You don’t see a difference between what France did 200 years ago, and what it did 40 years ago? Or yesterday? In any event, it’s irrelevant to the point I was making, which I notice you conveniently avoided. I guess you couldn’t figure out a good way to bash Israel while responding.
Yes, I am an anti-semite, anti-zionist and anti-israeli.
Your point is flat. There are a million-and-one reasons why France is an ally. I am sure that most are economic.
You see France’s pursuit of its own interests as something bad only b/c it goes against US interests.
Ask a valid question and you will receive an answer.
According to Jesse Helms, Israel is the equivalent of an aircraft carrier in the Middle East. It’s proxy colonialism.
“I have long believed that if the United States is going to give money to Israel, it should be paid out of the Department of Defense budget. My question is this: If Israel did not exist, what would U.S. defense costs in the Middle East be? Israel is at least the equivalent of a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Middle East. Without Israel promoting its and America’s common interests, we would be badly off indeed.”
mystic2311: Well seeing that America has no military bases of any kind inside Israel that’s a bit of a bad analogy. However the US does have bases in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait. If there’s an ‘aircraft carrier’ for the US in the Middle East it’s probably one of those countries.
I’m not sure if I’m the only one who caught this, but…
That quote is attributed to Sec. of State John Foster Dulles, not Senator Fullbright. Apparently, Dulles made the remark in 1957 in the book Fallen Pillars by Donald Neff.
Of course, Fullbright’s quote is no better: “The Israelis control the policy in the congress and the senate.”
Still, thought we ought to clarify, as some folks frown upon not properly attributing quotes.
Of course, I should also learn the proper spelling of Fulbright!
2Thick - that page is no help. It looks more like a rant on increased sex in the media, rather than Jewish control and bias.
I’m not saying there isn’t significant pro-Israeli bias in a lot of US media (just as there is pro-Arab bias in this part of the world) but that page does not demonstrate it.
Also, Jew!=Israeli. Not all Jews - and certainly not all Americans - support the Sharon regime and its actions. Not all Jews even support the concept of Israel.
I fail to see a connection between the sexualisation of Disney, the “racially mixed rock and rap” of MTV, and pro-Israeli bias.
Jewish ownership does not necessarily constitute bias. It is possible to be objective and impartial about your own race, or religion, or “homeland.”
I don’t think you’re correct, ** leander **. If you take another look you’ll see the (much longer) quote below is attributed to John Foster Dulles. I believe I got the attribution to Senator Fullbright right.
On the more general point and referring to the link provided by 2Thick, is anyone disputing the point made in the link that ‘pro-Israeli’ interests have control of the NYT, the Wash Post and the WSJ agenda and perspectives … or are we just critiquing the piece ?
Well. Seriously, I suppose we could have at it, by taking a reasonable sampling of influential media companies, their few most recent CEOs, and trying to discover if they’re part of any great conspiracy.
Washington Post. Very important, influential newspaper. Run by a widow of a guy.
Washington… uh, Times? Reverend Moon.
There’s the Rupert Murdoch conglomerate… is he jewish? Does he have any slanting towards Israel evident through all his stations?
TBS used to be Ted Turner till recently. Not Jewish at all.
AOL-Time-Warner?
CBS? NBC? ABC? NY Times? NY Post? BBC?
I simply love your posts Sam. Time after time you encapsulate the “difficult” into concise paragraphs which I read with joy.
That being said, I still think a WRX sounds like a VW Beetle.