It’s actually not quite so much a matter of opinion, as there is a significant factual component to it. Sevastopol just doesn’t like what the facts are, so he pretends it isn’t a fact and that Americans will go just bonkers if his fantasy replaced the fact.
To wit:
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was, for all practical purposes, a Nazi. He was interested in exterminating the Jews in Europe and the Middle East quite a long time before 1948. He was funded by the Nazis in some of his violent activities in the Levant iself, and according to Eichmann’s deputy Dieter Wisliceny: “The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. … He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz.”
In turn, the Mufti trained his nephew Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini, who was next in the succession of power. You probably know him better as Yasser Arafat.
Hamas, by their own proud admission, is on a religious crusade to take back “Muslim” lands and endorse the view that the Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims commit genocide against the Jews.
The fact is that simply, there was a mutual alliance of Jew-killing pre-1948, and it continued on in various forms in Palestinian society to this very day.
You are right that there are also many other differences, like Hamas’ Muslim theocratic leanings which the Nazis did not in fact share. Sevastopol would probably quibble over the definition of ‘core’, but it’s clear that Nazism found a receptive home in the pre-1948 Levant and genocidal Jew-killing has remained en vogue amongst its more militant members for the better part of 70 years.
Sevastopol, of course, wouldn’t note that Mein Kampf is a best seller in the PA administrated territories even to this day and the Protocols have wide distribution as well.
The simple reality is that Sevastopol’s argument is… shall we say in this forum, less than accurate. I can provide links to Pit material for a more frank discussion. Suffice it to say that his even when groups like Hamas show that they hold racist conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the world, he says that they’re not racist and are perfectly acceptable ‘in the context of anti-Zionism’, whatever he thinks that means exactly. When it’s pointed out that Hamas is quite capable, in their own words, of differentiating between Jews and Israelis, he claims that all references to the evil of the Jews and how they should be dealt with are really references to the Israelis.
Well…
Let’s just say that Sevastopol’s silly little denials about how describing this not even as Nazism, but simply as “anti-Semitic” take on a very interesting new slant.
I’d argue that the bit about being our strongest ally in the region is factual, as well. Considering that we don’t have any capable military allies in the region besides . The Saudis, for example, are capable of defending their own kingdom but even the Saudis have been hoping that Israel and/or the US will deal with Iran, for example. It’d be interesting if, instead of just his fantasy about how people will believe his fictions, riot in the streets, and then Israel will be ethnically cleansed of Israelis… if he could point out why the facts should be ignored for his fictions.
We also, rather obviously, do have a military alliance with Israel. That’s why we’ve developed joint weapon systems, engaged in joint military exercises and have US naval facilities in Haifa. Likewise, it should be rather obvious that Israel has a strong commitment to the US, and one that’s held since the Cold War.
I’m not sure what’s funniest… his fantasy that American disbelief in this claim would lead to rioting in the street, or the fact that it was perfectly accurate before US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
IIRC his normal dodge is to claim that Turkey should be listed as a Middle East nation, and so I suppose, there should be rioting in the streets.
There is a law on the books requiring the U.S. embassy to be moved to Jerusalem (subject to Presidential waiver), which passed the house 374-37 and the Senate 93-5. Both presidential candidates supported moving the embassy to Jerusalem, and President Bush has expressed his support as well. If that counts as a failure of AIPAC’s lobbying, then hell, I don’t know what success looks like. I haven’t been able to find anything in google, but I guess the reason that the embassy hasn’t been moved is that the Israelis don’t want it to be.
Can you point to another country that has a law on it’s books, and virtually every major national political figure expressing support for moving their embassy to Jerusalem?
The embassy hasn’t been moved because neither Clinton or Bush would authorize it. They’ve suspended the move every year, and have said that they weren’t going to recognize the law as binding them to move the embassy.
Right, but the question is why the won’t authorize it. Bush says:
It’s clear that moving the embassy has broad support amongst political leaders in the U.S. The question is why hasn’t it happened yet, and, like I said, I’m guessing it is because Israel doesn’t want it to happen.
For anyone who doubts the fanaticism of Israel’s enemies and their determination to wipe Israel from the map I recommend Palestinian Media Watch, a daily-updated translation of articles, school texts, cartoons, etc from the Palestinian and Arab press. Julius Streicher himself would have been proud of this stuff, which reflects attitudes that permeate the whole of Arab society.
And every single president has suspended that move, like clockwork, every single time it came up.
:rolleyes:
Bush has repeatedly denied the move to Jerusalem citing US national security as the reason, time and again.
Obama said he’d only move the embassy to Jersualem as part of Final Status negotiations.
Agreed.
.
Yes, I figured that would be your guess.
Unfortunately, even basic google skills reveal it’s simply wrong. As soon as Bush was president, he began a long pattern of denying the move to Jersualem to, and I
[quote]
(israelinsider.com - contact with domain owner | Epik.com): "protect the national security interests of the United States "
That was his reasoning pretty much every time he renewed the postponement, including the postponement he just made a few moths ago. Clinton also did much the same thing.
You mean, expressing empty support that is shown, semi-annually for more than a decade, to be mere rhetoric?
Or should you, instead, point to any other nations on Earth who have to fight to get their capital city recognized and even their closest ally in the entire world won’t put their embassy there?
US leader after US leader says they won’t do it and that it would compromise national security for the US, and your answer is ‘Israel did it!’
Got any facts, at all, to support your accusation?
Any?
Of course, the facts clearly show that the anti-AIPAC conspiracy mongering is a bit silly, as AIPAC has certainly agitated for the embassy to be moved to Jersualem. (And doesn’t the conspiracy theory go that AIPAC is an agent of a foreign government?)
Funny that its influence doesn’t extend far enough to getting the US to actually put its embassy in Jersualem. But that can’t be because they don’t have enough influence to do that, but because, really, the Israelis secretly don’t want us to put one there. Up until at least 2006, The US law wouldn’t even recognize US citizens who were born in Jerusalem as being born in Israel.
But that’s probably all because Israel wants it that way.
Of course.
Why yes, you’re right, I did indeed provide a cite in the very post you’re responding to.
Can’t sneak anything past you, can I?
If you want to, you could also google a bit on Arafat’s role in al Futtuwah.
I’ve heard googling is pretty easy, all the kids are doing it.
With just a bit of effort, you might even be able to find about Arafat’s interview in Al Sharq al Awsat, where he clearly stated “We are the mighty people. Were they able to replace our hero Hajj Amin al-Husseini?.. There were a number of attempts to get rid of Hajj Amin, whom they considered an ally of the Nazis. But even so, he lived in Cairo, and participated in the 1948 war, and I was one of his troops”
Yes, I figured that would be your guess.
Unfortunately, even basic google skills reveal it’s simply wrong. As soon as Bush was president, he began a long pattern of denying the move to Jersualem to, and I
He uses that justification because that is the out the law gives him. He has repeatedly and clearly stated his desire to move the embassy to Jerusalem. The evidence points to AIPAC having gotten what it wants. Every important politician and the vast majority of Sentaors and Congressmen want the embassy in Jerusalem. You wish us to believe that the fact that the embassy is not there as evidence of the lack of AIPAC’s influence, but you have not proved your case. You wish us to presume that the reason the embassy hasn’t moved to Jerusalem is opposition by American politicians, but the evidence doesn’t support that.
It’s not up to me to provide facts for your argument.
If is this case, it shouldn’t be difficult for you to provide support for Israel’s desire to have embassies moved to Jerusalem.
No, it doesn’t. Most people recognize that AIPAC isn’t a tool of the Israeli government. AIPAC has it’s own agenda, which may or may not coincide with the government in power in Israel.
Indeed you did provide a cite, but there are also cites that dispute the relationship. Not that Wikipedia is definitive, but they claim that they were different clans and unrelated. A Zionist leaning source also disputes the claim, but raises a different connection:
True enough, if newcomer’s tack was a bit different, I suppose I could’ve discussed some more of the debate over Arafat’s lineage. There do seem to be numerous competing claims, Icon of Evil: Hitler’s Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam said: “Arafat’s mother was the daughter of the mufti’s first cousin.” Yasir Arafat: a political biography called him a “distant relative” of the Mufti.
Howard M. Sachar said in A history of Israel: “Arafat’s actual name was Abd al-Rahman abd al-Bauf Arafat al-Qud al-Husseini. He shortened it to obscure his kinship with the notorious Nazi and ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini.”"
Others claim that there was no relation… while still others claim he was no relation but that Arafat pretended he was.
But yes, it doesn’t touch on the central issue in any case: Arafat learned from someone who might himself have been a Nazi, and was that man’s political successor.
Ah well.
So, the law provides a provision to not move the embassy if moving it would be bad for national security… and it wasn’t moved because it would be bad for national security, and from that, you get ‘Israel did it!’
Good show Treis.
Please apply basic critical thinking to this subject.
If he really wanted to move the embassy to Jerusalem, why does he continually say he does not? Is he incapable of fulfilling his desires? It’s his choice, after all.
Which is a rational conclusion, that the man whose sole choice it is really wants to but doesn’t because Israel tells him not to, or that he pays lip service to the idea but does not want to?
I do have to admit, you’ve taken debunked talking points to a whole new low with curiously evident tenacity.
AIPAC wants the embassy in Jerusalem, the embassy isn’t in Jerusalem.
AIPAC wants the presidents to allow it to be moved to Jerusalem. The presidents do not move it to Jerusalem.
Therefore, AIPAC has clearly gotten what it wants.
:smack:
And yet they don’t pass a new law which, say, withholds funding from causes the president supports until he authorizes the move.
Israel told them not to pass a new law, right?
Yes, that every single American president hasn’t moved it isn’t evidence of opposition, but support! They support it so much, they oppose it.
Damn but conspiracy theories are weird.
You’re right. It’s up to you to provide evidence for yours. Let me guess, it won’t ever happen, will it?
Israel is to blame for that too, right? They took away your google?
I think the fact that Israel made it its capital might be a clue.
The fact that embassies are based in capitals except when the seat of government is in another city, that might be a clue.
The fact that you still can’t provide any proof for the claim that, alone out of all the nations in the world, Israel does not want embassies in its capital might be a big honkin clue.
Israel took away the clues, didn’t it?
As I said before, if it is this obvious that Israel wants the embassies in Jersualem than it should be trivial to get a cite saying “we want foreign embassies in Jerusalem”. Y’Know, find proof to back up your arguments. You’ve provided no evidence that AIPAC is unhappy with the support on this issue through the U.S. political world. You’ve provided no evidence that they attempted and failed to strong arm anyone on this issue.
As I noted in a previous post, which you apparently ignored, no other country in the world has a law on their books requiring their embassy to be moved to Jerusalem, nor is there any other country where every major politician supports that move. Why is this the case?
I don’t see how this contradicts what I said. It is clear that AIPAC is working to further the interests of a foreign country. What is also clear is that they are not controlled by the Israeli government. They are an independent organization that is seeking to implement its own agenda.
I know this is a tangent, but since it was raised here I’d like to post just a bit more on it.
It really does seem to be fascinating, but even the basic facts about Arafat are in question.
That in addition to the earlier quotes.
I will happily admit that my earlier assertion appears to be incorrect, and I will retract it. It seems that one of a few possibilities is true:
-Arafat was the Mufti’s (if my calculations are right) second cousin or a first cousin twice removed… or something similar.
-Arafat was not a relative, but claimed to be, referring to the Mufti as his uncle and/or referring to his as simply being a blood relation depending on who he was telling the story to, and why.
-Arafat was a relative of the Mufti, but was a distant relation.
Interesting. I hadn’t realized just how much confusion there was on that topic.
However, the basic facts aren’t in disagreement. The Gran Mufti was, for all practical purposes, an Arab Nazi and Arafat worked for him, learned fro him, viewed his as an ideological role model and took over from him.
So you’ll find proof to back up your conspiracy theory that it was Israel that stopped Clinton, Bush, and now Obama from moving the embassy?
And stopped Congress from passing harsher resolutions and laws?
No?
I’m shocked. Shocked.
I’m tired of this game, and especially your shifting the burden of proof. You expect me to prove that by making Jerusalem its capital, Israel intended for it to be treated as its capital. And by making it its seat of government, it expected it to be treated as its seat of government. Meanwhile, you use a conspiracy theory about Israel preventing US presidents from moving the embassy, and not only provide zero evidence, but demand that I refute it.
The US places its embassies in the capitals, or failing that, the seats of government of foreign nations.
Israel denoted Jerusalem its capital.
Israel denoted Jerusalem as its seat of government
Basic logic answers the question for you. Or not, as it seems.
Bullshit.
I provided a direct cite of AIPAC’s own words saying that the US presidents should follow through and move the embassy to Jerusalem.
My bullshit meter has now redlined and exploded.
You are now actually claiming you don’t understand why people saying “AIPAC is the agent of a foreign government.” is a refutation of your denial that the conspiracy theory states that “AIPAC is an agent of a foreign government.”
And now you’re either ignorant of the fact that registering as an ‘agent of a foreign government’ doesn’t mean you work to further the interests of a foreign power… or simply denying it? Are you honestly participating in this debate without even knowing that “agent of a foreign government” specifically means:
For what it may be worth, I found this article from some regional Jewish newspaper:
Of course, it’s possible that this newspaper is distorting things. It’s also possible that AIPAC is only pretending to be disappointed. Or that AIPAC made a tactical decision not to push harder on the issue. In politics, as in just about everything else, appearances can be deceiving. Not only that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a decent amount of dissent in Israel itself over whether the embassy should be located.
Nevertheless, it would appear to me that the Israel lobby, while undoubtedly quite strong, does have limits.
shrug I guess this is another instance where you are going to ignore the obvious.
The bottom line is that AIPAC has gotten virtually every politician in the U.S. to support putting an embassy in Jerusalem. This is a situation entirely unique to the United States. No other major country supports taking such a step. No other major country has a law on their books requiring such a change. No other country has their politicians in lock step agreement that their embassy should be in Jerusalem. There’s no way you can count that as a failure by AIPAC. They may not have been completely successful on this issue, but they’ve gotten about as close as you can get.
I wouldn’t assume that the law in question is solely the result of AIPAC lobbying. There are a lot of evangelical Christians in the United States. Here is a quote from what appears to be a Christian web site:
There’s also the fact that they don’t actually do anything to support it other than pay lip service to it. Congress is fully capable of putting real teeth to a resolution, they haven’t. Presidents are fully capable of implementing the '95 law. They haven’t. We’re at a point where Israel’s closest ally in the entire world won’t even provide full recognition of its capital even while other nations have had their embassies there over the years… and that’s a major victory for those who want the US to place its embassy there. With Obama’s election, we’re now at a point where we may very well see more than two entire decades of the US not placing its embassy in Jerusalem. And for some, that’s proof of the fact that the US does whatever Israel/AIPAC says.
When people can point to the embassy not being in Jerusalem as proof of the fact that those who want the embassy in Jerusalem have gotten what they want, it’s rather obvious that reality has taken a back seat to, well. this isn’t the correct forum to discuss the dynamic.
The fact that there are millions of highly influential Christian Zionists in the United States, to say nothing of ordinary Americans who support Israel over the Palestinians by a massive margin, is simply to be disregarded in favor of conspiracy theories.
AIPAC did it, even if what happened isn’t what AIPAC says they want.
Israel did it, even if what happened isn’t what Israel wants.
To someone convinced that Israel and/or AIPAC set US foreign policy, even their failures are proof of their success.
The Gods themselves contend in vain with conspiracy theories.
Undoubtedly there are other groups, but AIPAC is the big fish. They are consistently ranked as one of the most powerful and influential lobbying groups.