Why is the USA pussy whipped by Israel?

CptBork said:
Well I'd get into a whole debate about how Israel's recognition by the UN is far more legitimate than you let on, but I don't see the point. At best, ignoring a lot of other 20th century historical facts, the Palestinians could demand all the territory they controlled in 1947, because the jews hadn't gained anything by conquest up to that point. But that would still leave a small state for the jews, so Israel, in some form or other, should be legitimate in anyone's book except for Hitler's.

If you don't want Israel to build settlements, why don't you show them all the measures you're willing to take to guarantee their safety if they abandon these settlements? Send them international guarantees that if the Palestinians get open borders on Gaza and a West Bank cleared of all jewish settlement, they will send forces to protect Israel from any Palestinian aggression. Or send them an international guarantee that if Israel pulls back to recognized borders and is attacked again by a hostile neighbour who refuses to take action to end the attacks, that Israel will be permitted to counterattack and legally annex a buffer zone territory in response.

If you're not willing to be part of the solution, then sit back and watch Israel keep doing what it's doing. In 50 years you'll still be yelling and screaming and soiling your adult diapers crying over the injustice that your Uncle Joe Stalin couldn't wipe them out when he had the chance.
Click to expand...

I see no reason to assure any occupiers of their safety, thats like saying the Allies should have reassured Hitler when he was in France. Complete nonsense. What we need is for right thinking people to recognise, as they did for France, that occupation by an Aryan Jewish group who believes in a Jewish State with right of return for Jews only while murdering natives who are not Jewish and are essentially defenceless, is oppressive and undemocratic and take action accordingly. One does not negotiate with oppressors, one is not concerned with how safe Mugabe feels while he is killing people just as one is not concerned with people who consider such actions as defensive:


Some junior commanders encouraged the brutality and even endorsed it. "After two months in Rafah a [new] commanding officer arrived ... So we do a first patrol with him. It's 6 A.M., Rafah is under curfew, there isn't so much as a dog in the streets. Only a little boy of four playing in the sand. He is building a castle in his yard. He [the officer] suddenly starts running and we all run with him. He was from the combat engineers. We all run with him. He grabbed the boy. Nufar, I am a degenerate if I am not telling you the truth. He broke his hand here at the wrist. Broke his hand at the wrist, broke his leg here. And started to stomp on his stomach, three times, and left. We are all there, jaws dropping, looking at him in shock ... The next day I go out with him on another patrol, and the soldiers are already starting to do the same thing."
Click to expand...
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/909589.html


Nine-year-old Abdul Rahman Jadallah's promise to the corpse of the shy little girl who lived up the street was, in all probability, kept for him by an Israeli bullet. The boy - Rahman to his family - barely knew Haneen Suliaman in life. But whenever there was a killing in the dense Palestinian towns of southern Gaza he would race to the morgue to join the throng around the mutilated victim. Then he would tag along with the surging, angry funerals of those felled by rarely seen soldiers hovering far above in helicopters or cocooned behind the thick concrete of their pillboxes. Haneen, who was eight years old, had been shot twice in the head by an Israeli soldier as she walked down the street in Khan Yunis refugee camp with her mother, Lila Abu Selmi.

"Almost every day here the Israelis shoot at random, so when you hear it you get inside as quickly as possible," says Mrs Selmi. "Haneen went to the grocery store to buy some crisps. When the shooting started, I came out to find her. She was coming down the street and ran to me and hugged me, crying, 'Mother, mother'. Two bullets hit her in the head, one straight after the other. She was still in my arms and she died."
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/28/israel


This is not defense, this is genocide. And while you may feel the need to "reassure" such people of their safety, I don't.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps because Americans believe it is their religious duty to support the murder of children in Palestine.

George%20and%20Ehud.jpg
 
One cannot comprehend the American insistence on supporting a state based on ethnocracy other than to some kind of fanatical compulsion.
 
S.A.M. said:
Perhaps because Americans believe it is their religious duty to support the murder of children in Palestine.

George%20and%20Ehud.jpg
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: America's recent outreach to Palestine does little to bring back the children who have died. I've never met a Palestinian that I didn't like. I don't discriminate against Jews. I've worked with Jews and Muslims all my life, but in all honesty, the Jews I've known have been cheap, disgusting scavengers who have no interest in human life. Muslims, OTOH, have respect for human life (from my medical perspective). I wish I could say they both did, but in my professional experience, I cannot.
 
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: America's recent outreach to Palestine does little to bring back the children who have died. I've never met a Palestinian that I didn't like. I don't discriminate against Jews. I've worked with Jews and Muslims all my life, but in all honesty, the Jews I've known have been cheap, disgusting scavengers who have no interest in human life. Muslims, OTOH, have respect for human life (from my medical perspective). I wish I could say they both did, but in my professional experience, I cannot.
Click to expand...

Your statement reminded me of this article by Judt on how Israel has become a focus by which non-Israeli Jews are judged:

Before there was a Jewish state, Jewish minorities in Christian societies would peer anxiously over their shoulders and keep a low profile; since 1948, they could walk tall. But in recent years, the situation has tragically reversed.

Today, non-Israeli Jews feel themselves once again exposed to criticism and vulnerable to attack for things they didn't do. But this time it is a Jewish state, not a Christian one, which is holding them hostage for its own actions. Diaspora Jews cannot influence Israeli policies, but they are implicitly identified with them, not least by Israel's own insistent claims upon their allegiance. The behavior of a self-described Jewish state affects the way everyone else looks at Jews. The increased incidence of attacks on Jews in Europe and elsewhere is primarily attributable to misdirected efforts, often by young Muslims, to get back at Israel. The depressing truth is that Israel's current behavior is not just bad for America, though it surely is. It is not even just bad for Israel itself, as many Israelis silently acknowledge. The depressing truth is that Israel today is bad for the Jews.

In a world where nations and peoples increasingly intermingle and intermarry at will; where cultural and national impediments to communication have all but collapsed; where more and more of us have multiple elective identities and would feel falsely constrained if we had to answer to just one of them; in such a world Israel is truly an anachronism. And not just an anachronism but a dysfunctional one. In today's "clash of cultures" between open, pluralist democracies and belligerently intolerant, faith-driven ethno-states, Israel actually risks falling into the wrong camp.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16671
Click to expand...
 
S.A.M. said:
One cannot comprehend the American insistence on supporting a state based on ethnocracy other than to some kind of fanatical compulsion.
Click to expand...

So then you believe that all wars are fought by religious fanatics and for religious purposes. You know that Muslims believe in Armageddon also?
 
Why? 60% of funds raised for the Democratic party, and 35% of funds raised for the Republican party, are donated by the Jewish establishment in America. These numbers are staggering, considering Jews make up a petty portion of the American population (roughly one percent). With funding like this, members of the two aforementioned parties have practically no choice but to support the Israeli cause. They're owned. The Jews also have an extremely strong lobby in America as well, in addition to the largest foreign spy ring in the U.S. Most importantly, disproportionate Jewish control over mass media outlets have enabled them to consistently fool Americans into supporting Israel.

"We shall drive the Christians into war by exploiting their national vanity and stupidity. They will then massacre each other, thus giving room for our own people." (Rabbi Reichorn, in Le Contemporain, July 1st, 1880)
 
Kadark said:
60% of funds raised for the Democratic party, and 35% of funds raised for the Republican party, are donated by the Jewish establishment in America.
Click to expand...
Are these donations by Jewish groups or Jewish individuals...or both???
 
It's in James Petras's book, The Power of Israel in the US. Petras expands on JJ Goldberg's statistics for the same issue in the 1990s.

Petras sets the table in his introduction for what's to come in the later chapters. He notes what author JJ Goldberg reported in his book Jewish Power: Inside the Jewish Establishment. Goldberg wrote in the early 1990s that 45% of the Democrat Party's fundraising and 25% of that for the Republicans came from Jewish-funded Political Action Committees (PACS). Petras then updates the numbers using the ones Richard Cohen published in the Washington Post showing them now at 60% and 35% respectively, and that this funding relates to a single core issue - unconditional US support for Israel's agenda including those parts of it human rights activists and observers of conscience judge most egregious and illegal. Petras stresses that no other single US lobby including Big Pharma, Big Oil, agribusiness, or any other one has this kind of dominant influence over the political process here.
Click to expand...

http://www.populistamerica.com/the_power_of_israel_in_the_us
 
spidergoat said:
The US would support Israel, lobbyists or not. They provide intelligence in an area where we are deficient, their agents speak arabic and know the culture, they share research in weapons systems, and they are one of the few Democracies in the Middle East. Their struggle for independence is inspiring and not unlike our own.
Click to expand...

the creation of Israel and its continued existence and the American revalution and the states continued existence are nothing alike.
 
AIPAC has a powerful influence:

AIPAC should not be crossed. It rewards those who support its agenda, and punishes those who don't. In the end, it's all about money - specifically campaign contributions. From 2000 to 2004, according to the Washington Post, AIPAC honchos contributed an average of $72,000 each to campaigns and political committees. For pro-AIPAC politicians, money simply pours from all over the US.

Every member of the US Congress receives AIPAC's bi-weekly newsletter, the Near East Report. Walt and Mearsheimer stress that Congressmen and their staff "usually turn to AIPAC when they need info; AIPAC is called upon to draft speeches, work on legislation, advise on tactics, research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes".

Hillary Clinton has learned long ago she should not cross AIPAC. Clinton used to support a Palestinian state in 1998. She even embraced Suha Arafat, Yasser's wife, in 1999. After much scolding, she suddenly became a vigorous defender of Israel, and years later wholeheartedly supported the 2006 Israeli war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Clinton may have gotten the bulk of Jewish American donations for her 2008 presidential campaign.

Rice also learned about facts on the ground. She tried to restart the eternally moribund "peace process" when visiting the Middle East in March 2007. Before the trip, she got an AIPAC letter signed by no less than 79 US senators telling her not to talk to the new Palestinian unity government until it "recognized Israel, renounced terror and agreed to abide by Palestinian-Israeli agreements".
Click to expand...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF03Ak01.html
The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, written by Stephen Walt from Harvard University and John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago, published in 2007
 
spidergoat said:
That's just another way of saying Jews are politically active. And Jews are Americans, so Americans support Israel.
Click to expand...

Especially when they are Jewish.

So do American Jews support Israel over the United States?

There are AIPAC members who spy on the US for Israel, any of them spying on Israel for the US?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top