Joe Biden says "I am a Zionist"

sometimes politicians tell the truth...

I too am a Zionist and believe in a two-state solution

I am Hendrik Verwoerd and I believe in a two-stan solution.

Israel Puts US on Notice

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LC13Ak03.html

"the peace process is likely not a central consideration for the Israelis or the Americans...and according to most analysts his primary purpose is to coordinate action on Iran..There are numerous indications that Israel is losing patience with Obama's policy of restraint."

Yeah, Al-Q, it's quite astounding when people sitting here deliberate on which of their human and national rights the Palestinians ought to be "allowed" to keep or retrieve. We're all free, right? So how about a 300-state solution? What the heck, anything goes. Just don't remove the tanks and walls and checkpoints until the Palestinians "freely" agree to our favourite "solution".

Biden is a suck up, a sloganist, a flake, and an imperialist who thinks he's a liberal.

He is a proper vice president to Barack Obama.

No surprise at all. The Zionists have expelled (ethnically cleansed)  Palestinians from 80% of their homeland and will leave them with a squalid cage to call a state until expelled becomes expunged.

Totally absurd and without any precedent.

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/arabjew.html

" In 1945 there were more than 870,000 Jews living in the various Arab states. Many of their communities dated back 2,500 years. Throughout 1947 and 1948 these Jews were persecuted. Their property and belongings were confiscated. There were anti-Jewish riots in Aden, Egypt, Lybia, Syria, and Iraq. In Iraq, Zionism was made a capital crime. Aproximately 600,000 Jews sought refuge in the State of Israel.1 They arrived destitute, but they were absorbed into the society and became an integral part of the state. In effect, then, a vertible exchange of populations took place between Arab and Jewish refugees. Thus the Jewish refugees became full Israeli citizens while the Arab refugees remained "refugees" according to the wishes of the Arab leaders."

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14386&It...

"

Hoenlein was likely referring to a 1947 Arab League document uncovered late last year by JJAC researchers that outlined a policy of expulsion and robbery of longtime Jewish citizens of Arab states.

The Arab League’s proposed law was approved by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq and implemented by other nations. It provided that Jews would be considered “members of the Jewish minority of the state of Palestine” and have their bank accounts frozen and used to finance “resistance to Zionist ambitions in Palestine… Jews believe to be active Zionists would be interned as political prisoners and their assets confiscated.”

JJAC “found a paper trail that showed the displacement of up to one million Jews in Arab countries did not occur by happenstance,” Urman said when the findings were released. “It was state organized, state collusion led by the Arab League as a weapon in their struggle against the State of Israel.”

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17155&It...

Fear and hate is all they traffic in. Fear and hate.

Getting back to the thread title. There seem to be (at least) half a dozen different definitions of what it means to be a Zionist. So I guess if Biden says he's a Zionist it could mean from:

a. He is converting to Judaism, resigning as VP and planning to move to Israel to pick oranges on a kibbutz for the rest of his life

to

b. He opposes Israel being eliminated and all Jewish Israelis being massacred, but would support a two state solution with a Palestinian state having a capital in east Jerusalem

to

c. He believes in the Likud policies of eventually taking over all of the occupied territories and getting the Palestinians to move away

Before reacting - maybe someone should ask Biden which of the dozen or so definitions of Zionist he was thinking of when he said he was a Zionist.

I think we are in agreement about about living in peace. But with all due respect no one has the  right to demand a "secularization" of ANY state. Apart form the reason Israel was created IT has a right to be nonsecular if IT chooses. Just  as US & Canada are Christian states, Iran and Pakistan are Muslim states, Vatican Catholic sate,  and on and on. 

I also agree that Palestinians should be compensated for the loss of their homes/land just as Jews expelled from Arab lands should.

Fair is Fair.

I hope there will be peace one day and I think the USA is right to call Israel on the carpet for the hypocrisy of continuing to build settlements.

Maybe something good can come from this (i.e. destabilization of the current Israeli government).

I note he has given up his slanderous claim against me that I would single out Israel for not being secular.  Typical.  

So meanwhile - why doesn't Hamas officially scrap their constitution which blatantly calls for the mass murder of all Jews?? I realize that maybe they are "just kidding", but surely they should be smart enough to realize that as long as those phrases appear in thier constitution - it gives Israel a wonderful propaganda tool to use over and over and over again "you see, those nutbars at Hamas want to kill us all it saus right there in their constitution in black and white - and you expect us to talk to them???". People said Hitler was "just kidding" when he wrote Mein Kampf as well. If Hamas is really "just kidding" they have a golden opportunity to prove it by officially scrapping the incitements yto mass murder in their constitution.

And by essentially the same people. Racist supremacists never change, they get better PR.

With a democracy like this, who needs tyrannies?

By the way, Jaku, while the CJC has never found reason nor time to condemn the murderous policies of Israel, they did find time to condemn those who protested those policies, including the Gaza war crimes, and including Jews involved with IJV. I think we know what the CJC is really all about.

Right so there is some kind  conspiracy...... if  "their" media does not agree with your distorted and dishonest view of politics or history?

That should give all those   Jews who have been threated with death by Hamas feel more secure. Because after all no-one takes the Hamas charter seriously. Do you realize how profoundly intellectually dishonest that sounds?

I guess after a while you just believe your BS.

So what exactly are the CJC "all about"?

"So what exactly are the CJC "all about"?"

keep going.....

I have said it before. The CJC is polite, white shirted, and repectable Canadian face of Zionist ideological supremacy.

So Peech are you calling me a bigot?

This is interesting

Petraeus Reportedly Wanted to Put West Bank, Gaza Under Central Command

http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2010/03/14/petraeus-reportedly-wanted...

"Petraeus apparently wanted the headache. Put differently, according to Foreign Policy, he recognized that it doesn't make sense for the senior US military commander with responsibilities for the Middle East not to be involved in the number one security problem in the Middle East. And so - I should mention I can't vouch for this report's accuracy; but wow -

Petraeus recommended giving US Central Command responsibility for the West Bank and GAza"

USRAEL indeed..

Geez, yeah.  That blogger is reprehensible!

A great and telling source. Maybe Cole believes that the Hamas charter is really a sitcom too!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Cole

Alexander H. Joffe in the Middle East Quarterly has written that "Cole suggests that many Jewish American officials hold dual loyalties, a frequent anti-Semitic theme."[73] Cole argues that his critics have "perverted the word 'antisemitic,'" and also points out that "in the Middle East Studies establishment in the United States, I have stood with Israeli colleagues and against any attempt to marginalize them or boycott them".[74]

According to Efraim Karsh, Cole has done "hardly any independent research on the twentieth-century Middle East", and Karsh characterized Cole's analysis of this era as "derivative." He has also responded to Cole's criticism of Israeli policies and the influence of the "Israel lobby", comparing them to accusations that have been made in anti-semitic writings.[75] Cole responded directly to Karsh in his blog, dismissing one of Karsh's charges, that Cole's criticisms echo themes in the antisemitic tract Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Cole also defended his knowledge of modern Middle Eastern history, comparing his experience "on the ground" in the modern Arab world favorably with that of Bernard Lewis, a historian he said is "lionized" by Karsh.[76]

Publishers Weekly, reviewing Coles' 2009 book, Engaging the Muslim World, wrote, "For all his expertise, Cole fails to source some of his harshest accusations; moreover, for a scholar championing greater subtlety of thought, he too often discards nuance himself. To the extent that Cole argues against painting the Middle East with overly broad strokes, he brings a constructive addition to public discourse; his failure to be consistent is a lost opportunity."[77]"

"Critics charge that Professor Cole has forsaken a scholarly approach (his expertise is on on nineteenth century issues) in favor of politicized angry writing on the contemporary Middle East. They may have a point.

Look at Professor Juan Cole's recent petition letter to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, signed by numerous academics. How will the Jewish presidents read this letter? Most likely, not favorably.

Begin with the letter's opening paragraph, which says:

We note with dismay that when eminent political scientists John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard published their "The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy" in the London Review of Books, they were subjected to a barrage of ad hominem attacks. In particular, they were smeared as "anti-Semites".

The Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, who are knowledgeable about the controversy over the Mearsheimer/Walt article, will certainly agree that some people like eminent political scientist Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins University found the article (not necessarily the man) anti-Semitic. But these Jewish presidents will also be aware that the anti-Semitic accusation hardly constitutes the whole of Eliot Cohen's, or numerous other critics, problems with the article. If Cole and the other signatories to the letter wanted to persuade their intended readership that Mearsheimer and Walt are innocent victims of slander, they would have done well in their letter to rebut the many other substantive criticisms of the Walt/Mearsheimer paper – its circular logic; its factual errors; its lack of original scholarship; its mono-causal social science; its unsubstantiated generalizations; its selective use of evidence; its insinuations of dual loyalty; its strawman counterarguments.

By not addressing these criticisms, the letter fails to rebut the reasons public intellectuals have been inclined to think Walt and Mearsheimer are anti-Semites. After all, indisputable anti-Semites like David Duke are thrilled with "The Israel Lobby" article precisely because it employs the same fallacies found in their own neo-Nazi literature – and consequently and unsurprisingly reaches similar conclusions.

The rest here

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/2544

From Cynthia McKinney: 'They're White Just like Us..'

http://milfuegos.blogspot.com/2010/03/from-cynthia-mckinney-theyre-white...

'They're white just like us and the people they're killing...are Arabs.'

This bit of erudition came, with a shrug of the shoulders, at the end of the first session of the newly-formed Russell Tribunal on Palestine.."

Now Back to the Topic:

http://slatest.slate.com/id/2248026/entry/2/

As the United States and Israel engage in an epic staring contest over a controversial settlement in East Jerusalem, American commentators are at each other's throats about who is to blame for the standoff and what to do next. At the National Review, Joel Rosenberg castigates the Obama administration for "dramatically overreacting" to Israel's plan to build 1,600 new apartments in the West Bank (a plan it has very publicly declined to change). "Given rising and serious threats against Israel from Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah, is this really the time for the White House and State Department to be throwing a temper tantrum?" he writes. But the New York Times' Roger Cohen is glad to see the White House standing up to Israel to mitigate a conflict that is "a jihadist recruitment tool that feeds the wars in which young Americans die." Foreign Policy's David Makovsky says Israel could move everyone past the episode by dismissing the interior minister whose agency announced the settlement plans. Stateside, Politico's Ben Smith reports that pro-Israel Democratic lawmakers who kept their opinions to themselves over the weekend are starting to mouth off to the Obama administration. Two congressmen sent a letter to the Obama administration Tuesday asking him to stand down, and the New York congressional delegation has begun "to critcize the White House openly." Matt Yglesias notes that the legislative response is very much in line with American public opinion, which (according to a Gallup poll) has become increasingly favorable to Israel during recent years.

And here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/opinion/16iht-edcohen.html?ref=opinion

What? A Zionist citing openly racist sources to silence an opponent? You know ... that isn't really unsual. Nor is it unusual for openly racist ideologies to gain support and sympathy among political and social elites. Aparthied was defended by the governments of Israel, Britain, and the USA.  Racial segragation and the Jim Crow laws were only possible with the support of politicians at all levels in US society. Nationalist Socialism, in its day, won the support of many politicians and industrialists in Europe and North America. What is uncommon is the moral courage of political and social elites to openly and forcefully condemn racist idelogies and their proponents such as Daniel Pipes along with their supporters like the various Ziofreaks including Peech. Even, here, on babble they are tolerated. Correctly, a white supremacist wouldn't last five minutes. Support a system that condemns Palestinians to cultural extermination, however, and for some reason there is room for discussion.

What proof do you have that the Hamas Charter is sooo irrelevant to current attitudes within Hamas??

I suppose one could rely on Ziofreak hate sites for one's information on the attitudes of Arabs, but there's always the itty bitty chance that the information might be skewed.

Then again, one could check what an actual Hamas member has to say.  As I re-posted in this thread, the Hamas Charter carries little weight among the current membership.

For one thing, I'm not a "progressive."  For another, showing that the "Hamas Charter" isn't an important document to Hamas members does not equal defending Hamas or saying they are angelic.

The whole issue of Hamas was raised in response to someone saying that there are calls for the extermination of Palestine's Jews, as if this were a plausible danger.  If Hamas' leadership isn't calling for the extermination of Palestine's Jews, who is, and why should they be feared?

sorry, double post deleted.

And I imagine you have been equally critical of Israelis and Clintion threatening to "obliterate" Iran? And then again, Iran has not attacked any of its neighbours, nor beset a civilian population with an industrial military machine, nor is it engaged in starving a population of 1.5 million, nor is Iram conducting a cultural genocide against any people. But, sure, let's focus on Iran. A distraction is all it is. When it gets too hot for the racists they play the game of bait and switch. The problem is not Iran, the problem is not Hamas, the problem is the occupation and the dispossession of Palestinians by racial supremacists. Racists, in other words.

So Peech why do you believe in collective punishment?  How are regular Palestinians to blame and why are their homes razed.  Surely you are not trying to justify punishing people directly for the sins of a portion of a society, are you?

When was the last time you quoted Israeli assholes who call for the annexation of all of Greater Israel.  I don't believe Israeli's should be punished for the racists in Israel but you seem to think the reciprocal is okay for Palestinians.  So show me your denunciations.  I denounce all violence against civilians you can find it in my posts whenever state violence is part of the topic.  i am consistent in opposing the state violence perpetrated by all states but I particularly speak out against the NATO war machine because they claim to kill on my behalf. 

This is Zionism