Joe Biden says "I am a Zionist"

 

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

 

keep going.....

Peech wrote:

 

  A bigot is stil a bigot. Whether so-called "leftie" or not.

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..

Peech wrote:

No..., but Nice try

This is a bigot:

http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/2010/01/tammy-obeidallah-intifadagirl.html

 

 

 

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

Criticism

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

 

Cole is definitely respected by those who buy into his distorted and outrageously biased revisionist history.

Yep of course  you forgot to tag Wikipedia as a well -known Zionist propaganda source.....at least to some who think the Zionists control all media. (present company excluded of course)

Very funny indeed.

But heck you oughta know what's funny seeing as you think the Hamas Charter is so freaking hilarious.

 

Now Back to the Topic:

Settlement Standoff Continues

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

Peech wrote:

Cole is definitely respected by those who buy into his distorted and outrageously biased revisionist history.

 

Thanks for reinforcing my argument.  Cole, through his outrageous method, cites the work of another reputable scholar, Justin McCarthy:

 

Quote:

In 1851, there had been 327,000 Palestinians (yes, the word "Filistin" was current then) and other non-Jews, and only 13,000 Jews. In 1925, after decades of determined Jewish immigration, there were a little over 100,000 Jews, and there were 765,000 mostly Palestinian non-Jews in the British Mandate of Palestine. For historical demography of this area, see Justin McCarthy's painstaking calculations; it is not true, as sometimes is claimed, that we cannot know anything about population figures in this region. See also his journal article, reprinted at this site. The Palestinian population grew because of rapid population growth, not in-migration, which was minor. The common allegation that Jerusalem had a Jewish majority at some point in the 19th century is meaningless

 

Have you read T.E. Lawrence's account of his time in the Middle East during the Great War? His analysis is anecdotal, of course (although we must remember that he got the job of British liaison with the Arabs in part because of the powers of observation he demonstrated as an archaeologist before the war), but in Seven Pillars of Wisdom he notes how tiny the Jewish population is in Palestine.

 

Quote:

Yep of course  you forgot to tag Wikipedia as a well -known Zionist propaganda source.....at least to some who think the Zionists control all media. (present company excluded of course)

Very funny indeed.

 

No, wikipedia is the scholarly equivalent of bathroom graffiti. Personally, I wouldn't use it to support my arguments, but go ahead, knock yourself out.

Quote:

But heck you oughta know what's funny seeing as you think the Hamas Charter is so freaking hilarious.

 

I didn't say the Hamas Charter was anything, except irrelevant to a discussion about current attitudes within Hamas, but given your predeliction for making hollow arguments, one shouldn't be surprised at witnessing how you distort something that anyone who's been following this thread can clearly read.

Stockholm wrote:

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.

Quote:

While there is certainly a lot of knee-jerklng whenever Hamas (or Hezbollah, or Rudolf Valentino) is mentioned, anyone who has actually studied what Hamas members have to say would see it as little more than just another liberation movement.

As I wrote here:

 

Quote:

The Hamas Charter is generally invoked by anyone who criticises Hamas.  One rarely if ever sees any pro-Arab supporter mention it.  There's a reason for that.   As I wrote in another thread:

Quote:

 

...according to Azzam Tamimi, in his Hamas: A History from Within, few Hamas members pay any attention to the "Covenant."  He writes:

"The Charter...was Hamas' first attempt to produce a written document for others to learn what Hamas stood for. It was published on 18 August, 1988, less than nine months after the foundation of the movement. Since then, however, it has hardly ever been quoted or even referred to by the Hamas leadership or its official spokesmen.  Their language has become virtually indistinguishable from that of any freedom figher in Latin America, South Africa, or East Asia" (Page 147).

"According to (Hamas leader) Khalid Mish'al, the Charter was rushed out to meet what was perceived at the time as a pressing need to introduce the newly founded movement to the public.  Mish'al does not view it as a true expression of the movement's overall vision..."it should not be regarded as the fundamental ideological frame of reference from which the movement derives its positions, or the basis on which it justifies its actions" (Page 149).

 

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.

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

 

Quote:

I received a frantic call from my sister notifying me that my cousin was captured by the Israelis and severely beaten. There were violent skirmishes between the Israeli Offense Force and Palestinians in East Jerusalem. My cousin, who is from the Mount of Olives neighborhood of East Jerusalem was involved in demonstrations and was apprehended by undercover Israeli agents posing as Palestinian protestors (with keffiyehs concealing their identities) who help instigate violence, and turn around and arrest people. They instigate violence so that the Israeli police/military can have "justification" to use brute and disproportional force.

Why is Peech, a known hard core Zionist, allowed on Babble at all? Are the crimes Israel is committing up for debate? Only for people like Peech.

If we had this many threads on South Africa under Apartheid (as in, when it was happening) and some jackass white person came here all the time and debated whether or not SA policies towards blacks were harsh or not their asses would be banned. There is NO DOUBT about what Israel has done and continues to do to Palestinians. Why the fuck do we allow people like Peech here at all?

Peech is about as progressive or "left" as Biden is.

You make me ill Peech.

Stargazer wrote:

If we had this many threads on South Africa under Apartheid (as in, when it was happening) and some jackass white person came here all the time and debated whether or not SA policies towards blacks were harsh or not their asses would be banned. 

Great statement, and I agree completely.

...and is it not interesting when one thinks of the  further parameters of what this actually means/implies?

Why here? When we can see them everywhere else, in endless succession...ad naseum

cross posted - exactly.

al-Qa'bong wrote:

contrarianna wrote:

Whether or not such posters are a technical violation of Rabble's published policy, personally, I think it's useful to see the arguments and verbal dodges (hardly impressive so far) which are in tune with the dominant Canadian Government attitudes. 

 

I agree.  Moreover, I like to think that any curious neutral or vaguely pro-Israeli passer-by, through reading our discussions, would see through Zionists' arguments and dodges when they are challenged here.

 

I agree that it does give an opportunity to dissect and hold to the light the arguments that they push on MSM boards where they drown out all opposition.  Strange they all seem to retreat muttering to themselves.

Peech wrote:

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&Itemid=86

 So if "person a" steals from "person b", you believe that gives "person b" the right to steal from "person c"?

 

I'm in favor of creating a homeland for Palestinians in ....  Where did you say you lived again?  Sure we can just divide whichever city you live in, give 80% of it to Palestinian refugees fleeing Palestine, and you can be displaced into a walled off enclave, where you can be bombed and starved if you complain.  That would solve the problem for the Palestinians the same way the Jewish refugee problem was solved.

 

 

However, the problem with your viewpoint is that its inaccurate and insulting to the people you claim are refugees. Not to mention it requires rewriting history...

Quote:

"We are not refugees."

Hitching a ride on the magic carpet By Yehouda Shenhav Any analogy between Palestinian refugees and Jewish immigrants from Arab lands is folly in historical and political terms An intensive campaign to secure official political and legal recognition of Jews from Arab lands as refugees has been going on for the past three years. This campaign has tried to create an analogy between Palestinian refugees and Mizrahi Jews, whose origins are in Middle Eastern countries - depicting both groups as victims of the 1948 War of Independence. The campaign's proponents hope their efforts will prevent conferral of what is called a "right of return" on Palestinians, and reduce the size of the compensation Israel is liable to be asked to pay in exchange for Palestinian property appropriated by the state guardian of "lost" assets. The idea of drawing this analogy constitutes a mistaken reading of history, imprudent politics, and moral injustice. Bill Clinton launched the campaign in July 2000 in an interview with Israel's Channel One, in which he disclosed that an agreement to recognize Jews from Arab lands as refugees materialized at the Camp David summit. Ehud Barak then stepped up and enthusiastically expounded on his "achievement" in an interview with Dan Margalit. Past Israeli governments had refrained from issuing declarations of this sort. First, there has been concern that any such proclamation will underscore what Israel has tried to repress and forget: the Palestinians' demand for return. Second, there has been anxiety that such a declaration would encourage property claims submitted by Jews against Arab states and, in response, Palestinian counter-claims to lost property. Third, such declarations would require Israel to update its schoolbooks and history, and devise a new narrative by which the Mizrahi Jews journeyed to the country under duress, without being fueled by Zionist aspirations. That would be a post-Zionist narrative.... http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=329736

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

Israel is Boss
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/freedom-rider-israel-boss
"Corporate media pretend US-Israeli relations are in 'crisis', just as they have many times in the past. It's all a charade, a play for national and international audiences.."

 
Israel stated they will compromise by continuing to build settlements as they have in the past.
 
How much more can they bend over to meet the US half way than that?
 

Quote:

Israel vows more settlements despite US tensions
By Patrick Moser (AFP) - 4 days ago
JERUSALEM - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made it clear on Monday settlement building in east Jerusalem would continue, in a move likely to further heighten tensions with key ally the United States.
"Construction will continue in Jerusalem as this has been the case over the past 42 years," he told members of his Likud party...
 
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hBGc6HMlupjAWtbWIoQKl...

The Americans said they are willing to accept this compromise:

Quote:

Clinton Calls Israel's Moves to Ease Tension 'Useful' By MARK LANDLERPublished: March 19, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/20/world/middleeast/20diplo.html?src=me

Stargazer wrote:

I leave you with your own hypocrisy and glowing personality. May the force be with you.

And the very same to you.

OK Stargazer, I'll compromise; maybe someone should have to pass a reading comprehension test before being allowed on babble.

 

 

Peech wrote:

It is indeed Alice's Wonderland where someone can repeatedly post that the Hamas Charter (calling for the extermination  of all Jews) is not to be taken seriously because "everyone" knows they don't really mean it ! ( a three year old would see through that logic.)

 

Yes, I posted repeatedly that neither the Hamas leadership nor its membership, in their own words, say that they agree with what's written in the Hamas charter. Hamas members have moved on.

 

Peech keeps reinforcing the point I was trying to make with Stockholm: that the only people who ever speak about the Hamas charter are Zionists who use it as a scare tactic, often to justify their support for the actual violence that is being committed against Palestinians.