Obama cripples AIPAC

[SATW]

Lol, this forum truly is adorable. You don't care about radical islamic terrorism but as long as the "big, bad israelis" are "punished" for not bowing to the President then you are happy.

[SATW]

Lol, this forum truly is adorable. You don't care about radical islamic terrorism but as long as the "big, bad israelis" are "punished" for not bowing to the President then you are happy.

AIPAC is a threat to Israeli interests, so its weakening is actually good for Israel.

Ah, and what is good for Israel, exactly? If we are talking about the west's vision for Israel...then I'd have to disagree.

[SATW]

Threads like this prove that today's liberal and progressive spheres have become ignorant to the threats facing the world.

I've cited Jeane Kirkpatrick before, and I'll do it again:

"When the San Francisco Democrats treat foreign affairs as an afterthought, as they did, they behaved less like a dove or a hawk than like an ostrich - convinced it would shut out the world by hiding its head in the sand."

In this thread...we've seen progressives agree with Iran and agree with PUTIN (while, hypocritically, also accusing Trump of being cozy with him).

It's this idea that limousine progressives know what is better for the world that continuously allows the world to go to chaos. This idea that, somehow, bashing Israel, America, the EU, and others, enough times will make the sponsors of terrorism, the rogue nations, the actual violators of human rights go away or, forgive us, that makes my mind spin in circles.

Supporting the Iran Deal, somehow, creates international stability, but giving aid and weapons to Israel, somehow destabilizes it. A preposterous logic pattern.

[SATW]

the actual violators of human rights

aka countries like Israel.

You want an award for being an intellectually dishonest, Edgelord? Because you won't get one from me.

If you legitimately believe that Israel is more of a human rights problem than Russia, Iran or Saudi Arabia, then you, like many on the left, are hypocrites.

I'm sure, also like many leftists, you naively believe the U.S., U.K. and others are also human rights abusers. Which, again, proves Jeane Kirkpatrick's point, but the main difference is that I somehow doubt any other country gets the same level attention on these supposed "human rights" issues from far-left people like Israel does.

[SATW]

the actual violators of human rights

aka countries like Israel.

I'm sure, also like many leftists, you naively believe the U.S., U.K. and others are also human rights abusers.

...

You can't be serious. It's the opposite, actually. You'd have to be extremely naive to think that the US and UK don't abuse human rights.

Let me rephrase: It seems to bother leftists more when western or western-leaning nations engage in wars and conflicts when compared to rogue nations.

Leftists try and equate western actions to those of rogue nations. This is extremely problematic, to me, as it should be clear who is in the wrong in those situations (HINT: the countries killing their own people; not the countries trying to stop onslaught).

[SATW]

Let me rephrase: It seems to bother leftists more when western or western-leaning nations engage in wars and conflicts when compared to rogue nations.

Leftists try and equate western actions to those of rogue nations. This is extremely problematic, to me, as it should be clear who is in the wrong in those situations (HINT: the countries killing their own people; not the countries trying to stop onslaught).

Doesn't Israel kill "their own people"? Are Palestinian civilians Israelis in your mind? Look, the illegal occupation is not sustainable without violence from the other side.

My biggest problem is that U.S. foreign policy can't be "support Israel no matter what or else it's an attack on Jews". Netanyahu and AIPAC shouldn't be able to control how we operate.

No, Israel does not kill their own people. Israel is not the country waging war on its own people (Syria, Venezuela), Israel is not the country that is quasi-run by a terrorist group (Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon, Qatar etc...), Israel is not an apartheid state (Jordan), Israel is not a theocracy (Iran, Saudi Arabia), Israel is not a worldwide sponsor of terrorism (Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia) and Israel is most certainly not a dictatorship (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, etc...etc..etc..).

So, forgive me if I think you are engaging in massive hyperbole with your statement.

The "occupation" is not "illegal"...the specific elements of international law that is often cited to "prove" this BS has nothing to even do with the settlements....it revolves around forced movement of populations (which was made law after the holocaust), but certainly it could be argued that it is an obstacle to peace.


No, Palestinians who live in Gaza or the West Bank are not Israelis. Wouldn't that imply the denial of a future two state plan? I have always said, on this site, and on other sites, that I am a believer in a two-state solution. Arabs within Israel's borders and Jewish settlements are most definitely citizens who deserve equal rights.

I also will state that I oppose creating new settlements, but I do support many of the ones already made. I think Israel should focus on getting international recognition for the settlements closest to its borders and to empty out settlements closer to the Jordanian border.

But, conversations about Arab rights in Israel and the two-state solution in general cannot happen because the West in complicit in engaging in lazy diplomacy.

Why is the Palestinian leadership in the west bank never pressured to have elections? Yea, I know they are planned to happen soon...but guess what? It's been well over a decade and because of the corrupt, U.N.-endorsed mess known as the PA, it is likely that Hamas will win the elections, if they even happen.

So, we either have to work with corrupt dictators like Mahmoud Abbas or terrorists who seem to have popular support. Great "partners for Israel."

Finally,

AIPAC doesn't control what America does. Not even close. Do people seem to forget that AIPAC has lost on big issues in the past?

Or do we like to make up fantasies for fun? Israel OPPOSED selling arms to the Saudis in the 1980s. Reagan and the GOP defeated AIPAC on the issue and embarrassed them publicly. Just like Obama did on the Iran Deal. The U.S. has, many times, broken with Israel on a multitude of issues. There is  no undue influence on the government by Israel.

Go pedal your conspiracy theories somewhere else. I will eagerly debate the peace process with you, and others (as I have done many times on Atlas). I do have very hawkish positions on these issues, but I don't think I'm so firm in my beliefs that I can't have honest conversations with people who disagree with me.

But I have no patience for ridiculous conspiracy theories about the Israeli lobby controlling the government. It is blatantly false. Just because people like Mearsheimer and Walt state the Israeli lobby runs the show does not mean it is even close to being a fact.

You do not claim the Armenian lobby runs the U.S. Government.
You do not claim the Cuban-American lobby runs the U.S. Government.

Both of have very strong lobbyists on their payroll (especially the Armenian lobby, which is the second strongest foreign/ethnic lobby in the U.S.), like the Israeli lobby, and try and force the U.S.'s hand on international issues.

Yet, no rantings from the left about how pro-embargo Cubans or anti-Azerbaijan/anti-Turkey Armenians run the government.

[SATW]

Also, I've been told that I come off as a bit...strong in my discussions on Israel and foreign policy, so I hope that no one takes my comments personally.

[SATW]

(HINT: the countries killing their own people; not the countries trying to stop onslaught).

Again:

aka countries like Israel.

Israel is notorious for killing it's own people. Members of the Palestinian minority are slaughtered by the state every day, and 7/10 of the victims of the Israeli state's ethnic cleansing operation are civilians. I don't see how someone could deny that Israel's human rights record is among the worst of any major country.

And for the record: it's not that we're more frustrated with the atrocities by Israel than Iran because the atrocities committed by the former are worse. The reason that we're more frustrated with Israel's crimes against humanity than Iran's, is because it hits closer to home: most of the people who represent us rightfully call out Iran for it's human rights abuses; on the other hand, both parties bend over backwards to support Israel's barbaric policies, and so much as the slightest criticism of Israel gets one branded as an "anti-Semite".

1.) I have not called anyone an anti-semite in this thread, so that is irrelevant when debating me. I will call something antisemitic when I see it, but it has not occurred in this thread.
2.) No, it is not well-documented that "Israel kills its own people." Also, can you define what you are talking about when you say this? Are you referring to Israeli-Arabs or Palestinians in the West Bank. The former are Israeli citizens, the latter are not. If you mean the former than this is my position: Arabs within Israel who are killed, in most cases, are people who engage in attacks on random Israeli civilians. These are not innocent people frolicking in the streets of Jerusalem. These are people walking around with bombs, with knives and other weapons with the intent to kill Israeli civilians, of all stripes, regardless of religion or ethnicity.

 That being said, of course acts of racism occur in Israel, as they do in any western or western-style society, but like in all of those countries....this is a minority of people.

Another thing: "Opposing occupation" has never been and will never be an excuse in any sane person's view to engage in terror attacks on Israeli streets.

If you are referring to Palestinians in the West Bank as "Israelis" than you are making one of two statements: 1.) Denying a two state solution by calling all of these people Israelis or 2.) Claiming that, somehow, Israel is responsible for anyone and everyone near it. Please elaborate on which one you side with.


3.) It has been well documented that Israel does more than any other western country (especially the U.S. or U.K.) to avoid civilian causalities, but the problem, as has been documented, is that Hamas uses human shields, Hamas hides military hardware, weapons and bases in heavily populated civilian areas and Hamas recruits civilians to fight its fights.

The difference in death tolls from Israel's conflicts and NATO's conflicts are indeed a staggering indictment...against NATO forces. Who gives European or American leftists the right to critique Israel, or similar countries of this stature, when the U.S. and U.K. have racked up, in percentage and in actual numbers, staggering civilian death totals.

If Israel is somehow "barbaric", than the U.S. and the U.K. must be worse as they have killed more civilians than Israel. My opinion is that none of these countries are barbaric.

In fact, this game of nitpicking western nations who fight terrorism is beyond insane. There are people who literally think that the Allies committed democide in WW2 against Nazi Germany. Literally no one takes these people seriously, but that doesn't change the fact that hundreds of thousands of innocent people died in WW2.

Why, all of the sudden, have the goal posts changed? Because leftists need something to feel morally superior on.

Also, this new logic of "Oh, we do it because Israel is one of us" is not legitimate. Either start condemning all western countries, proportionally, for what you perceive to be abuses, or don't do it at all.

Actually, I have a better solution than either those black and white solutions. One could try and understand how this conflict actually works. It's never been pretty, it will never be pretty and that is why war should be avoided at all costs.

However, you can't avoid it if you have western governments actively funding terrorist organizations. There is a crapload of money that goes from the west, from the UN, from UNRWA and straight into the hands of Hamas terrorists in Gaza. This literally was just proven when a "charity" was busted in Gaza for using its donations to fund terrorism.  (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/04/british-donations-to-christian-charity-world-vision-were-used-to/)

Also, millions of dollars go to the corrupt Palestinian Authority who: 1.) either uses the money to enrich its slate of corrupt leaders or 2.) directly or indirectly uses money to fund terror attacks within the West Bank and/or Gaza.

The Palestinians literally have no reason to make peace because they the western world will just crap on Israel.

[SATW]

Why is the Palestinian leadership in the west bank never pressured to have elections? Yea, I know they are planned to happen soon...but guess what? It's been well over a decade and because of the corrupt, U.N.-endorsed mess known as the PA, it is likely that Hamas will win the elections, if they even happen.

So, we either have to work with corrupt dictators like Mahmoud Abbas or terrorists who seem to have popular support. Great "partners for Israel."

The fact that Hamas would likely win the elections is no doubt the biggest reason why there is little pressure for elections.

As for the Palestinians someday being partners, perhaps when Israeli policy changes to act as if that they someday will be partners rather than modern-day Gibeonites, then they someday will be partners.  Shutting them up into arbitrary Bantustans of Israel's choosing isn't exactly conducive to long term peace. For now Israel has the luxury of military and economic superiority over its Arab neighbors, but it acts as if those conditions will always apply, and they won't.

The 90's were a wasted opportunity and both sides squandered the chance that was available then. I don't see any reasonable prospect of peace in this generation, but Israeli policy is precluding any chance of peace in the next generation as well. That's not entirely unreasonable if one thinks peace never has chance of breaking out, but it does mean that in the long term Israel is guaranteed to doom.

You can think Israel is stalling the process, that's a legitimate position to have, even though I strongly disagree with that view. However, it is pure hypocrisy to think that Israel is behind a majority, or all, of the stalling the process. The Palestinians have consistently stalled the process and only engage in it when they want to win over international funding. The Palestinian leadership is arguably the most corrupt leadership on the entire planet. Abbas has stolen so much money that its insane. Only his mentor Arafat stole more than he did.

[SATW]

I didn't say Israel was worse in terms of democracy, terrorism, etc. than any of those Middle Eastern countries you mentioned, but there have been many times where Israel has responded to conflicts irresponsibly. For example, when those Isreali teenagers were kidnapped, the Isreali government immediately blamed Hamas without producing concrete evidence. Pretty soon a fundamentalist Jew did the exact same thing to a Palestinian teenager. I'd prefer we didn't live in a world where Hammurabi's code ruled supreme.

In regards to Gaza and West Bank, they have been set up the same way the Indian reservations were; moved from their motherland and put into a confined space. Except this time Muslims are much more equipped to fight back. I obviously despise Hamas and other Islamic extremist groups but it seems only natural when people are moved from where there ancestors were from.

And I'm glad you support at 2-state solution, and I mostly agree that lazy diplomacy is a barrier to that ever happening, but Israel can't come to the table demanding Palestinians stay in their little box.

My biggest piece of evidence of AIPAC's influence on government is the correlation between the amount of money a congressman receives from them and their voting record on pro-Israel bills. I happen to think AIPAC isn't aligned with the belief of most Jews, and that's part of why they've failed recently. They are too far to the right of American Jews who want some form of peace settlement. They probably also didn't like Netanyahu's antics a while back in congress.

I'll respond with the AIPAC part again because I just don't agree with anything you have said. AIPAC is the center of the American Zionist movement. It doesn't take positions on the settlements, it doesn't cheer on the Israeli far-right, and it most certainly does not oppose peace. AIPAC has stated many times that it supports a two-state solution.

Give me evidence that AIPAC donates money to anyone in congress, because they do not. AIPAC does not directly fund any candidate of any party. Period. Yes, you can show me that their board members, or donors donate money to candidates via PACs... but none of these people use AIPAC's name to donate money and none of these people represent AIPAC when they donate money.

The Pro-Israel sector, like all lobbying sectors, is very diverse and is made of many personalities. Many of these personalities often put their name with AIPAC because it is the most prominent organization for these type of issues. That does not mean, all of a sudden, that they are in some sort of monolithic agreement with all of the organization's policies and the same is very much true in the vice versa.

Also, AIPAC does indeed represent the views of many American Jews. I won't say they represent all Jews, because they don't. There are dozens and dozens of Pro-Israel groups in this country (again, just like with every lobbying sector) and each of these groups have their own agendas and views.

I've been involved in activism with a lot of these groups. I've seen firsthand the divergence of opinions on Israel-based issues among these groups, but ultimately most American Jews lean somewhat hawkishly on Israel issues.

That being said, AIPAC's problem is one similar to many groups of its size (NRA, Human Rights Campaign, AARP, NARAL and National Right to Life etc..etc..etc..): They have sat on the top of the hill for so long that they have gotten complacent and its created a weird situation where the issue they lobby on has gotten lost in the culture of D.C. politics.

In response to your Hammurabi's code analogy: 1. Hamas DID kidnap those teenagers (http://www.npr.org/2014/08/22/342318367/hamas-finally-admits-to-kidnapping-and-killing-israeli-teens) and 2. One example of far-right bigotry is now a trend?

The difference with these two situations is that Israel NEVER tells its population to go vigilante and hunt down terrorists. Hamas and the PA, on the other hand, do the exact opposite.


Now, moving onto the discussion about the peace process, I agree, as so most Zionists, that Israel can't expect to win every battle at the negotiating table, but Israel has no obligation to do anything until the Palestinian Authority gets its crap together. The failure of the 2000 peace accords is completely on the Palestinian leadership. Ehud Barak made massive concessions and he still got rejected.

Israel will have to give up a lot of settlements for peace in a long-term peace deal, but before that will ever happen...the PA needs to stop funding terrorism, it needs to stop naming streets after terrorists and it needs to clean itself of its corruption.

[SATW]

Also, I'm sure most of you think I'm a far-right crazy Zionist, but I'm closer to the political center of the Zionist movement. I am a Revisionist Zionist (on the right), but I'm not far-right.

I understand, just like David Ben-Gurion did, why many Arabs do not like Israel. But we have a right to have a country in this area of the world. It is our historic home. That being said, I do not deny that many Arabs and Palestinians consider this area home as well.

That is why I, like 90% of American Jews, support a two-state solution. But people forget that the creation, or lack of creation, of another Arab state was not just decided by Zionists. Egypt and Jordan, for 20+ years sat on Gaza and the West Bank. They put these people in camps and just left them there while still claiming the territory.

Israel's victory in 1967 opened up a pandora's box, but not one that can be blamed just on Israel. Israel offered to give Gaza and most of the West Bank up in Khartorum, but were rejected. Conventional western ideology and "wisdom" will not solve this problem.

Israeli-Arab regional cooperation will be the only thing that will ever make peace in this region. Not American influence, not European influence, etc... Egypt has been a good mediating partner between Israel and the Palestinians, but lately it has moved towards Israel because Hamas and the PA decided it'd be a "good idea" to piss them off. Jordan sits on the other side, usually taking the Palestinian side, to avoid creating instability among their majority palestinian population.

The Saudis are now, apparently, willing to serve this type of role, maybe.

[SATW]

Hezbollah in Qatar

I think you may have misread one of my posts (or I made a spacing error somewhere). I cited Qatar and Hezbollah as separate examples of countries being run by terrorist groups.

My opinion with Qatar is that it funds so many terrorist groups that it will eventually lose control over itself, thus why I put in that category.

[SATW]

Here's an article I found the other day that elaborates more on my opinions to Qatar.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/saudi-arabia-terrorism-funding-214241 (It's about Saudi Arabia, but I'll make the connection in a second)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, the Saudis started funding terrorist groups to advance their national interests. It is my opinion that Qatar is following the same strategy. However, as we all know, the Saudis are now being bitten in their behinds. The strategy unraveled on them and they are dealing w/ serious problems because of it.

I think Qatar, who is very rich, but very small in military might, will struggle with this problem in a way shorter timespan than the Saudis and that it could create a situation like the one w/ Lebanon and Hezbollah.

Hope I cleared that up, Gass.


EDIT: http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=Saudi-Arabia&country2=Qatar&Submit=Compare+Countries military differentials between KSA and Qatar for anyone interested.

[SATW]

Israeli-Arab regional cooperation will be the only thing that will ever make peace in this region.

Here's an area we're in agreement on.  What we appear to largely disagree over is what Israel should be doing until the Arabs become interested in cooperation and whether Israel could do anything to make Arab cooperation more likely.  My own advice is largely over policies Israel has and is doing that I think are counter-productive and should cease rather than peace initiatives it could try.

and people say neocons like me are completely unreasonable

I'm hopeful Saudi Arabia will become a big partner for Israel in cooperation soon. It's already been happening on a few levels. Israel received a Saudi delegation in July and Israeli diplomats have been in and out of contact with KSA.

I think the weariness over Iran and its problematic traits has been the biggest factor in the thawing of the icy past b/w the two countries, but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a big topic of discussion.

[SATW]

I think 'Israel derangement syndrome' is a much more appropriate term than 'anti-Semitism' for a lot of these sentiments. And, yes, there is a lot of Israel derangement syndrome in this thread.

Yup. Agreed 100% could not have said it better myself.

[SATW]

I think 'Israel derangement syndrome' is a much more appropriate term than 'anti-Semitism' for a lot of these sentiments. And, yes, there is a lot of Israel derangement syndrome in this thread.

I would agree, although sentiments like "the world would be a better place if we just nuked the area" are definitely anti-semitic considering what that would entail.

True. I'm neutral on the Israel/Palestinian issue, they'll have to come to an agreement soon, but Jewish Americans look foolish voting for the Democratic Party constantly when they have some anti Semites in the leftist movement.

Because there's no anti-semitism on the right?

Anti-semitism on the right has long been properly demonized. Anti-semitism on the left has a major political party in the UK (Corbyn, anyone?) and is considered acceptable on many college campuses.

Both are bad and need to be demonized, but leftist antisemitism is more of an issue, imo, at the current moment.

[SATW]

I think 'Israel derangement syndrome' is a much more appropriate term than 'anti-Semitism' for a lot of these sentiments. And, yes, there is a lot of Israel derangement syndrome in this thread.

I would agree, although sentiments like "the world would be a better place if we just nuked the area" are definitely anti-semitic considering what that would entail.

True. I'm neutral on the Israel/Palestinian issue, they'll have to come to an agreement soon, but Jewish Americans look foolish voting for the Democratic Party constantly when they have some anti Semites in the leftist movement.

Because there's no anti-semitism on the right?

Anti-semitism on the right has long been properly demonized. Anti-semitism on the left has a major political party in the UK (Corbyn, anyone?) and is considered acceptable on many college campuses.

Both are bad and need to be demonized, but leftist antisemitism is more of an issue, imo, at the current moment.

Corbyn isn't an anti-semite, though. On the other hand, the Republican Presidential nominee posts sh*t like this on his personal Twitter account:



Clearly anti-semitism is more of a problem on the right.

] How many more MPs, activists and supporters have to engage in flat out death threats and slurs against Jews for people like you to see that Corbyn gives no craps about what is said to Jews?

FFS, a Labour MP who, I believe, was somewhat loyal to Corbyn, has been harassed routinely by his rabid supporters.

[SATW]

It's entirely possible that Corbyn isn't an anti-semite or doesn't consider himself one. But his associations and tolerance of them - including his own brother - clearly shows that he doesn't mind them much.

As Edmund Burke said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Though, in this case, Corbyn is far from a good man.

[SATW]

It's entirely possible that Corbyn isn't an anti-semite or doesn't consider himself one. But his associations and tolerance of them - including his own brother - clearly shows that he doesn't mind them much.

As Edmund Burke said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Though, in this case, Corbyn is far from a good man.

What Edmund Burke actually said was "The only thing necessary for a quote to be falsely attributed is for it to be put in the mouths of someone who too few people actually read."

Whoops. Big brain fart on my part. Nonetheless, my point on Corbyn stands.

[SATW]

How about we all stop for a moment, take a deep breath and pretend that most of the posts in this thread never happened?

And why would you want to do that? I stand by all of my statements.