Jewish connection to the war w/ Iraq ?

[DeesKo]

Va.'s Moran Condemned For Remarks
Congressman Rejects Calls for Resignation

By Eric M. Weiss and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 12, 2003; Page B01


The White House and congressional leaders from both major parties rebuked Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) yesterday for remarks suggesting that the Jewish community was pushing the United States toward war with Iraq.

Meanwhile, some Jewish leaders refused to accept the Alexandria congressman's apologies, saying that Moran's comments on the war issue reflect a history of actions and statements hostile to Jews and Israel.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer called Moran's comments "shocking . . . wrong . . . [and] inappropriate." Addressing reporters at the regular White House briefing, Fleischer said, "If [Democratic leaders] were silent on a issue like this, they would be missing an opportunity to speak out for something that deserves to be spoken out on."

In a written statement issued later, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Moran's comments "have no place in the Democratic Party." But Pelosi added that while the remarks were inappropriate and offensive, "he has properly apologized."

Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) admonished Moran for making unfounded, baseless and "totally out of line comments" beneath congressional standards.

U.S. Sen. George Allen (Va.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, condemned Moran's remarks as "deplorable and offensive not just to Jewish Americans, but to all Americans."

In remarks first reported in the Reston Connection, Moran told an antiwar forum in Reston on March 3, "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this."

Moran added that Jewish leaders "are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."

Moran has since apologized, saying that he "made some insensitive remarks that I deeply regret."

He said yesterday that he was trying to make a broader point, that religious communities could have an impact on the war debate.

Moran said he has no plans to resign. "Oh no," he said. "The voters put me in, and the voters will put me out." He said he is trying to mend relations with Jewish leaders, but said: "I don't know if I'll be given the opportunity. I think they need to do a whole lot of venting before they start listening."

Representatives of some Jewish organizations said yesterday that Moran's statement at the forum was less a verbal mix-up than the latest window into the congressman's real feelings.

"This was the icing on the cake," said Ronald Halber, executive director of the Jewish Community Council of Washington. "Over the past several years, Congressman Moran has expressed a hostile tendency toward Israel. It has come up in his votes and in his statements."

Jewish groups have long focused on Moran, collecting his statements and tracking his votes. They have differed with the congressman over votes on foreign aid to Israel, rhetorical support for the Palestinian cause and statements on Israeli history and leadership.

"Clearly when you have a congressman who is so insensitive to Jewish issues and blatantly hostile to Israel, it makes it difficult to take his words of clarification seriously," said David Bernstein, the Washington director of the American Jewish Committee. "The nature of his statement was too clear-cut and obvious to dismiss as a slip of the tongue."

Several Jewish leaders said the incident is a rerun of an incident two years ago when, in a speech to the American Muslim Council, Moran said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was coming to Washington "probably seeking a warrant from President Bush to kill at will with weapons we have paid for."

Moran said at the time that his remarks were "irresponsible," delivered without thinking. "Probably more than anything else, it's what embarrasses me the most -- when I pander to an audience, and I've done it too often."

Given Moran's record, Halber said, his latest apologies mean little. "When a person violates their parole enough times, they are put back in jail."

Last November, Moran reversed his previous position and returned contributions from three officers of Muslim organizations in Northern Virginia that were raided by federal agents in an investigation into terrorist financing. A year ago, Moran returned political contributions from a Muslim activist who declared his support for the anti-Israel groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

Moran says he has a passion about Middle East coming from years spent studying the conflict, extensive travel around the region and time spent with many Mideast leaders.

"Because I have spent as much time as I have on this issue, I felt freer than some to speak out on it. My views differ from the conventional wisdom on what is in Israel's long-term best interest."

In a 1996 op-ed piece in the Jerusalem Post, Moran described a wrenching scene in which Israeli border police allegedly beat an unarmed Palestinian.

"The unarmed youth was held on the ground while police officers armed with guns and clubs climbed over each other's backs to land their own blows on his body," Moran wrote. "Most of the witnesses to this scene said it happens all the time. When Israeli police and Palestinians are concerned there is no justice or fair play. Might makes right. I witnessed the police laughing and making self-congratulatory gestures after the beating."

Moran said yesterday that he still hoped to speak out on the subject. "I thought it would be a healthy thing for some non-Jewish citizens to be able to contribute a bit more to the dialogue on Mideast issues. There is not enough cross-pollination with people who are not Jewish but who share a commitment to Israel and its security."

Staff researcher Bobbye Pratt contributed to this report.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[floorgasm]

the comments are a bit goofy, but israel would stand to benefit greatly from regime change in iraq. it's well known that hussein sends money to families of suicide bombers.

[DeesKo]

Someone in public office simply pandering to whatever audience he has and in return saying things he shouldn't say because he's just a poor public speaker and gets flustered easily and just babbles things out ?

or

Someone in public office who holds the same view as a lot of people in this country who is being shut down and railroaded out of a job because he's going against the most powerful lobby in this country, therby proving his overall point in the process ?

or

An anti-semite who has no business in office rightfully catching flak for his irresponsible comments displaying his hate for Jews ?


Peace

[ March 12, 2003, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: DeesKo ]

[DeesKo]

Originally posted by floorgasm:
the comments are a bit goofy, but israel would stand to benefit greatly from regime change in iraq. it's well known that hussein sends money to families of suicide bombers. Good thing you aren't in office.

You wouldn't be for long.

Peace

[kara]

what do you think rob?

[Cheddar]

Question..
Do people from other countries hold this sorta power???
Yo that is Anti-Irish.
Or Anti-Spainish.
Or Anti-Russian.

Get my question....why does the anti-semetic CRY get so much volume?? Why does it hold so much weight??
If you are American...why all this???

[DeesKo]

Originally posted by kara:
what do you think rob? I think its a little bit of all of the above depending on how you define anti-semite. I'm also trying to figure out the media's role in this as either pro or anti-Jewish because their coverage of this is interesting to say the least.

I don't know his history on all things Jewish and I can't really make a judgement call without knowing those details. It would be nice if they'd elaborate on that aspect instead of just making sweeping comments saying he votes anti-israeli and pro-palestinian, he is anti-Jewish etc...

Peace

[floorgasm]

deesko, don't you think that israel would benefit from iraqi regime change?

i'm not saying that israel has had a role in bush's crusade, just that it would make sense for that nation to support.

that aside, moran's comments were inappropriate.

[DeesKo]

Originally posted by floorgasm:
deesko, don't you think that israel would benefit from iraqi regime change?

I think everyone except Russia and France would benefit from a regime change in Iraq.

[Ken1015]

Originally posted by 1343:
Question..
Do people from other countries hold this sorta power???
Yo that is Anti-Irish.
Or Anti-Spainish.
Or Anti-Russian.

Get my question....why does the anti-semetic CRY get so much volume?? Why does it hold so much weight??
If you are American...why all this??? Let's be fair Cheddi. Remember Trent Lott?

[Cheddar]

Originally posted by Soulful1015:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 1343:
Question..
Do people from other countries hold this sorta power???
Yo that is Anti-Irish.
Or Anti-Spainish.
Or Anti-Russian.

Get my question....why does the anti-semetic CRY get so much volume?? Why does it hold so much weight??
If you are American...why all this??? Let's be fair Cheddi. Remember Trent Lott? </font>[/QUOTE]Call me slow..but I dont get, please come again.

[kara]

i think floorgasms words are pretty dead on

israel would of course want a regime change

the comments were still inappropriate


re: media, they have an insane role with influencing sentiment .. b/c it was only 10 years ago that all i heard and knew was proisrael and people had these same conversations about palestinians, opposite the framework today

its all a bunch of crap. there lives a bunch of people over there. who cares who belongs there b/c of history. who cares which religions is 'right' (as if everything is about right and wrong)

figure out how to go forward and lets get on with it.


re: war - war sux period. if we go to it, its us administrations role, not jews, not media, but our decision ... and we should take responsibility

regardless of what we say, its gonna play out like its gonna play out so why waste these moments of our life speculating ... and trying to blame everyone - everyones too caught up with trying to 'place' blame or something on someone .. seems insignificant/trifling

[jimmymack-2000]

Originally posted by 1343:
Question..
Do people from other countries hold this sorta power???
Yo that is Anti-Irish.
Or Anti-Spainish.
Or Anti-Russian.

Get my question....why does the anti-semetic CRY get so much volume?? Why does it hold so much weight??
If you are American...why all this??? Quite simple - because six million of them were exterminated like vermin within recent collective memory. We should be treating those left with some measure of respect.

On a related note, Pat Buchanan - yes, that Pat Buchanan - is one conservative who's finally had enough. As DeesKo asks, true anti-Semite, or just someone who's been inside and seen the machinations of "America's most powerful interest group"?

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

[Monny JcIntosh]

Some of my best friends are anti semitic. I think it's something to do with those scarfes that Yasser Arafat wears being fashionable right now.

[Ken1015]

Originally posted by 1343:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soulful1015:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 1343:
Question..
Do people from other countries hold this sorta power???
Yo that is Anti-Irish.
Or Anti-Spainish.
Or Anti-Russian.

Get my question....why does the anti-semetic CRY get so much volume?? Why does it hold so much weight??
If you are American...why all this??? Let's be fair Cheddi. Remember Trent Lott? </font>[/QUOTE]Call me slow..but I dont get, please come again. </font>[/QUOTE]I won't call you slow. Trent Lott was politically tarnished over comments that were thought to be anti-Black so in all fairness you can't say that anti-semitic statements are the only negative statements taken offensively and viewed as having importance. It is being debated now and it is my hope that one day all Native American mascots are eliminated since most of them are flat out racist.

[Cheddar]

Originally posted by jimmymack-2000:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 1343:
Question..
Do people from other countries hold this sorta power???
Yo that is Anti-Irish.
Or Anti-Spainish.
Or Anti-Russian.

Get my question....why does the anti-semetic CRY get so much volume?? Why does it hold so much weight??
If you are American...why all this??? Quite simple - because six million of them were exterminated like vermin within recent collective memory. We should be treating those left with some measure of respect.

On a related note, Pat Buchanan - yes, that Pat Buchanan - is one conservative who's finally had enough. As DeesKo asks, true anti-Semite, or just someone who's been inside and seen the machinations of "America's most powerful interest group"?

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html </font>[/QUOTE]RESPECT?!?!?!
So American opinion has to be aware and RESPECT one group...and not others???

My point and question was simple but yet to be answered...The only people over here now who didnt choose to be here are descendants of African Slaves...correct me if I am wrong but these people are the only Americans here and didnt really choose to be. Why does the affairs of the above mentioned group (semites?? Jews right or correct me.) take precedent over American affairs and interests???

[Cheddar]

Originally posted by Soulful1015:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 1343:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soulful1015:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 1343:
Question..
Do people from other countries hold this sorta power???
Yo that is Anti-Irish.
Or Anti-Spainish.
Or Anti-Russian.

Get my question....why does the anti-semetic CRY get so much volume?? Why does it hold so much weight??
If you are American...why all this??? Let's be fair Cheddi. Remember Trent Lott? </font>[/QUOTE]Call me slow..but I dont get, please come again. </font>[/QUOTE]I won't call you slow. Trent Lott was politically tarnished over comments that were thought to be anti-Black so in all fairness you can't say that anti-semitic statements are the only negative statements taken offensively and viewed as having importance. It is being debated now and it is my hope that one day all Native American mascots are eliminated since most of them are flat out racist. </font>[/QUOTE]Fully understood.

[jimmymack-2000]

Originally posted by 1343:
RESPECT?!?!?!
So American opinion has to be aware and RESPECT one group...and not others???

My point and question was simple but yet to be answered...The only people over here now who didnt choose to be here are descendants of African Slaves...correct me if I am wrong but these people are the only Americans here and didnt really choose to be. Why does the affairs of the above mentioned group (semites?? Jews right or correct me.) take precedent over American affairs and interests??? Ah...thank you Cheddi! I'm starting to understand why so many African-Americans have this hatred towards/phobia of Jews, and keep on with this "Jewish conspiracy" thing. There's more than a bit of resentment, obviously, that they're being recognized as victims, and you're not, is that it?

[Cheddar]

Originally posted by jimmymack-2000:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 1343:
RESPECT?!?!?!
So American opinion has to be aware and RESPECT one group...and not others???

My point and question was simple but yet to be answered...The only people over here now who didnt choose to be here are descendants of African Slaves...correct me if I am wrong but these people are the only Americans here and didnt really choose to be. Why does the affairs of the above mentioned group (semites?? Jews right or correct me.) take precedent over American affairs and interests??? Ah...thank you Cheddi! I'm starting to understand why so many African-Americans have this hatred towards/phobia of Jews, and keep on with this "Jewish conspiracy" thing. There's more than a bit of resentment, obviously, that they're being recognized as victims, and you're not, is that it? </font>[/QUOTE]Look...dont twist it. I dont speak for all African Americans.
In the case mentioned above..TRENT LOTT was axed for comments about African Americans...not immigrants. Secondly he was axed because he is not an integral cog...a scapegoat for all others who should have been axed.
Why are people loosing their jobs for expressing their views which are SHOUTED as being anti-semetic?

[konbit]

I don't think that the comments were that inappropriate...though probably poorly worded. The Israel topic is one that politicians have long been unwilling to discuss openly. Honestly, I hate the idea of ant-semitism. And, I have tried my hardest to find an explanation for our uncompromisingly pro-Israel stance that doesn't imply some sort of super-powerful Jewish lobbying. Looking at the US' UN veto record, for example, shows that there are times when the US will support the evils that happen from Israel. Their weapons of mass destruction allude criticism (and remain unofficial). They have the worst UN Security Council resolution history. They have crippled the Palastinians economy, civil liberties, etc. Why do they remain immune from official US criticism? Why does the US support actions that every other nation in the word deplores? And the millitary aid....

I am certain that there is no Jewish conspiracy. (There are plenty of anti-Zionist Jews). And I'd like to think that there aren't unreasonably powerful (i.e. shaping the US' Middle East foreign policy) pressures being placed on the US government by pro-Israel lobbyists. But what's the explanation, then? I think that this is a legitimate topic for discussion within our political discourse. And I find the taboo of bringing it up, and resulting condemnation (as shown by this piece) of those that do, to further substatiate the the claims of those who are asking questions. If there is a better explanation, I'd love to know.

[Cheddar]

Originally posted by konbit:
I don't think that the comments were that inappropriate...though probably poorly worded. The Israel topic is one that politicians have long been unwilling to discuss openly. Honestly, I hate the idea of ant-semitism. And, I have tried my hardest to find an explanation for our uncompromisingly pro-Israel stance that doesn't imply some sort of super-powerful Jewish lobbying. Looking at the US' UN veto record, for example, shows that there are times when the US will support the evils that happen from Israel. Their weapons of mass destruction allude criticism (and remain unofficial). They have the worst UN Security Council resolution history. They have crippled the Palastinians economy, civil liberties, etc. Why do they remain immune from official US criticism? Why does the US support actions that every other nation in the word deplores? And the millitary aid....

I am certain that there is no Jewish conspiracy. (There are plenty of anti-Zionist Jews). And I'd like to think that there aren't unreasonably powerful (i.e. shaping the US' Middle East foreign policy) pressures being placed on the US government by pro-Israel lobbyists. But what's the explanation, then? I think that this is a legitimate topic for discussion within our political discourse. And I find the taboo of bringing it up, and resulting condemnation (as shown by this piece) of those that do, to further substatiate the the claims of those who are asking questions. If there is a better explanation, I'd love to know. You put this down beautifully!!

[jimmymack-2000]

Originally posted by 1343:
Look...dont twist it. I dont speak for all African Americans.
In the case mentioned above..TRENT LOTT was axed for comments about African Americans...not immigrants. Secondly he was axed because he is not an integral cog...a scapegoat for all others who should have been axed.
Why are people loosing their jobs for expressing their views which are SHOUTED as being anti-semetic? Sorry - cheap shot. There are several points/questions here, to my mind:

1) Do you deny the existence of anti-Jewish feelings? In other words, do you believe there are still people out there who wish Jews harm?

2) Is racism and prejudice directed at ethnic groups outside of the U.S. any less a crime than racism and prejudice directed at U.S. citizens of visible ethnic backgrounds?

3) This "Jewish conspiracy" thing is as much a prejudice and a stereotype as any other, including those aimed at African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, etc. There's an group called the OAS - Organization of African States - whose mission is to enhance the wealth of African nations through economic growth, better standards of living, etc. Does this mean there is an "African" conspiracy, because Africans want what's best for them? Israel stands alone - it can't claim any membership in any Middle Eastern (let alone Arab) organizations of states. There are no other Jewish states in the whole world - it's only allies are other Jews living abroad, and maybe the U.S. government, but that last point is what we're debating here....

[jimmymack-2000]

Originally posted by konbit:
I don't think that the comments were that inappropriate...though probably poorly worded. The Israel topic is one that politicians have long been unwilling to discuss openly. Honestly, I hate the idea of ant-semitism. And, I have tried my hardest to find an explanation for our uncompromisingly pro-Israel stance that doesn't imply some sort of super-powerful Jewish lobbying. Looking at the US' UN veto record, for example, shows that there are times when the US will support the evils that happen from Israel. Their weapons of mass destruction allude criticism (and remain unofficial). They have the worst UN Security Council resolution history. They have crippled the Palastinians economy, civil liberties, etc. Why do they remain immune from official US criticism? Why does the US support actions that every other nation in the word deplores? And the millitary aid....

I am certain that there is no Jewish conspiracy. (There are plenty of anti-Zionist Jews). And I'd like to think that there aren't unreasonably powerful (i.e. shaping the US' Middle East foreign policy) pressures being placed on the US government by pro-Israel lobbyists. But what's the explanation, then? I think that this is a legitimate topic for discussion within our political discourse. And I find the taboo of bringing it up, and resulting condemnation (as shown by this piece) of those that do, to further substatiate the the claims of those who are asking questions. If there is a better explanation, I'd love to know. You could choose to infer that the U.S.'s unstinting support of Israel is proof of a conspiracy, or you could believe (as I do) that the U.S. saw the "Islamic fundamentalist threat" coming even before the Islamic Revolution in Iran (1976), and positioned Israel as a proxy to do its fighting for it. Every suicide bomber in Israel is one less in the U.S....

[ March 12, 2003, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: jimmymack-2000 ]

[konbit]

Wow...now that's a conspiracy!!

Seriously, though...I do not think that far-fetched explantion adequately explains the totality of US-Israel relations.

Plus...I don't think there would be nearly as much of a suicide bombing problem if Israel wasn't run as it is.

[jimmymack-2000]

Originally posted by konbit:
Wow...now that's a conspiracy!!

Seriously, though...I do not think that far-fetched explantion adequately explains the totality of US-Israel relations.

Plus...I don't think there would be nearly as much of a suicide bombing problem if Israel wasn't run as it is. Why is it far-fetched? I'll give you some reasons why I believe what I do:

1) Suicide bombing was a problem in Israel long before the U.S. got involved there, all through the '30s and the '40s. Remember, the original backers of the Jewish state were Britain, France, Czechoslovakia, even the Soviet Union! The U.S. didn't come along until the 1960s, and didn't really start providing massive amounts of military aid until the Reagan years.

2) The U.S. strategy for containing a threat has always been one of "buffer zones" - Western Europe, for instance, providing something for an invading Soviet force to chew on while the U.S. armed forces got ready to fight. Look at Vietnam, and the U.S.'s role in neighboring countries like Laos and Cambodia. Israel is an armed-to-the-teeth island in the middle of hostile Arab nations - hostile to both Israel AND the U.S., potentially.

3) Carter (and the USSR), I believe, found Nasserism and other pan-Arabic movements more appealing than the theocratic Islamic states that threatened to crop up in many Middle Eastern countries, hence things like Camp David.

I could talk about this stuff for hours, but I'm having a hard time organizing my thoughts right now...

[JL]

in correct jimmy. Truman took it on as a personal mission in the late 40s to get other UN members to vote for a creation of Isreal. It was convenient at the time as people sympathized with the plight of Jews post-Holocaust, but still did not want them in their own country (learned this at the Holocaust museum this weekend). Also, here's a chart of US aid to Isreal since 1949 in millions of dollars:

FY 1949 to FY 1990 (Million Dollars)

__________________________________________________ __________________



Fiscal

Year Military Nonmilitary(a) Total



__________________________________________________ __________________



1949 -- 100.0 00.0

1950 -- -- -

1951 -- 35.1 35.1

1952 -- 86.4 86.4

1953 -- 73.6 73.6

1954 -- 74.4 74.4

1955 -- 52.7 52.7

1956 -- 50.8 50.8

1957 -- 40.9 40.9

1958 -- 85.4 85.4

1959 0.4 52.9 53.3

1960 0.5 55.7 56.2

1961 --b 77.9 77.9

1962 13.2 80.2 93.4

1963 13.3 74.6 87.9

1964 -- 37.0 37.0

1965 12.9 52.2 65.1

1966 90.0 36.8 126.8

1967 7.0 16.7 23.7

1968 25.0 81.5 106.5

1969 85.0 75.3 160.3

1970 30.0 63.6 93.6

1971 545.0 89.3 634.3

1972 300.0 180.9 480.9

1973 307.5 185.3 492.8

1974 2,482.7 163.6 2,646.3

1975 300.0 483.0 783.0

1976 1,500.0 862.7 2,362.7

TQc 200.0 92.5 292.5

1977 1,000.0 787.5 1,787.5

1978 1,000.0 822.6 1,822.6

1979 4,000.0 913.0 4,913.0

1980 1,000.0 1,146.0 2,146.0

1981 1,400.0 1,008.4 2,408.4



__________________________________________________ __________________



Fiscal

Year Military Nonmilitary(a) Total



__________________________________________________ __________________





1982 1,390.0 855.5 2,245.5

1983 1,700.0 800.6 2,500.6

1984 1,700.0 926.6 2,626.6

1985 1,400.0 1,971.7 3,371.7

1986 1,722.6 1,920.9 3,643.5

1987 1,800.0 1,235.2 3,035.2

1988 1,800.0 1,234.9 3,034.9

1989 1,800.0 1,239.9 3,039.9

1990 1,792.3 1,194.8 2,987.1

________ ________ ________



Total 29,417.4 19,418.6 48,836.0



__________________________________________________ __________________

[jimmymack-2000]

Originally posted by JL:
in correct jimmy. Truman took it on as a personal mission in the late 40s to get other UN members to vote for a creation of Isreal. It was convenient at the time as people sympathized with the plight of Jews post-Holocaust, but still did not want them in their own country (learned this at the Holocaust museum this weekend). Sorry for being vague. I didn't mean to imply that there was no U.S. aid to Israel whatsoever before the 1960s - just that it reached a whole new level around that time. You're right, there was support for a Jewish state post-war, but not the carte blanche that's been given to Israel in the past two decades.



Also, here's a chart of US aid to Isreal since 1949 in millions of dollars: Here are my figures:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

As you'll notice, U.S. payments to Israel don't even break $100 million per annum until 1966, really...

[konbit]

Originally posted by jimmymack-2000:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JL:
in correct jimmy. Truman took it on as a personal mission in the late 40s to get other UN members to vote for a creation of Isreal. It was convenient at the time as people sympathized with the plight of Jews post-Holocaust, but still did not want them in their own country (learned this at the Holocaust museum this weekend). Sorry for being vague. I didn't mean to imply that there was no U.S. aid to Israel whatsoever before the 1960s - just that it reached a whole new level around that time. You're right, there was support for a Jewish state post-war, but not the carte blanche that's been given to Israel in the past two decades.



Also, here's a chart of US aid to Isreal since 1949 in millions of dollars: Here are my figures:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

As you'll notice, U.S. payments to Israel don't even break $100 million per annum until 1966, really... </font>[/QUOTE]Is inflation taken into account?

[ChiJAM]

you could believe (as I do) that the U.S. saw the "Islamic fundamentalist threat" coming even before the Islamic Revolution in Iran (1976), and positioned Israel as a proxy to do its fighting for it. Every suicide bomber in Israel is one less in the U.S....
That is very interesting...What do you consider "fundamentalist", though? Bin Laden? Or would you consider him more "Islamic radicalist"? My terminology may be off, but my question is whether you think Israel is used as a proxy against Islam as a whole or just a certain "type" of Islam, i.e., a Bin-Laden type Islam?

ChiJAM

[Cheddar]

ChiJam..
IMO, The US is being Proxyed or piggybacked right now. The Middle East situation...is it as bad as other situations??? Africa...South America???

[jimmymack-2000]

Originally posted by konbit:
Is inflation taken into account? Good question. I'm not sure...I'll e-mail them and ask.

[jimmymack-2000]

Originally posted by ChiJAM:
That is very interesting...What do you consider "fundamentalist", though? Bin Laden? Or would you consider him more "Islamic radicalist"? My terminology may be off, but my question is whether you think Israel is used as a proxy against Islam as a whole or just a certain "type" of Islam, i.e., a Bin-Laden type Islam?
ChiJAM The terminology is indeed confusing. We call Christians who insist on adhering to the letter of Scripture without making allowances for the times we live in "conservative" or "right-wing." Jews who are adamant that Israel is bequeathed to them and they they are the chosen people we call "orthodox." What are Muslims who follow this millennium-old arguement that "non-believers" need to be converted or put to the sword? Certainly many modern-day Muslim thinkers and leaders have realized the world is a smaller place (figuratively), and it is impossible to co-exist with other nations while holding such views of "infidels"...

[JL]

so is the problem monotheiastic religions in general?

personally, I feel that it only becomes a problem when one religion becomes the dominant moral basis for a political state's ethics. This, in turn, becomes a vehicle for other motives, rather than the raison d'etre.

[ChiJAM]

Powell: U.S. Policy Not Israeli Motivated

Thursday March 13, 2003 4:20 PM (from The Guardian)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Colin Powell flatly rejected on Thursday any suggestion that the Bush administration's confrontation with Iraq was engineered by Israel or American Jews.

Powell told a House Appropriations Subcommittee that the drive to compel Iraq to disarm stretches back over two administrations and 12 years of United Nations resolutions.

``It is driven by our own national interest,'' Powell said under questioning by the subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., who said he wanted to clear up media suggestions that American supporters of Israel - and Israel itself - were driving U.S. strategy.

Powell told the subcommittee the U.S policy ``is not driven by any small cabal that is buried away somewhere,'' nor by a small group of individuals.

Among the U.S. goals are helping the U.N. to ``do its job'' and concern for the Iraqi people, Powell said.

Powell's comments came a day after Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., apologized for making comments asserting that influential leaders of the Jewish community were pushing the country toward war with Iraq.

Some Jewish leaders, including six Jewish members of Congress, have called on Moran to resign, but Moran says he has no intention of doing so.

[DeesKo]

Originally posted by ChiJAM:
Powell: U.S. Policy Not Israeli Motivated

Thursday March 13, 2003 4:20 PM (from The Guardian)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Colin Powell flatly rejected on Thursday any suggestion that the Bush administration's confrontation with Iraq was engineered by Israel or American Jews.

Powell told a House Appropriations Subcommittee that the drive to compel Iraq to disarm stretches back over two administrations and 12 years of United Nations resolutions.

``It is driven by our own national interest,'' Powell said under questioning by the subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., who said he wanted to clear up media suggestions that American supporters of Israel - and Israel itself - were driving U.S. strategy.

Powell told the subcommittee the U.S policy ``is not driven by any small cabal that is buried away somewhere,'' nor by a small group of individuals.

Among the U.S. goals are helping the U.N. to ``do its job'' and concern for the Iraqi people, Powell said.

Powell's comments came a day after Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., apologized for making comments asserting that influential leaders of the Jewish community were pushing the country toward war with Iraq.

Some Jewish leaders, including six Jewish members of Congress, have called on Moran to resign, but Moran says he has no intention of doing so. he he he

he used "cabal" in a sentence....

he he he


sorry... it just had to be said....

peace

[mhd]

I wonder what would happen if Israel and/or the Jewish community in the US were against the war

[Cheddar]

I wonder how we went from the all powerful, all knowing..intelligence to the teeth having.. from stable to entrenched in a war with terrorism after one day of unproven crimes.

[Mocambo]

Originally posted by mhd:
I wonder what would happen if Israel and/or the Jewish community in the US were against the war There are many that are, but I don't know if they will ever be presented properly in any form of medium.

[konbit]

Originally posted by ChiJAM:
Powell: U.S. Policy Not Israeli Motivated

Thursday March 13, 2003 4:20 PM (from The Guardian)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Colin Powell flatly rejected on Thursday any suggestion that the Bush administration's confrontation with Iraq was engineered by Israel or American Jews.

Powell told a House Appropriations Subcommittee that the drive to compel Iraq to disarm stretches back over two administrations and 12 years of United Nations resolutions.

``It is driven by our own national interest,'' Powell said under questioning by the subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., who said he wanted to clear up media suggestions that American supporters of Israel - and Israel itself - were driving U.S. strategy.

Powell told the subcommittee the U.S policy ``is not driven by any small cabal that is buried away somewhere,'' nor by a small group of individuals.

Among the U.S. goals are helping the U.N. to ``do its job'' and concern for the Iraqi people, Powell said.

Powell's comments came a day after Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., apologized for making comments asserting that influential leaders of the Jewish community were pushing the country toward war with Iraq.

Some Jewish leaders, including six Jewish members of Congress, have called on Moran to resign, but Moran says he has no intention of doing so. Pro-Israel foreign policy goes WAY beyond the Iraq situation, though. (However...there is a link as far as anti-American sentiment, which is due in lage part to America's pro-Israel stance, caused 9/11, which caused the anti-terror witch hunt, which in turn is being used as an excuse for millitary action...)

Explaining away one facet of a large, seemingly unreasonable at times, foreign policy does nothing to discredit the "conspiracy theory."

[mhd]

Originally posted by jimmymack-2000:
[QUOTE]
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html Don't sleep on this article

[ChiJAM]

Seems like more than a few members of Congress have an interest in Powell's thinking on Israel lately.

ChiJAM

Powell Faults Palestinians in Mideast

Friday March 14, 2003 1:20 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) - Palestinian attacks on Israel and a lack of Palestinian proposals for peacemaking are to blame for the lack of progress toward a Mideast settlement, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday.

Testifying at a House hearing, Powell spoke sympathetically of Israel's refusal to negotiate while under attack. ``Nevertheless, we are deeply engaged,'' Powell said under questioning by Reps. Jesse L. Jackson Jr., D-Ill., and David R. Obey, D-Wis.

Powell agreed with them that the administration would have more support for its Iraq policy ``if we had been able to achieve greater progress in the Middle East.''

He offered no criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who has ruled out concessions to the Palestinians while terrorist acts continue.

``The principal problem has been the continuing violence and terrorism that has come from the Palestinian side directed against the state of Israel,'' Powell said, leaving Israel unable ``to do some of the things that I would have liked to see Israel do to move the process along.''

Still, Powell said, the Bush administration was looking for the right time to act on a plan toward Palestinian statehood in 2005. The United States is working on the plan with the United Nations, the European Union and Russia.

The Palestinian parliament's appointment of Mahmoud Abbas as prime minister puts ``a new dynamic in play,'' Powell said. ``We had made it clear to the Palestinian side that they needed to bring up new leadership because the old leadership was not getting the violence under control and was not coming forward with initiatives or ideas that would help us build a dialogue with Israel.''

Powell said he hoped Abbas, who is also known as Abu Mazen, would have ``real authority and will allow us to move forward.''

Yasser Arafat remains in command of Palestinian security forces and has the last word on peace negotiations. The Bush administration would like those responsibilities taken out of his hands.

Jackson suggested that war with Iraq could undermine what he described as growing democratic movements in Jordan, Lebanon, Iran and the Palestinian Authority ``and perpetuate repression through the region.''

Obey said he was concerned ``about the hiatus in American deep involvement in the Middle East'' and suggested to Powell ``that we elevate very, very quickly our focus on the renewal of the peace process.''

Referring to the threat of war with Iraq, Obey said, ``I just believe it is foolhardy for us to be doing something to the Arab world if, at the same time, we are not doing something for them, and for the Israelis, at the same time.''

In an interview, Stephen P. Cohen of the Israel Policy Forum, a private research group, said ``the question is not whether the Palestinian violence has slowed down the process, but whether Powell will have the authority from President Bush to proceed with the new Palestinian prime minister.''

On another Mideast trouble spot, Powell said he hoped the reduction of Syrian troops in Lebanon ``is the beginning of a long drawdown that would go to nothing.''

However, ``I can't be optimistic about that,'' Powell said, noting there have been ups and downs in the number of Syrian troops in Lebanon over the years. ``I cannot tell you whether this is on a path to get down to zero and let Lebanon be ruled by the Lebanese people without the presence of an occupation army.''

[kara]

Originally posted by jimmymack-2000:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ChiJAM:
That is very interesting...What do you consider "fundamentalist", though? Bin Laden? Or would you consider him more "Islamic radicalist"? My terminology may be off, but my question is whether you think Israel is used as a proxy against Islam as a whole or just a certain "type" of Islam, i.e., a Bin-Laden type Islam?
ChiJAM The terminology is indeed confusing. We call Christians who insist on adhering to the letter of Scripture without making allowances for the times we live in "conservative" or "right-wing." Jews who are adamant that Israel is bequeathed to them and they they are the chosen people we call "orthodox." What are Muslims who follow this millennium-old arguement that "non-believers" need to be converted or put to the sword? Certainly many modern-day Muslim thinkers and leaders have realized the world is a smaller place (figuratively), and it is impossible to co-exist with other nations while holding such views of "infidels"... </font>[/QUOTE]you can call them all fanatics the minute they cling to their 'book' whatever language or religion to claim they have the answer and everyone else is wrong ... there are fanatics on every side, and they give each group a bad name. all the groups mentioned have fundamental right to believe and practice as they wish. period.

and im a kyke. my best hometown friend is muslim. i want her brother. its a love denied. ho hum.