for Palestinian statehood?
---
On May 19, 2011, Obama made a foreign policy speech in which he called
for a return to the pre-1967 Israeli borders with mutually agreed land
swaps. Obama was criticized by many on the right in the U.S. for the
proposal.
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a Republican think
tank, reports that Obama has imposed a virtual arms embargo on Israel.
Obama blocked all major Israeli weapons requests, including key
projects and upgrades, linking arms sales to progress in the peace
process. At the same time, Obama approved $10 billion in arms sales to
Arab states, including fighters, missiles, helicopters, and fast
attack craft. Israel did not protest, despite reports that its
qualitative military edge was being eroded.
According to a classified U.S. State Departmment cable from October
31, 2008, released during the United States diplomatic cables leak,
the U.S. embassies in Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Saudi
Arabia, as well as the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, were
directed by the Bush administration to conduct espionage operations
against Israel, targeting all aspects of Israel's political system,
society, communications infrastructure, and military. Diplomats and
spies were asked to gather intelligence on planned Israeli military
operations, military units, equipment, maintenance levels, training,
morale, operational readiness, tactics, techniques and procedures for
conventional and unconventional counterinsurgency and counterterrorist
operations, and Israeli assessment on the impact of reserve duty in
the occupied territories on its military readiness. Information was
also sought on government plans, potential ways Israeli politicians
could be influenced, how politicians decide to launch military
strikes, the attitude of politicians towards the U.S, the official and
personal phone numbers, fax numbers, and e-mail addresses of military
and civilian leaders, Israeli military, intelligence, and civilian
communications infrastructure, and coded means of producing passports
and government ID badges.
which political party does US support to Israel come from?
yep ... it's complicated yet clear ... jewish influence on our
politicians is widespread
---
Ron Paul:
Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the
floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the
House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side
in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or US
interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by
Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid
for by American taxpayers. What will adopting this resolution do to
the perception of the United States in the Muslim and Arab world? What
kind of blowback might we see from this? What moral responsibility do
we have for the violence in Israel and Gaza after having provided so
much military support to one side?
As an opponent of all violence, I am appalled by the practice of
lobbing homemade rockets into Israel from Gaza. I am only grateful
that, because of the primitive nature of these weapons, there have
been so few casualties among innocent Israelis. But I am also appalled
by the longstanding Israeli blockade of Gaza — a cruel act of war —
and the tremendous loss of life that has resulted from the latest
Israeli attack that started last month.
There are now an estimated 700 dead Palestinians, most of whom are
civilians. Many innocent children are among the dead. While the
shooting of rockets into Israel is inexcusable, the violent actions of
some people in Gaza does not justify killing Palestinians on this
scale. Such collective punishment is immoral. At the very least, the
US Congress should not be loudly proclaiming its support for the
Israeli government's actions in Gaza.
Madame Speaker, this resolution will do nothing to reduce the fighting
and bloodshed in the Middle East. The resolution in fact will lead the
US to become further involved in this conflict, promising "vigorous
support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and
survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." Is it really in
the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any
foreign country? I believe it would be better to focus on the security
and survival of the United States, the Constitution of which my
colleagues and I swore to defend just this week at the beginning of
the 111th Congress. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.
On Sep 22, 9:04 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Who just stood in front of the UN and said the US will veto any bid
> for Palestinian statehood?
>
> However, I not only don't like Perry's reasoning, I think it borders
> on illegal. "Borders"
>
> But then, would you rather him not tell us?
>
> Try and sort that out. I'm not sure I can
>
> On Sep 21, 3:36 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > the idea that a US President's religious convictions will compel him
> > to support a foreign government, regardless of whether that support
> > serves specifically American interests, is appalling – and dangerous.
> > ---
> > and very unAmerican
> > Perry, like Bachmann, is a zionist and should be seen as the enemy.
>
> > otoh - Ron Paul:
> > - would not stop Israel from defending her interests in any way she
> > saw fit - but without US support
> > - has also been criticized for wanting to "end foreign aid to Israel."
> > He had in fact called for an end to all foreign aid in general.
> > - will not allow American lives to be sacrificed for Israeli interests
>
> > Interviewer: [...]"Why do you think that so many US officials,
> > Congress, Senate, show overwhelming support to involving the US over
> > there?"
>
> > Ron Paul: [...] "It's been going on for more than 50 years, because
> > there has been a pretty strong case made for the Jewish people being
> > treated quite badly, and emotionally there was an argument for having
> > a place they can call their homeland, and people bought into this. But
> > even then there was no justification for us to be using our money for
> > doing that.
>
> > On Sep 21, 1:43 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > Perry's Faith-Based Foreign Policy DirectiveGod says: 'Put Israel first'byJustin Raimondo, September 21, 2011
> > > If Rick Perry makes it to the White House, what will American foreign policy in the Middle East look like? We got a clear indication of that, recently, whenhe stated:"As a Christian I have a clear directive to support Israel, from my perspective its pretty easy both as an American and a Christian. I am going to stand with Israel."
> > > Earlier, inan interviewwith theWeekly Standard, he was even more emphatic, averring that "My faith requires me to support Israel."
> > > What kind of faith requires knee-jerk support for a foreign country? Apparently, Perry is a follower of a Protestant brand of Christianity known as "dispensationalism," which holds that the End Times are approaching – and thatone of the signsof the imminent apocalypse is the gathering of the Jews in the land of Israel, as supposedly foretold in the Bible. Some dispensationalists equate this with the founding of the Israeli state, in 1947, and the subsequent migration of many Jews to that country. According to dispensationalist theology, this phenomenon prefigures the start of an earth-shattering war, one that will pit Israel against the Forces of Darkness, herald the rise of the Anti-Christ, and ignite a battle that will take place on the field of Armageddon – after which Christ will return to earth and the faithful will be "raptured" up into Heaven.
> > > Now, I don't intend to disparage anyone's religious beliefs, nor do I want to engage in the kind of snickering that usually accompanies commentary on this subject: everyone is entitled to their own faith, and, aside from that, there is something a little unsavory about the smugness and self-righteousness that is usually attached to discussions of the impact of Christian fundamentalism on American politics. There isno religious testfor holding office in these United States, and it seems to me that some liberals have been trying their best to establish one – a test ofirreligion– in order to marginalize millions of Americans. This kind of intolerance is mirrored, on the right, by some – like GOP presidential aspirantHerman Cain, for example – who have raised questions about the ability of religious Muslims to have their voices heard, or even to hold office.
> > > However, the idea that a US President's religious convictions will compel him to support a foreign government, regardless of whether that support serves specifically American interests, is appalling – anddangerous. And we can see how dangerous it is by looking at Governor Perry's attacks on the Obama administration for supposedly not kowtowing to Tel Aviv with sufficient obeisance. At a press conference held in New York City, where heappearedwith an Israeli government official, Perrydeclared:"It is time to change our policy of appeasement toward the Palestinians to strengthen our ties to the nation of Israel, and in the process establish a robust American position in the Middle East characterized by a new firmness and a new resolve."What, exactly, does this "policy of appeasement" consist of? The Obama administration isdeterminedto veto the Palestinian statehood proposal being advanced in the UN Security Council, and hasmade it clearthat the US government stands behind the Israelis in their attempt to grab as much land – via theconstructionof "settlements" – as they can, all of it funded bygenerousdollops of American "foreign aid."
> > > Who is being "appeased" here – the Palestinians, or the Israelis?
> > > Perry supports continued "settlements" of Palestinian lands, and also says he wants to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – a symbolic affirmation of Israel's claim to the "undivided" capital of the Jewish state. This contradicts the policies of two Republican presidents – both named George Bush. It also violates the essential meaning and function of US foreign policy – to protect specifically American interests. We gain nothing by weighing in on where the capital of the state of Israel shall be – although I'll note that nearly every successful presidential aspirant madesuch a promiseduringthe campaign season. That this promise was summarily broken once they got in the White House speaks volumes about the politics – and the reality – of this issue.
> > > Perry says we should "stand by Israel," our faithful ally and the only state in the region with a long democratic tradition, and this proposition seems reasonable enough – until one begins to examine it a little more closely. Because the Israel of yesteryear – the Israel ofExodus, of the "peace process," of theliberal humanistic traditionout of which Labor Zionism sprang – is not the Israel of today.
> > > The foreign minister of the Jewish state is oneAvigdor Lieberman, a fanatic whose bigotry and aggressively nationalistic views have made him an embarrassment even to the hardline government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. For example, when relations with Turkey soured, Liebermanthreatenedto arm the PKK – a Kurdish terrorist group that has been attacking the Turks for years. Netanyahutriedto distance his office from such irresponsible ranting, but when I awoke, this morning, to the news thata bombhad gone off near government offices in Ankara, I wasn't all that surprised.
> > > This raises serious questions about who, exactly, is in charge in Tel Aviv – the crazies, represented by Lieberman and the "settlers," or Netanyahu?
> > > However, a larger question needs to be raised: what has Israel become in the years since the signing of theCamp David Accords? Since that time, the Israeli electorate has moved so farto the right– that is, in the direction of expansionist nationalism – that there seems to be no room for moderates of any stripe. After years ofnurturing,subsidizing, and otherwiseencouragingthe "settler" movement – which is imbued with the ultra-Zionist dream of establishing a "Greater Israel" – the chickens, so to speak, have come home to roost. The settler movement represents almost as great a threat to the stability and authority of the Israeli government as the radical Palestinianfactions– greater, perhaps, because the danger is coming from within.
> > > Perry is encouraging this tendency in Israeli politics: he appeared at the press conference with Israeli Knesset memberDanny Danon, an ultra-nationalist rival to Netanyahu whowants to revokethe citizenship of Arab Knesset members on dubious grounds, and heads up the wing of Likud that considers even a hardliner like Netanyahu asell-out. Danon is the darling of the settler movement, and enjoys more support outside of Israel than he does on his home turf. He headed up the ultra-extremistBetar group– an organization which has its origins in an early wing of the Zionist movement thatmodeled itselfon the example of Italian fascism, merely draping a "Zionist" façade over an authoritarian vision of a homogenousvolkishstate. He is a regular on America's "Israel First" circuit, lecturing to groups of born-again dispensationalists – Perry's crowd – as well as more mainstream venues, updating Betar's authoritarian stance bycalling for legal sanctionsagainst those who organize "anti-Israel" boycotts, which apparently also means boycotts of "settler" products.
> > > By appearing on the same stage with Danon, Perry is legitimizing and encouragingthe worstimpulses in Israeli society – and puttingour own interestsat risk. If Israel should implode in civil war – and, with the settlers getting increasingly militant, and inopen rebellionagainst the Israeli government – it is numbskull opportunists like Perry who will bear a large part of the blame. By egging on the Israeliequivalentsof the Aryan Nations, they will wind up with blood on their hands.
> > > Aside from that, it hardly seems all thatpresidentialfor the would-be Republican nominee to be onstage with Bibi's rightist rival in the Likud party – not someone who came in second in the bid for the party leadership, but Danon, who came inthird!
> > > What gets me is that these people actually believe they are helping Israel, when their actions are the quickest way to destabilize that
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment