Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Are you saying the term neo-con has become a negative code word for the jews? Because I have never had that impression from anyone using the term, until I read your post just now. I always figured it was neoconservatists such as Bush, Cheney, and Condo-sleaze-a Rice who ambitiously intervene in other countries' affairs in order to acquire what they they think is in the best interest of the nation. I never figured it had anything to do with Jews.

Neo-con very well may have once referred to something else (ie. liberals who moved to the right), but over the last few years it has basically come to be applied to those who are perceived to be a part of fulfilling or carrying out the whims of "the Jewish lobb(y/ies)". Things such as Iraq, the war on terror, etc. which are perceived to have been forced on the US or which the US was influenced into partaking in by the Jewish lobby.

But of course. What bothers me is this idiotically religious notion that Isreal must be protected at all costs. Bush backed it up, with a guise of righteousness for the holy land that I don't buy any more than I buy the utterly insane claim that God wanted Bush to go into Iraq. That's another reason Bush can suck my dick. Not only did he feel the need to lie about the motives of the war, he had to manipulate the heavily Christian population of the US into backing him up. What would Jesus bomb?

Who says it is solely a religious notion? Sure, there are Christians who have religious reasons for backing Israel, but the modern state of Israel is the furthest thing from a Christian nation, and the governments can't be said to have ever been particularly religious themselves.

The fact is that Israel has been a key ally in the region when the US had no others. While the US was talking about the Soviets, Israel was battling for their existance against the Soviet's middle eastern proxies. Israel put itself in danger by not lifting a finger - at the request of the US - when Saddam was raining missiles down on Tel Aviv, so as not to upset their precious Arab coalition (who did nothing during the war). They have always put their money where their mouth is when it comes to being the US' ally.

Israel is also on the cutting edge of technology and science, intelligence, etc. and has benefitted America and Americans in many ways. It is truly a most loyal ally, maybe the truest ally the US has (even when the US isn't acting as such a great ally to Israel).

And as much a religious zealot as some want to make Bush out to be, he is the first president to push as hard as he has for another Arab (Palestinian) state. He is responsible for pushing for the Arab (Palestinian) elections which legitimized Hamas. His team was responsible for the premature cease fire which kept Hezbollah from tasting utter destruction. It is because of he and his team that Israel waited for three years (or longer) of rockets to build up before finally responding.

No Christian zealot would ever call for Israel to hand over historic Judea and Samaria (so-called West Bank) for a concept (peace), which the Arabs would have no obligation to live up to in order to keep their end of the deal (land).

Bush may have been a politician, or a scum bag, or whatever you want to call him, but I don't put any stock into the notion that his foreign policy has been dictated by religion. Some of his policies at home? Perhaps.

Purge wrote:

The US government either accepts
this, and tries to make some peace with them, while protecting some
form of right-to-existance for Israel (or not, I've had with them, anyway)

Israel's right-to-existence doesn't depend on anything or anyone else, just as the United States', Britain's, or Egypt's right-to-existence doesn't.

in theory, in a perfect world, I'd agree with you.

reality is a different thing.

I'm not anti-Israel. Not really pro-Israel anymore, because the
government's gone too far to the right and become as brutal as
any I've ever seen. (Ok, that's a little hyperboyle, but anyway)

And I was so disappointed in the IDF's performance in the last
Lebannon adventure, I lost alot of faith. If you are going to invade
your neighbors & use the tough-guy policies, do a good job, damnit.
Win the War. (Hello, George !)

What's happened in Gaza recently has really turned my stomach, too.
The use of white phosphorus (sp?) bombs on civilian neighborhoods
was just too much for me. Of course, the US Army used them in
Fallujah, so ......

But to the point, no, in reality, Israel's right-to-exist is in the hands
of the US State Department, who could choose to sell them down the
river at any moment. And they know this, which is why they don't
really trust the USA, anyway, and will always do what they want.
(which I can defend, to, by the way. I don't think Israel is wrong
for the way they're are conducting their policy, from their perspective.
But I don't think the Arabs are wrong, either ....)

how's that for fence sittin' ?

SandRider wrote:

Purge wrote:

The US government either accepts
this, and tries to make some peace with them, while protecting some
form of right-to-existance for Israel (or not, I've had with them, anyway)

Israel's right-to-existence doesn't depend on anything or anyone else, just as the United States', Britain's, or Egypt's right-to-existence doesn't.

in theory, in a perfect world, I'd agree with you.

reality is a different thing.

I'm not anti-Israel. Not really pro-Israel anymore, because the
government's gone too far to the right and become as brutal as
any I've ever seen. (Ok, that's a little hyperboyle, but anyway)

And I was so disappointed in the IDF's performance in the last
Lebannon adventure, I lost alot of faith. If you are going to invade
your neighbors & use the tough-guy policies, do a good job, damnit.
Win the War. (Hello, George !)

What's happened in Gaza recently has really turned my stomach, too.
The use of white phosphorus (sp?) bombs on civilian neighborhoods
was just too much for me. Of course, the US Army used them in
Fallujah, so ......

But to the point, no, in reality, Israel's right-to-exist is in the hands
of the US State Department, who could choose to sell them down the
river at any moment. And they know this, which is why they don't
really trust the USA, anyway, and will always do what they want.
(which I can defend, to, by the way. I don't think Israel is wrong
for the way they're are conducting their policy, from their perspective.
But I don't think the Arabs are wrong, either ....)

how's that for fence sittin' ?

It sickened me as well, all those civilian deaths, only to pull back and make the whole affair as fucking pointless as ever.
If much it now gives Hamas, or Hezbolah, or whover the fuck their supposedly fighting, more potencial recruits and flared the hate towards Israel.

A populace that permits terrorists to exist and act in its territory, whether out of complicity, complacency or fear of reprisal (should it try to expel them) really doesn't deserve much sympathy when the object of the terrorists' attacks decides enough is enough.

Although enough was not enough yet again. The Israelis should raze Gaza to the ground and let the Arab countries absorb any survivors. Or drive them into the sea. The Israelites of antiquity certainly wouldn't have been so squeamish about a necessary bit of wetwork.

These shit people and their shit problems ... been in the news as long as I can remember. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tired of hearing about it. Fuck the lot of them to hell.

SandChigger wrote:A populace that permits terrorists to exist and act in its territory, whether out of complicity, complacency or fear of reprisal (should it try to expel them) really doesn't deserve much sympathy when the object of the terrorists' attacks decides enough is enough.

Although enough was not enough yet again. The Israelis should raze Gaza to the ground and let the Arab countries absorb any survivors. Or drive them into the sea. The Israelites of antiquity certainly wouldn't have been so squeamish about a necessary bit of wetwork.

These shit people and their shit problems ... been in the news as long as I can remember. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tired of hearing about it. Fuck the lot of them to hell.

Perhaps you should join them. This one comment has diminished my respect for you as an intelligent person to about zero.

Serkanner wrote:

SandChigger wrote:A populace that permits terrorists to exist and act in its territory, whether out of complicity, complacency or fear of reprisal (should it try to expel them) really doesn't deserve much sympathy when the object of the terrorists' attacks decides enough is enough.

Although enough was not enough yet again. The Israelis should raze Gaza to the ground and let the Arab countries absorb any survivors. Or drive them into the sea. The Israelites of antiquity certainly wouldn't have been so squeamish about a necessary bit of wetwork.

These shit people and their shit problems ... been in the news as long as I can remember. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tired of hearing about it. Fuck the lot of them to hell.

Perhaps you should join them. This one comment has diminished my respect for you as an intelligent person to about zero.

I'm with SC.

(So which is scarier, that Freak agrees with that comment or Serkanner thought it serious?)

SandChigger wrote:(So which is scarier, that Freak agrees with that comment or Serkanner thought it serious?)

How am I supposed to not read the sentence as serious?

Freakzilla wrote:

Serkanner wrote:

SandChigger wrote:A populace that permits terrorists to exist and act in its territory, whether out of complicity, complacency or fear of reprisal (should it try to expel them) really doesn't deserve much sympathy when the object of the terrorists' attacks decides enough is enough.

Although enough was not enough yet again. The Israelis should raze Gaza to the ground and let the Arab countries absorb any survivors. Or drive them into the sea. The Israelites of antiquity certainly wouldn't have been so squeamish about a necessary bit of wetwork.

These shit people and their shit problems ... been in the news as long as I can remember. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tired of hearing about it. Fuck the lot of them to hell.

Perhaps you should join them. This one comment has diminished my respect for you as an intelligent person to about zero.

I'm with SC.

I suggest you join him then.

Hey, Nebby! You really should join up over at FED2K!

Give me the exact address and I'll look it up.

Here, Nebby, knock yourself out:

http://forum.dune2k.com/

(I see your thread still hasn't gotten a single reply over on Dune Novels.)

Serkanner wrote:How am I supposed to not read the sentence as serious?

Well, the fact that I've never agreed with Freak on any political issue—that I can recall—might be one hint.

The crap I used to give orald for his "all Palestians/Arabs are terrorists" and "poor little beleaguered Israel" bullshit might be another.

Either way, what I really and truly think isn't going to affect the situation in the real world in the slightest and therefore doesn't matter at all. The same goes for the collective silliness posted in a thread that has long outlived any possible value.

I'd like to see the fighting end but like SC, I've watched it go on my whole life and very little is changed. I've always assumed WWIII WAS going to start with Jerusalem getting nuked.

Maybe that will keep people from fighting over it for a century or so but god help the rest of the world.

this thread has existed so long because Freak won't set
up a "politics" sub forum, which would probably catch
about half of what's posted in Ghafla.

but then, politics is Ghafla, so there you go ....

SandChigger wrote:(So which is scarier, that Freak agrees with that comment or Serkanner thought it serious?)

... no comment...




I agree that place is in one hell of a mess, but I love how people seem surprised that it hasn't magically been fixed in 50 years - oh my gods, an entire lifetime has went by, that's sooo much time for a 2000+ year old bone-deep hatred to heal itself.

If that situation is resolved in the next 3 lifetimes it'll mean that someone did one hell of a job speeding it up.

Whoa...back up there a minute, hot shot.

2000+ year bone-deep hatred? Who are you talking about now?

The Jews being a bit pissed about being kicked out of Isreal. I guess that actually happened slightly less than 2000 years ago, but I think the Jews were already feeling a wee bit kicked out after that whole enslavement by the Babylonians (do I have that right? Sorry, I'm going from memory, and I just started my classes on the history of the Tenakh and Hebrew people... so I may have some dates and names not quite lined up yet). That said, I can't remember when the Zionist type stuff started showing up, so maybe that has been much less than 2000 years.

Hatred was the wrong word maybe, anger might have been better? Either way, I meant that this situation had been brewing for roughly that long, shouldn't necessarily expect it to resolve itself in a mere 50 years.

Please correct me if you think I have that wrong (I know you will! ), I'm pretty new to the (more in depth) history of that area.

My objection was to characterizing the current (or modern?) conflict(s) as continuing a single, two-millennia ... relationship(?) ... when the only constant factor is the Jews themselves. (A fact best left alone, no? )

Many people(s) have hated the Jews for many reasons. But 2,000 years ago there were no "Palestinians" (in the sense of the modern people referred to by that name) nor any Muslims, maybe just some rather much put-upon Romans having to put up with (and occasionally, down) another stroppy rabble in a conquered province.

Go back through time and you'll find a series of people put out by the Jews, in one way or another, until you reach the spiritual ancestors of today's Palestinians, the original Canaanite inhabitants of the "Promised Land".

Zionism as an idea, 1870s.
Brit Mandate in Palestine after WWI, when mass Euro Jewish immigration began.
Israel est. 1948.

You can't date the Arab-Jew conflict before 1905 or so, when rich
European Jews began buying up land in Palestine from the Brits.

my g-d. I've got to keep up with the news.

the new RNC Chair is a black man.

I'm laughing my ass off right now...

You can't date the Arab-Jew conflict before 1905 or so, when rich
European Jews began buying up land in Palestine from the Brits.

At least they paid for more of the land this time around?

my g-d.

No matter how many times I see that, it's still precious.

But shouldn't you only hyphenate if also capitalized?

I guess, but I'm kinda shift-key lazy most of the time.

heavily influenced by ee cummings, as well

I like "holy goodchr-st" alot, too ....

SandChigger wrote:My objection was to characterizing the current (or modern?) conflict(s) as continuing a single, two-millennia ... relationship(?) ... when the only constant factor is the Jews themselves. (A fact best left alone, no? )

Many people(s) have hated the Jews for many reasons. But 2,000 years ago there were no "Palestinians" (in the sense of the modern people referred to by that name) nor any Muslims, maybe just some rather much put-upon Romans having to put up with (and occasionally, down) another stroppy rabble in a conquered province.

Go back through time and you'll find a series of people put out by the Jews, in one way or another, until you reach the spiritual ancestors of today's Palestinians, the original Canaanite inhabitants of the "Promised Land".

I started realizing my mistake after your first post, I see the mistake in my line of thinking. I'm OK on the history of the Jews up to about 300 or 400 AD now, but after that I'm still pretty foggy.

SandRider wrote:Zionism as an idea, 1870s.
Brit Mandate in Palestine after WWI, when mass Euro Jewish immigration began.
Israel est. 1948.

You can't date the Arab-Jew conflict before 1905 or so, when rich
European Jews began buying up land in Palestine from the Brits.

I was luckily edjucated last night in class on a more detailed description of how Israel came about, starting with that last event you're describing right up until The formation of official Israel. So I am now less ignorant. I had thought Zionism was a little bit older.

Zionism is also tied into "British Israelism", a mid-Victorian crazy idea
that the Celts were the lost tribe ....Joseph of Arimethea taking the
young Jesus to Ireland and later hiding the Grail in Britain (hence the
King Arthur stories - which those people took literally)

so the idea of a return of Jews to the Hold Land caught the interest of the
idle upper-class Brits ...

{edit}
but the main Zionist movements came from Eastern Europe, in response
to the pogroms - the labor unions that came about in the decades following
the 1848 revolutions became the organizational tools - Theodore Hertzl was
a labor unionist first ...

SandRider wrote:a mid-Victorian crazy idea that the Celts were the lost tribe

An insane notion helped along by some surface similarities between the Celtic and Semitic languages. (Which are actually more the result of their shared Verb-Subject-Object grammatical order. )

SandRider wrote:my g-d. I've got to keep up with the news.

the new RNC Chair is a black man.

I'm laughing my ass off right now...

Haha really??? Who is this guy, and what is he doing as such an important figure in a political party that would reform all the way back to slavery if someone let them?