Newsweek poll: 61% of Americans oppose cut in Israel ties...

Haaretz ^ | 10/07/01 | Staff

[mmmmmmmm....... donuts]

Sharon doesn't mind Israel not being allowed to attack Afghanistan, as you assert, that wasn't his bone at all. He minds the distinction the State Department and its U.K. counterpart are increasingly making between 'bad' terrorists and, though not 'good,' 'understandable' terrorism. (Remember the Jack Straw in Iran comments). He also doesn't like this, 'secret plan to impose a Palestinian state on Israel, on the US terms.' While Sharon was obviously a jackass for publicly comparing Bush to Chamberlain, it was a point worth making in private channels.

[lavaroise]

I don't get these pols! I thought the issue was whether terrorism warranted cutting ties with the Arab world. What does ISrael has to do with this, aside from orienting anger against Israel instead of against the terrorist arab world.

[Seti 1]

According to the poll, Americans do, however, view their nation's Middle East policies as one of the major causes of ist attacks on U.S. targets. Fifty-eight percent of those polled said that America's relationship with Israel was a large contributing factor in the attacks on the United States on September 11.

Come on, Veronica, you're doing it again. Adding your own emphasis without acknowledgement is a no-no, especially when you do it to distract from parts you don't like.

Why do you suppose we are having such a rash of polls asking people if we should end or reduce our support to Country A?

[Publius6961]

Isn't it remarkable that the question would even be asked? That will (and should ) put Veronica's knickers in a twist whatever the response. The HEADS UP to the Israel First Brigade will have them all foaming.
The only foaming regularly done on FR is usually by the Muslim/Arabprop Tag Team, whatever their names happen to be that week.

BTW, the 50 billion or so spent on military resources in the Gulf would cost that if they were tied up in San Diego.
Or at Israeli ports.
Are you suggesting that this be done?
And it doesn't count as additional aid to Israel?
Twit.

Useful idiots for the "Palestinian" cause and any other Muslim terrorist states is the main raison de etre for select numbers of FR posters who are well known by all.

[Publius6961]

Do you wish congratulations? or just a grade for posting an incomplete and meaningless post?

My grade is G- (beyond failure and well into implicit propaganda)

[Publius6961]

should put their life where there mouth is (Yes, I have done so--but for America, not Israel.

You might as well have said for the honor of Uranus, since talk is cheap and losers have been known to make up stuff.

[Publius6961]

(2) Bush has shown (himself, most importantly) that AIPAC and the media can be beaten.

Or apparently so until those animals masquerading as human Muslim/Arabs do the next incredibly stupid thing and piss everybody off all over again.

It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

[Seti 1]

Or apparently so until those animals masquerading as human Muslim/Arabs

Aren't you a sweetheart? You don't have to work so hard at being obnoxious; just be your sweet self.

Actually I tend to agree with your latest (absent the animal talk). As some Israeli said, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

[Southern Federalist]

Clever of them to use the initials IAP in such a way as to suggest that this came from a news agency. Actually IAP stands for the Islamic Association For Palestine, an organization to the left of Arafat.

Clever too of Washington Report on Middle East Affairs to post it on a completely isolated page, without any links, without any information as to what IAP NEWS really is, so the likes of you could post a link to it without letting on where this "news item" really came from.

You were going to tell us, weren't you, that WRMEA is one of the most virulently anti-Israel publications in the country? And that it is widely believed to be funded by the Saudis? And that Richard Curtiss, the editor of WRMEA, publishes in Holocaust denial journals like The Journal of Historical Review ?

[Seti 1]

Sharon doesn't mind Israel not being allowed to attack Afghanistan,

You misread me or I misstated something. I don't believe I said anything about attacking Afganistan. I believe Sharon was just reiterating the policy being proposed all over American TV in what was obviously an effort to determine/change American policy. This was that Afganistan is a side issue; the real *errorists are the Palestinians backed by Iraq; that what is needed is an Israeli/US war against Iraq and its Palestinian buddies. This was the message being peddled here by Richard Perle, Secretary Wolfowitz, former Israeli PM Netanyahu, and a number of other high-ranking national figures and assorted talking heads. It didn't sell and Sharon lost his cool.

Having lost that battle (at least temporarily), the Israel First group seems to be selling two messages now: 1) That Hamas and the Hezbollah are tied in with bin Laden, and 2) The WTC attacks had nothing to do with Israel. These arguments are contradictory but they'll both be floated until it's clear which works best. Number 2 is winning at present.

[Seti 1]

My grade is G-

Gee, I thought it was a great post! I'll bet I've graded a lot more papers than you have.

[Seti 1]

You were going to tell us, weren't you, that WRMEA is one of the most virulently anti-Israel publications in the country? And that it is widely believed to be funded by the Saudis? And that Richard Curtiss, the editor of WRMEA, publishes in Holocaust denial journals like The Journal of Historical Review ?

I'm afraid I will disagree with this diatribe as with the rest of your post.I didn't know the Journal of Historical Review but following the link you provided (thank you) showed that Richard Curtiss has published one article on the cost of American aid to Israel (a technical article published and quoted widely) and one brief note. The journal seems to cover a variety of topics and cannot fairly be called a holocaust denial journal, although several articles appear to discuss the holocaust and may deny aspects of it (I didn't read the articles). At any rate, Curtiss is not addressing the holocaust as your wording implies. Curtiss is a retired Department of State Middle East expert.

The Washington Report I do know. While it is pro-Palestinian I think "virulently anti-Israel" is a bit strong unless viewed from the perspective of FLAME. It is financed by subscriptions, ads, and donations. If you have any evidence that it receives Saudi money I'd be interested in seeing it. If not, don't make the charge.

I'm not aware of the specifics you are arguing about but I will say that I have always found Washington Report to be very honest in its presentations and do not believe those dark hints you are dropping. It has a point of view, to be sure, but so do those endless number of articles posted each day from Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, and the New York Times, for that matter.

[Southern Federalist]

My objection was to the obvious attempt by the WRMEA to present a clumsy fiction from the Islamic Association for Palestine as though it came from a news organization called the IAP, which looks like it might be related to the AP. The WRMEA has this item on a blind page with no links either to the WRMEA main page or to IAP, with no information as to its provenance. I think it reasonable to assume that this is to facilitate deceptive use of the "story." I think all this already says a lot about WRMEA.

I did not claim that WRMEA is funded by the Saudis. I said that many people believe that it is, which is true. If it is not Saudi-funded, it is certainly understandable how the belief arose, given the adulation of the Saudis and other Gulf tyrants that appears in WRMEA. I thought that was relevant information for those evaluating the "story."

The Journal of Historical review is published by an outfit called Foundation Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, V.H.O. All of its stated goals, which you can see by clicking on the link just provided, have to do with the promotion of Holocaust Denial.

If you find WRMEA fair and balanced then you must believe, as they suggest, that the United States government and all the major media are controlled by a conspiracy of wealthy Jews and Israeli intelligence agents.

If you think that a person can publish anything including a recipe for ginger snaps in the Journal of Historical Review, and remain respectable, then you must think that Holocaust Denial is a respectable point of view rather than the threadbare disguise anti-Semitism has adopted in the last decades, in an attempt to win re-entry into polite circles where it dare not speak its name honestly.

I do not think that a discussion with someone who found either view plausible would be of any profit to me, since I think that the first is nutty and the second vile. Besides which, it's been a long day and I am headed back to the pre-virtual world for the evening.