Posted on 08/14/2003 11:37:00 AM PDT by Maximilian
I want the US flag there only.
It would appear so. It's just a picture, and it reflects DeLay's strong feelings toward Israel.
You're getting heartburn over something relatively minor, but it doesn't surprise me, as I've seen you strain over a gnat on the religion forum as well.
Nowadays, it is a term to describe someone who the Jews hate.
If you have a problem with a foreign flag flying over an image of the Capitol, guess who hates you?
The United States government's support for Israel is big business. You might as well go into a conservative forum and question the practices of a major capitalist corporation.
I got this email from a University professor in Indiana:
A request made to California Congressman Wally Herger to provide documentation regarding US foreign assistance to Israel, generated this response:
[START]
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-0502
July 7, 2003
Dear XXXX,
Thank you for contacting me, requesting information regarding US foreign assistance to Israel. I am pleased to provide you with the requested information.
Enclosed please find a report prepared by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service on the topic of foreign aid to Israel.
Sincerely
Wally Herger
Member of Congress
Israel: US Foreign Assistance
Summary
Israel is not economically self-sufficient, and relies on foreign assistance and borrowing to maintain its economy. Since 1985, the United States has provided $3 billion in grants annually to Israel. Since 1976, Israel has been the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, and is the largest cumulative recipient since World War II. In addition to U.S. assistance, it is estimated that Israel receives about $1 billion annually through philanthropy, an equal amount through short- and long- term commercial loans, and around $1 billion in Israel Bonds proceeds.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu told a joint session of Congress on July 10, 1996, that Israel would reduce its need for U.S. aid over the next four years. In January 1998, Finance Minister Neeman proposed eliminating the $1.2 billion economic aid and increasing the $1.8 billion in military aid by $60 million per year during a 10-year period beginning in the year 2000. The FY 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 appropriations bills included cuts of $120 million in economic aid and an increases of $60 million in military aid for each year.
U.S. aid to Israel has some unique aspects, such as loans with repayment waived, or a pledge to provide Israel with economic assistance equal to the amount Israel owes the United States for previous loans. Israel also receives special benefits that may not be available to other countries, such as the use of U.S. military assistance for research and development in the United States, the use of U.S. military assistance for military purchases in Israel, or receiving all its assistance in the first 30 days of the fiscal year rather than in 3 or 4 installments as other countries do.
In addition to the foreign assistance, the United States has provided Israel with $625 million to develop and deploy the Arrow anti-missile missile (an ongoing project), $1.3 billion to develop the Lavi aircraft (cancelled), $200 million to develop the Merkava tank (operative), $130 million to develop the high energy laser anti-missile system (ongoing), and other military projects. In FY 2000 the United States provided Israel an additional $1.2 billion to fund the Wye agreement, and in FY 2002 the United States provided an additional $200 million in anti-terror assistance.
For FY2003, the Administration requested $600 million in economic, $2.1 billion in military, and $60 million in migration resettlement assistance.
[END]
For years Democrats have publically disagreed with Republican presidents on matters of policy, both foreign and domestic. They've repeatedly tried to lead Congress in a different direction. Do I like it? No, not usually, but that's because I think their policies are wrong, not because I think it's wrong for them to disagree. It may seem like a subtle distinction, but it's definitely an important and relevant one.
I tried it just now, and it works fine. Also the photo has been displayed without problem all afternoon, and since the "img src" HTML command only references the remote website, DeLay's website must have been working all day. Perhaps the power outage has taken down a link between your server and the site. I've noticed that I haven't received any email all afternoon.
And of course you would say the same thing if DeLay were flying the Nazi Swastika over the US Capitol? Would you claim that I was assuming an intended symbolism? And if DeLay were marching around the Capitol with a white sheet over his head, then it would be merely speculation on my part that it symbolized something. Perhaps his head got stuck in the pillow case that morning, and it meant nothing more than that?
How sophisticated do you have to be to see the Israeli flag flying over the US Capitol building and recognize the symbolism?
One liberal Jewish writer makes the argument that Congressman Moran may have been right:
Nevertheless, Moran is not the only one publicly exaggerating the power and influence of the Zionist lobby these days. It is my sad duty to report that this form of anti-Semitism seems to have infected one of the most prominent and respected—one might even say influential—organizations in Washington. This organization claims that "America's pro-Israel lobby"—and we all know what "pro-Israel" is a euphemism for—has tentacles at every level of government and society. On its Web site, this organization paints a lurid picture of Zionists spreading their party line and even indoctrinating children. And yes, this organization claims that the influence of the Zionist lobby is essential to explaining the pro-Israel tilt of U.S. policy in the Middle East. It asserts that the top item on the Zionist "agenda" is curbing the power of Saddam Hussein. The Web site also contains a shocking collection of Moran-type remarks from leading American politicians.
Did you know, for example, that former President Clinton once described the Zionist lobby as "stunningly effective" and "better than anyone else lobbying this town"? Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has gone even further (as is his wont), labeling the Zionists "the most effective general interest group … across the entire planet." (Gingrich added ominously that if the Zionist lobby "did not exist, we would have to invent" it.) House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt is quoted saying that if it weren't for the Zionist lobby "fighting on a daily basis," the close relationship between America and Israel "would not be." Sen. John McCain has said that this lobby "has long played an instrumental and absolutely vital role" in protecting the interests of Israel with the U.S. government. There is a string of quotes from leading Israeli politicians making the same point.
According to this Web site, the Zionist lobby is, like most political conspiracies, a set of concentric circles within circles. The two innermost circles are known as the "President's Cabinet" and the "Chairman's Council." Members allegedly "take part in special events with members of Congress in elegant Washington locations," "participate in private conference calls," and attend an annual "national summit." In the past members of these groups have met "in a private setting" with President Clinton, with Vice President Gore, and with the president of Turkey, among others. If this Web site is to be believed, these Zionist-lobby insiders have even enjoyed "a luncheon with renowned author and commentator George Will."
And who is behind this Web site? Who is spreading the anti-Semitic canard that Jews and Zionists influence American policy in the Middle East, including Iraq? It is a group calling itself the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, and claiming to be "pro-Israel." They all claim that, of course. But in this case, AIPAC actually is considered to be the institutional expression of the amorphous Zionist lobby. All the foregoing quotes and assertions about the huge Zionist influence with the U.S. government and the lengths to which Zionists go to protect and expand it actually refer to AIPAC itself.
McCain: My nightmare – I have several nightmares about Saddam Hussein, but one of them is the that SCUD missile which he has. . . that's in the view of most, aimed at Israel. Aimed at Israel.
At this point, most TV commentators would back away, the mere mention of a missile aimed at Israel sufficing end further argument. But surprisingly, Matthews wanted to discuss the implications.
Matthews: Why doesn't Israel take them out? I'm using the popular parlance. Why doesn't Israel do the work that they have to do? Isn't that their job if it's a strategic threat to them? They're the most powerful nation in the Mideast.
For a moment, McCain was speechless.
"I don't think that Israel fee-one [the transcript reads]. They've got their hands full just as you said right now. But second, I don't this we would ever countenance. We criticized them when they took out his nuclear facility back-back – many years ago."
Matthews: Well, why don't we give them the go-ahead. Get rid of Saddam. You know, if you hate him, do it.
McCain: Because I'm not sure we should ask the Israelis to do – to take care of a threat to the United States of America.
Matthews: But you just said it was a threat to Israel.
McCain: Well to world peace, I think.
Matthews: No you said it was a threat to Israel. Why should the United States deal with a threat to Israel? Why don't we let Israel – we've been giving them $3 billion a year to defend themselves. Why don't we say, "Defend yourselves. You've got a clear fight. Go take Saddam out"?
McCain: Because I think it's our job. I think we're the world's leader and I. . .
Matthews: Our job is to defend Israel?
McCain: No, it's our job to remove threats to the security of the United States.
This is a remarkable exchange, unusual not because of its depth – it lasted hardly a minute – but because Matthews was genuinely probing, not going through the motions. Implicit in his questioning was the understanding – axiomatic to students of international relations and just as sedulously avoided by most politicians and political commentators – that there is no automatic congruence between America's interests and those of Israel. To acknowledge this is not to criticize Israel, but merely recognize its sovereignty. It is a powerful country, the major military power in the Middle East. If it has a problem with Saddam, perhaps it should solve it.
But even more basic than that: I think people need to wake up to see how they've imbibed the good guy/bad guy-think. It's really bad on this forum. Many cheerleaders are so glad to have finally gotten the power away from the Clintons, that they sound just like the Clintonistas when it comes to to shutting down debate.
Rep. DeLay is NOT beyond criticism because he is a republican and says some good things.
And, yes, the issue is sovereignty.
Getting back to the first point. Discussing Israel doesn't meant you hate Jews either. We do have a double standard but it's not easily discussed due to the reliable reflexive attack of anti-semitism before too long. The programming is all too apparent. Ask either Pat Buchanan or Mel Gibson or (for that matter) St. John or St. Matthew sometime.
For the record--Israel has WMD and isn't afraid to share with China. Is anyone paying attention?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.