Why is Israel Aid Exempt?

[DeBunkem]

I will let the article speak for itself, safest policy. :censored:

I have gratefully employed the "ignore" function on kneejerk ranters, so those who have the time may answer them. I personally do not.

Why is Israel Aid Exempt?

As US fiscal conservatives cut food programmes for poor children, military aid for Israel is left untouched.

By MJ Rosenber

March 07, 2011 "Al-Jazeera" --- Once upon a time, social security was considered the "third rail" of American politics. The "third rail" is the train track that carries the high-voltage power; touching it means instant death.
The "third rail" metaphor has for decades been applied to social security, a government program so popular with the American public that proposing any changes in it would mean political death to the politician.

No more. Although social security is as popular as ever, politicians routinely propose changes in the program — including privatisation and means testing. While the proposals usually go nowhere, and rightly so, the politicians who support them live to fight another day. Today, with those massive deficits and the astronomical national debt, not even social security is sacrosanct.

Few, if any, government programs are.

But US aid to Israel is. In fact, the $3bn Israel aid package is the new third rail of American politics: touch it and die. It is also the one program that liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans and tea partiers all agree should not sustain even a dollar in cuts.[NOT me!]

Actually, that is something of a mis-statement. These various parties and factions do not agree that the $3bn Israel aid package is sacred. They just say that they do because a powerful lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), makes clear to them that touching the aid package will mean big trouble for them in the next election.

Cuts to social programmes

It no longer comes as much of a surprise that the average Democrat or Republican will rule that Israel aid cuts are off the table — while supporting cuts in programs like head start, which educates poor children, or WIC, which provides nutrition assistance to disadvantaged women and their infants.

It is not a surprise because everyone knows that the Democratic and Republican campaign finance committees warn their members of the dire consequences that might ensue if they dare to stand up to the lobby.

That is why even the most liberal members of congress never point out the absurdity of supporting full funding of military aid to Israel while slashing vital domestic programs. In fact, the only members of congress who have suggested that Israel share some of the sacrifice are Reresentative Ron Paul (R-TX) and his son, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) who would pretty much cut every program in the budget, including Israel aid.

But the two Pauls, all by themselves, put enough of a scare into AIPAC that it immediately got to work to make sure that other like-minded Republicans (the "cut everything" caucus) did not go off and follow them in the name of, say, logic and consistency.

Fiscal conservatives?

AIPAC was most concerned about the Republican first-termers, most of whom were elected with the support of tea partiers, who are generally extreme fiscal conservatives and tend not to favor any exemptions from the budget axe.

Almost immediately, AIPAC produced a letter for the Republican first-termers to sign in which they pledged that, no matter what else they cut, Israel would be exempt. And almost immediately, 65 of the 87 Republican freshmen signed on, with more signing on later.

Among the signatories are some of the most vehement supporters of cutting virtually every domestic program. These are people who support programs that cut jobs in their own districts and proudly point to their devotion to the principle that shared sacrifice means everyone.

But not Israel.

The AIPAC letter seems to recognise that virtually every other program is sustaining cuts. It refers to "runaway spending and trillion dollar deficits." It even concedes that "tough choices must be made to control federal spending" and that "we must do a better job of prioritising appropriations". Those priorities can be seen in this list of draconian budget cuts the freshmen support.

But then this: "Therefore, as this congress considers the upcoming continuing resolution, we strongly urge you [the House leadership] to include America's full $3bn commitment for Fiscal Year 2011 under the 10-year US-Israel Memorandum of Understanding.

And that is where fiscal hawks become the most docile of doves: when it comes to Israel.

Conditional aid

This is not to say that the United States should eliminate military aid to Israel. Much of the aid package can be justified on the grounds that Israel is an ally, one that still has enemies bent on its destruction.

But how can anyone justify picking this one program out of the entire federal budget and saying, without discussion, that it merits full funding, without scrutiny, while virtually every other program is cut?

The simple fact is that both the United States and Israel would be better off if we attached strings to our aid, as we do with other foreign assistance programmes.

For instance, we might say that for every dollar Israel spends on expanding settlements, we will subtract one dollar from the aid package. Or we can put some of the package on hold until Israel agrees to freeze settlements, thereby enabling negotiations with the Palestinians to resume.

Or we can simply examine the aid budget, item by item, to make sure that each program in it supports US policy goals. Do those US -provided cluster bombs that are still exploding in Lebanon serve our interests?

But we do none of that. Israel prepares a shopping list and congressional appropriators provide the goods. Shop 'til you drop.

This is wrong. Congress should treat the Israel aid package the same way it deals with programs that directly benefit Americans. Those who support it should be forced to defend it, line by line.

But the sad fact is that special interests like AIPAC, the Chamber of Commerce and the Club for Growth intimidate Congress into exempting their favorite projects even from discussion. Aid to Israel will not even be discussed this year, except for members of Congress informing AIPAC of their unquestioning devotion to it.

If only infants, working Americans, and the poor were somebody's special interest. Maybe then, someday, they too could intimidate congress. As the old Jewish expression goes: we should all live so long.

MJ Rosenberg is a senior foreign policy fellow at Media Matters Action Network. The above article first appeared in Foreign Policy Matters, a part of the Media Matters Action Network.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/op ... 32729.html



"Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend
in the Middle East, I can't help but think that before
Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East." : John
Sheehan, S.J. (a Jesuit priest)

[cnorman18]

Thought I'd drop by just to see if there's anything new going on.

Apparently not.

I have gratefully employed the "ignore" function on kneejerk ranters, so those who have the time may answer them. I personally do not.

I'm sure you ARE grateful. Since you seem to define those who articulately answer and definitively refute your arguments in exhaustive detail as "kneejerk ranters," it must be very convenient for you to simply put them out of your mind and hope that everyone else does, too. The time it would take you to actually respond to substantive arguments is irrelevant, of course -- far easier to just claim that there aren't any.

Phfft. Whom do you think you're fooling? You never answered my arguments when you COULD see them -- you consistently merely dismissed them as "rants" and have never actually responded to a single one. As I've said before, smearing your opponents and ignoring their arguments isn't debate, no matter how many times you repeat that ridiculous and transparent tactic. Placing them on "ignore" isn't debating either -- it's rather closer to confessing total defeat and an inability to come up with any counterarguments at all.

Weak answers to arguments are one thing, but we haven't even seen any of THOSE. Claiming never to have SEEN any arguments is about as weak as weak gets -- but that apparently wasn't weak enough. "Ignore," indeed. When have you ever done anything else?

March 07, 2011 "Al-Jazeera"

Is any comment really necessary on this? At least you've given up claiming to cite "unbiased sources." Who's next? Stormfront? Jewwatch?

...US aid to Israel is... the one program that liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans and tea partiers all agree should not sustain even a dollar in cuts.

And this is an argument AGAINST it?!?

Maybe it's just a good idea -- continuing to support the only democracy, the only free society, and our only real ally in the region. That's called consensus, and it doesn't just apply to the political leadership: it's the consensus of the American people, as has been proven in every poll and survey taken on the subject for decades.

These various parties and factions do not agree that the $3bn Israel aid package is sacred. They just say that they do because a powerful lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), makes clear to them that touching the aid package will mean big trouble for them in the next election.

The usual unsupported claim, backed by nothing but the usual unspoken assumptions -- Jewish power, Jewish conspiracy, and Jewish control of the media. If you had ever had anything more than those to prove your claims of the power of "The Lobby," you'd have posted it by now -- but all we've ever seen is the repeated unsupported claim.

You attribute to conspiracy and bullying that which is fully and fairly explained by a simple consensus. The fact that you disagree with the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the American people doesn't mean that Jews -- or "pro-Israel advocates," if you like -- force that opinion on anyone.

No answer to this will be forthcoming, of course; we can count on seeing no more than a dismissal of all this as "ranting," with no counterargument at all, and yet another repetition of the usual unsupported and quasi-bigoted claims.

...everyone knows that the Democratic and Republican campaign finance committees warn their members of the dire consequences that might ensue if they dare to stand up to the lobby.

"Everyone knows?"

Dare we ask for documentation of some kind? Evidence? Any testimony to this allegation from an actual member of Congress who has actually heard this "warning"?

Don't anyone here hold his breath. More totally unsupported claims, more assumptions, more ignoring of the proven presence of a simple consensus on the priority of supporting a vital ally.

In fact, the only members of congress who have suggested that Israel share some of the sacrifice are Reresentative Ron Paul (R-TX) and his son, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) who would pretty much cut every program in the budget, including Israel aid...

Which of course disproves your claim that no one dares to defy the All-Powerful Jewish Lobby (sa well as pretending that the Pauls really were the only anti-Israel members of Congress).

Oops.

...the sad fact is that special interests like AIPAC, the Chamber of Commerce and the Club for Growth intimidate Congress into exempting their favorite projects even from discussion.

Jews are around 2% of the population of the US. Just how much "intimidation" can we bring to bear here? Are the Jews really THAT powerful? Do we really dictate and dominate American government policy as -- um -- shall we say, "some people" consistently claim? Is this really a FACT that DeBunkem keeps trying to sell as common knowledge that "everyone knows," but without ever so much as attempting to PROVE it?

Let's not talk about consensus on the subject of aid to the only free and democratic state in the Mideast. No, no! It MUST be conspiracy and bullying! Nothing else could possibly explain it! No other theories or arguments are admissible, or will even be acknowledged as existing!

Not even the elephant in the living room that remains, as always, totally invisible to DeBunkem and inadmissible to the debate:

"Terrorism? What terrorism? There are no terrorists in the Mideast -- except for the evil Jews, of course..."

I hope my posts break the Rupert Murdoch media blackout on Israeli abuse of Palestinians, funded by middle class American tax dollars. When (if) this corporate-controlled blackout ends, I will not feel compelled to post so much on this subject. Work for freedom of our airwaves.

Oh, PLEASE. As if every single claim of the Palestinians of "massacre" and "atrocity" isn't front-page news all over America, the UK, and Western Europe, whether factual or not. Remember the "thousands" killed at Jenin? The "starving" Gazans? The faked funerals and altered photos?

If there's been a "blackout," it's been about the gross corruption and despotism that has dominated the Arab world for decades -- which anti-Israel fanatics are now scrambling to claim they have always opposed -- and the openly stated goals of genocide and ethnic cleansing, explicitly directed at Jews of every terrorist organization in the Mideast.

Want to talk about unreported news? How about the long list of forbidden topics in your own posts?

Thanks for providing incontrovertible proof of my contention -- right here: :

When it is leveled at Israel, the charge of apartheid generates not counter-argument backed by counter-evidence, but rather walls of sheer stony denial, if not inarticulate eruptions of blind rage, as though either denial or sheer fury could permanently forestall argument.

Yeah, we've heard THAT one before. As if neither I nor anyone else has ever posted a single fact or argument to counter your bogus claims and unsupported assumptions.

Phfft.

How about these? Are these not "counter-arguments backed by counter-evidence," and further, ones that you have seen many, many times without a response of any kind?

From my oft-posted list of forbidden topics which DeBunkem refuses to either acknowledge or discuss -- dismissed by him as "kneejerk ranting," of course:

"(6) The fact that very many Arabs never left Israel at the time of its founding, and many (20% of the Israeli population) live there in peace and freedom as full citizens to this day."

Palestinian Arabs work, own land and businesses, VOTE, and even serve in the Israeli Knesset, in Israeli government-bureau offices, in the Israeli Army, and as judges and attorneys in the Israeli legal system. How much of that could be said of South African blacks under apartheid?

Don't anybody expect DeBunkem to rush in with "counter-arguments backed by counter-evidence." All these arguments are directly and substantively pertinent to his mantra of "apartheid," but Debunkem claims that he's never seen them -- only "walls of sheer stony denial" and "inarticulate eruptions of blind rage."

Repeated unsupported claims, anyone?

To quote myself yet again :

I don't expect an actual RESPONSE to any of this, of course; only another change of subject, probably on a new thread. There are enough OLD ones that DeBunkem has abandoned in the face of something other than "sheer stony denial" and "inarticulate eruptions of blind rage." Maybe his own "denial or sheer fury" is supposed to be an answer on those threads.

Here are the lists. First the Forbidden Topics (these are supposed to be nothing but “sheer stony denial� and “inarticulate eruptions of blind rage,� mind):

(1) The decades-long campaign of Palestinian attacks against unarmed civilians chosen as primary targets for mass murder

(2) The responsibility of the Palestinian terrorists for the deaths of Palestinian civilians due to their own inarguably criminal tactics

(3) The openly and explicitly stated, and never renounced, Palestinian goal of the total eradication of Israel and the extermination or expulsion of every Jew in the Mideast

(4) The decades of Government-sponsored and encouraged old-school Nazi-style anti-Semitic hate propaganda to which the Arab public is subjected, which includes Holocaust denial, claims of worldwide Jewish conspiracy, the promoting of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as an authentic document, and even, incredibly, dramatizations of the notorious Blood Libel as factually true

(5) The explicit Palestinian goal of “ethnic cleansing� in order to establish a Judenrein Arab nation in the West Bank, and eventually from the Jordan to the sea

(6) The fact that very many Arabs never left Israel at the time of its founding, and many (20% of the Israeli population) live there in peace and freedom as full citizens to this day

(7) The factual record of endlessly repeated Israeli offers of “land for peace�

(8) The blatant and proven anti-Israel bias of the supposedly “unbiased� UN

(9) The blatant and proven anti-Israel bias of many supposedly “unbiased� NGOs

(10) The FACT that looking to mutually exclusive historical narratives of the past offers no solutions, only more endless conflict

And now the abandoned threads, where my “sheer stony denial� and “inarticulate eruptions of blind rage� apparently ended the debates:

Uprising Threatens Status Quo in Gaza Ghetto?

The Media and the Mideast: Power and Responsibility

Israel and the Other Arabs: Signs of Hope

AIPAC spying on US

What I learned from a 1937 World Atlas

Noam Chomsky: Agenda and Tactics

Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay Recognize Palestinian State

Justifying Israel (ff.)

Israel and Palestine -- Whose Land Is It?

8 Reasons Leftists should be Pro-Israel

Question for DeBunkem

Are Jews “Unrightly� Occupying Israel?

Berserk Israeli Terrorist NOT a Racist?

And then, of course, there are the threads addressed to DeBunkem where he has never deigned to reply at all:

To the Chorus of Chronic, Compulsive Critics of Israel

Questions for Debate: Israel

Oh, to be an Ideologue (on the Left OR the Right)

Human Rights Watch: Bias and Agenda

Are These Events Relevant?

United Nations PROMOTES Racism and Hatred -- Again

Letter from a Forgotten Jew

�How Can You Defend Israel?�

�How Can You Defend Israel?� Part II

Repeated Unsupported Claims

Once again -- merely smearing your opponent (with claims of "projection," e.g.) and ignoring his arguments isn't "civil and respectful debate." What it IS, I shall decline to say; but debate, it isn't.

I'm on "Ignore," of course, so there'll be no answer to all these arguments.

In other words, same ol', same ol'. Nothing new here.

I'll be around from time to time, just to make sure nobody gets away with this sort of blatant one-sided propagandizing disguised as phony pretend-debate. Don't expect me to respond every time, though. Hardly worth the effort. Perhaps others here will take the hint and point out all the facts that DeBunkem does not dare to acknowledge or discuss and all the arguments that he (falsely) claims never to have seen.

As for the rest of the topics on this forum -- I've said what I have to say. Don't bother to send me PMs, either. Everyone with whom I care to keep in touch has my email address.

Be well, everyone. Like I said -- I'll be around.

[JoeyKnothead]

Thought I'd drop by just to see if there's anything new going on.

Apparently not.

I have gratefully employed the "ignore" function on kneejerk ranters, so those who have the time may answer them. I personally do not.

I'm sure you ARE grateful. Since you seem to define those who articulately answer and definitively refute your arguments in exhaustive detail as "kneejerk ranters," it must be very convenient for you to simply put them out of your mind and hope that everyone else does, too. The time it would take you to actually respond to substantive arguments is irrelevant, of course -- far easier to just claim that there aren't any.

Phfft. Whom do you think you're fooling? You never answered my arguments when you COULD see them -- you consistently merely dismissed them as "rants" and have never actually responded to a single one. As I've said before, smearing your opponents and ignoring their arguments isn't debate, no matter how many times you repeat that ridiculous and transparent tactic. Placing them on "ignore" isn't debating either -- it's rather closer to confessing total defeat and an inability to come up with any counterarguments at all.

Weak answers to arguments are one thing, but we haven't even seen any of THOSE. Claiming never to have SEEN any arguments is about as weak as weak gets -- but that apparently wasn't weak enough. "Ignore," indeed. When have you ever done anything else?

March 07, 2011 "Al-Jazeera"

Is any comment really necessary on this? At least you've given up claiming to cite "unbiased sources." Who's next? Stormfront? Jewwatch?

...US aid to Israel is... the one program that liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans and tea partiers all agree should not sustain even a dollar in cuts.

And this is an argument AGAINST it?!?

Maybe it's just a good idea -- continuing to support the only democracy, the only free society, and our only real ally in the region. That's called consensus, and it doesn't just apply to the political leadership: it's the consensus of the American people, as has been proven in every poll and survey taken on the subject for decades.

These various parties and factions do not agree that the $3bn Israel aid package is sacred. They just say that they do because a powerful lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), makes clear to them that touching the aid package will mean big trouble for them in the next election.

The usual unsupported claim, backed by nothing but the usual unspoken assumptions -- Jewish power, Jewish conspiracy, and Jewish control of the media. If you had ever had anything more than those to prove your claims of the power of "The Lobby," you'd have posted it by now -- but all we've ever seen is the repeated unsupported claim.

You attribute to conspiracy and bullying that which is fully and fairly explained by a simple consensus. The fact that you disagree with the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the American people doesn't mean that Jews -- or "pro-Israel advocates," if you like -- force that opinion on anyone.

No answer to this will be forthcoming, of course; we can count on seeing no more than a dismissal of all this as "ranting," with no counterargument at all, and yet another repetition of the usual unsupported and quasi-bigoted claims.

...everyone knows that the Democratic and Republican campaign finance committees warn their members of the dire consequences that might ensue if they dare to stand up to the lobby.

"Everyone knows?"

Dare we ask for documentation of some kind? Evidence? Any testimony to this allegation from an actual member of Congress who has actually heard this "warning"?

Don't anyone here hold his breath. More totally unsupported claims, more assumptions, more ignoring of the proven presence of a simple consensus on the priority of supporting a vital ally.

In fact, the only members of congress who have suggested that Israel share some of the sacrifice are Reresentative Ron Paul (R-TX) and his son, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) who would pretty much cut every program in the budget, including Israel aid...

Which of course disproves your claim that no one dares to defy the All-Powerful Jewish Lobby (sa well as pretending that the Pauls really were the only anti-Israel members of Congress).

Oops.

...the sad fact is that special interests like AIPAC, the Chamber of Commerce and the Club for Growth intimidate Congress into exempting their favorite projects even from discussion.

Jews are around 2% of the population of the US. Just how much "intimidation" can we bring to bear here? Are the Jews really THAT powerful? Do we really dictate and dominate American government policy as -- um -- shall we say, "some people" consistently claim? Is this really a FACT that DeBunkem keeps trying to sell as common knowledge that "everyone knows," but without ever so much as attempting to PROVE it?

Let's not talk about consensus on the subject of aid to the only free and democratic state in the Mideast. No, no! It MUST be conspiracy and bullying! Nothing else could possibly explain it! No other theories or arguments are admissible, or will even be acknowledged as existing!

Not even the elephant in the living room that remains, as always, totally invisible to DeBunkem and inadmissible to the debate:

"Terrorism? What terrorism? There are no terrorists in the Mideast -- except for the evil Jews, of course..."

I hope my posts break the Rupert Murdoch media blackout on Israeli abuse of Palestinians, funded by middle class American tax dollars. When (if) this corporate-controlled blackout ends, I will not feel compelled to post so much on this subject. Work for freedom of our airwaves.

Oh, PLEASE. As if every single claim of the Palestinians of "massacre" and "atrocity" isn't front-page news all over America, the UK, and Western Europe, whether factual or not. Remember the "thousands" killed at Jenin? The "starving" Gazans? The faked funerals and altered photos?

If there's been a "blackout," it's been about the gross corruption and despotism that has dominated the Arab world for decades -- which anti-Israel fanatics are now scrambling to claim they have always opposed -- and the openly stated goals of genocide and ethnic cleansing, explicitly directed at Jews of every terrorist organization in the Mideast.

Want to talk about unreported news? How about the long list of forbidden topics in your own posts?

Thanks for providing incontrovertible proof of my contention -- right here: :

When it is leveled at Israel, the charge of apartheid generates not counter-argument backed by counter-evidence, but rather walls of sheer stony denial, if not inarticulate eruptions of blind rage, as though either denial or sheer fury could permanently forestall argument.

Yeah, we've heard THAT one before. As if neither I nor anyone else has ever posted a single fact or argument to counter your bogus claims and unsupported assumptions.

Phfft.

How about these? Are these not "counter-arguments backed by counter-evidence," and further, ones that you have seen many, many times without a response of any kind?

From my oft-posted list of forbidden topics which DeBunkem refuses to either acknowledge or discuss -- dismissed by him as "kneejerk ranting," of course:

"(6) The fact that very many Arabs never left Israel at the time of its founding, and many (20% of the Israeli population) live there in peace and freedom as full citizens to this day."

Palestinian Arabs work, own land and businesses, VOTE, and even serve in the Israeli Knesset, in Israeli government-bureau offices, in the Israeli Army, and as judges and attorneys in the Israeli legal system. How much of that could be said of South African blacks under apartheid?

Don't anybody expect DeBunkem to rush in with "counter-arguments backed by counter-evidence." All these arguments are directly and substantively pertinent to his mantra of "apartheid," but Debunkem claims that he's never seen them -- only "walls of sheer stony denial" and "inarticulate eruptions of blind rage."

Repeated unsupported claims, anyone?

To quote myself yet again :

I don't expect an actual RESPONSE to any of this, of course; only another change of subject, probably on a new thread. There are enough OLD ones that DeBunkem has abandoned in the face of something other than "sheer stony denial" and "inarticulate eruptions of blind rage." Maybe his own "denial or sheer fury" is supposed to be an answer on those threads.

Here are the lists. First the Forbidden Topics (these are supposed to be nothing but “sheer stony denial� and “inarticulate eruptions of blind rage,� mind):

(1) The decades-long campaign of Palestinian attacks against unarmed civilians chosen as primary targets for mass murder

(2) The responsibility of the Palestinian terrorists for the deaths of Palestinian civilians due to their own inarguably criminal tactics

(3) The openly and explicitly stated, and never renounced, Palestinian goal of the total eradication of Israel and the extermination or expulsion of every Jew in the Mideast

(4) The decades of Government-sponsored and encouraged old-school Nazi-style anti-Semitic hate propaganda to which the Arab public is subjected, which includes Holocaust denial, claims of worldwide Jewish conspiracy, the promoting of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as an authentic document, and even, incredibly, dramatizations of the notorious Blood Libel as factually true

(5) The explicit Palestinian goal of “ethnic cleansing� in order to establish a Judenrein Arab nation in the West Bank, and eventually from the Jordan to the sea

(6) The fact that very many Arabs never left Israel at the time of its founding, and many (20% of the Israeli population) live there in peace and freedom as full citizens to this day

(7) The factual record of endlessly repeated Israeli offers of “land for peace�

(8) The blatant and proven anti-Israel bias of the supposedly “unbiased� UN

(9) The blatant and proven anti-Israel bias of many supposedly “unbiased� NGOs

(10) The FACT that looking to mutually exclusive historical narratives of the past offers no solutions, only more endless conflict

And now the abandoned threads, where my “sheer stony denial� and “inarticulate eruptions of blind rage� apparently ended the debates:

Uprising Threatens Status Quo in Gaza Ghetto?

The Media and the Mideast: Power and Responsibility

Israel and the Other Arabs: Signs of Hope

AIPAC spying on US

What I learned from a 1937 World Atlas

Noam Chomsky: Agenda and Tactics

Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay Recognize Palestinian State

Justifying Israel (ff.)

Israel and Palestine -- Whose Land Is It?

8 Reasons Leftists should be Pro-Israel

Question for DeBunkem

Are Jews “Unrightly� Occupying Israel?

Berserk Israeli Terrorist NOT a Racist?

And then, of course, there are the threads addressed to DeBunkem where he has never deigned to reply at all:

To the Chorus of Chronic, Compulsive Critics of Israel

Questions for Debate: Israel

Oh, to be an Ideologue (on the Left OR the Right)

Human Rights Watch: Bias and Agenda

Are These Events Relevant?

United Nations PROMOTES Racism and Hatred -- Again

Letter from a Forgotten Jew

�How Can You Defend Israel?�

�How Can You Defend Israel?� Part II

Repeated Unsupported Claims

Once again -- merely smearing your opponent (with claims of "projection," e.g.) and ignoring his arguments isn't "civil and respectful debate." What it IS, I shall decline to say; but debate, it isn't.

I'm on "Ignore," of course, so there'll be no answer to all these arguments.

In other words, same ol', same ol'. Nothing new here.

I'll be around from time to time, just to make sure nobody gets away with this sort of blatant one-sided propagandizing disguised as phony pretend-debate. Don't expect me to respond every time, though. Hardly worth the effort. Perhaps others here will take the hint and point out all the facts that DeBunkem does not dare to acknowledge or discuss and all the arguments that he (falsely) claims never to have seen.

As for the rest of the topics on this forum -- I've said what I have to say. Don't bother to send me PMs, either. Everyone with whom I care to keep in touch has my email address.

Be well, everyone. Like I said -- I'll be around.

Well said.

If one wishes to debate, seems to me they'd at least try to hear what folks have to say.

[East of Eden]

Yes, Debunkem seems to prefer posting cartoons to debating. I'm out of this one until he answers CNorman's questions.

[cnorman18]

Yes, Debunkem seems to prefer posting cartoons to debating. I'm out of this one until he answers CNorman's questions.

Don't go holding your breath, now.

An afterthought: For the record, I have never, as in not one time, said that Israel is perfect or flawless or can do no wrong -- nor dismissed all criticism of Israel as antisemitic -- nor that US aid to Israel is or should be "sacrosanct" or not a subject for debate. If DeBunkem DOES, by some miracle, actually respond to my post here in a substantive manner -- there's a first time for everything -- let's see if he can do it without putting those words in my mouth and ranting against arguments that neither I nor anyone else here has ever made.

I'm not holding my breath, either...

[sickles]

Thought I'd drop by just to see if there's anything new going on.

Apparently not.

I have gratefully employed the "ignore" function on kneejerk ranters, so those who have the time may answer them. I personally do not.

I'm sure you ARE grateful. Since you seem to define those who articulately answer and definitively refute your arguments in exhaustive detail as "kneejerk ranters," it must be very convenient for you to simply put them out of your mind and hope that everyone else does, too. The time it would take you to actually respond to substantive arguments is irrelevant, of course -- far easier to just claim that there aren't any.

Phfft. Whom do you think you're fooling? You never answered my arguments when you COULD see them -- you consistently merely dismissed them as "rants" and have never actually responded to a single one. As I've said before, smearing your opponents and ignoring their arguments isn't debate, no matter how many times you repeat that ridiculous and transparent tactic. Placing them on "ignore" isn't debating either -- it's rather closer to confessing total defeat and an inability to come up with any counterarguments at all.

Weak answers to arguments are one thing, but we haven't even seen any of THOSE. Claiming never to have SEEN any arguments is about as weak as weak gets -- but that apparently wasn't weak enough. "Ignore," indeed. When have you ever done anything else?

March 07, 2011 "Al-Jazeera"

Is any comment really necessary on this? At least you've given up claiming to cite "unbiased sources." Who's next? Stormfront? Jewwatch?

...US aid to Israel is... the one program that liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans and tea partiers all agree should not sustain even a dollar in cuts.

And this is an argument AGAINST it?!?

Maybe it's just a good idea -- continuing to support the only democracy, the only free society, and our only real ally in the region. That's called consensus, and it doesn't just apply to the political leadership: it's the consensus of the American people, as has been proven in every poll and survey taken on the subject for decades.

These various parties and factions do not agree that the $3bn Israel aid package is sacred. They just say that they do because a powerful lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), makes clear to them that touching the aid package will mean big trouble for them in the next election.

The usual unsupported claim, backed by nothing but the usual unspoken assumptions -- Jewish power, Jewish conspiracy, and Jewish control of the media. If you had ever had anything more than those to prove your claims of the power of "The Lobby," you'd have posted it by now -- but all we've ever seen is the repeated unsupported claim.

You attribute to conspiracy and bullying that which is fully and fairly explained by a simple consensus. The fact that you disagree with the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the American people doesn't mean that Jews -- or "pro-Israel advocates," if you like -- force that opinion on anyone.

No answer to this will be forthcoming, of course; we can count on seeing no more than a dismissal of all this as "ranting," with no counterargument at all, and yet another repetition of the usual unsupported and quasi-bigoted claims.

...everyone knows that the Democratic and Republican campaign finance committees warn their members of the dire consequences that might ensue if they dare to stand up to the lobby.

"Everyone knows?"

Dare we ask for documentation of some kind? Evidence? Any testimony to this allegation from an actual member of Congress who has actually heard this "warning"?

Don't anyone here hold his breath. More totally unsupported claims, more assumptions, more ignoring of the proven presence of a simple consensus on the priority of supporting a vital ally.

In fact, the only members of congress who have suggested that Israel share some of the sacrifice are Reresentative Ron Paul (R-TX) and his son, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) who would pretty much cut every program in the budget, including Israel aid...

Which of course disproves your claim that no one dares to defy the All-Powerful Jewish Lobby (sa well as pretending that the Pauls really were the only anti-Israel members of Congress).

Oops.

...the sad fact is that special interests like AIPAC, the Chamber of Commerce and the Club for Growth intimidate Congress into exempting their favorite projects even from discussion.

Jews are around 2% of the population of the US. Just how much "intimidation" can we bring to bear here? Are the Jews really THAT powerful? Do we really dictate and dominate American government policy as -- um -- shall we say, "some people" consistently claim? Is this really a FACT that DeBunkem keeps trying to sell as common knowledge that "everyone knows," but without ever so much as attempting to PROVE it?

Let's not talk about consensus on the subject of aid to the only free and democratic state in the Mideast. No, no! It MUST be conspiracy and bullying! Nothing else could possibly explain it! No other theories or arguments are admissible, or will even be acknowledged as existing!

Not even the elephant in the living room that remains, as always, totally invisible to DeBunkem and inadmissible to the debate:

"Terrorism? What terrorism? There are no terrorists in the Mideast -- except for the evil Jews, of course..."

I hope my posts break the Rupert Murdoch media blackout on Israeli abuse of Palestinians, funded by middle class American tax dollars. When (if) this corporate-controlled blackout ends, I will not feel compelled to post so much on this subject. Work for freedom of our airwaves.

Oh, PLEASE. As if every single claim of the Palestinians of "massacre" and "atrocity" isn't front-page news all over America, the UK, and Western Europe, whether factual or not. Remember the "thousands" killed at Jenin? The "starving" Gazans? The faked funerals and altered photos?

If there's been a "blackout," it's been about the gross corruption and despotism that has dominated the Arab world for decades -- which anti-Israel fanatics are now scrambling to claim they have always opposed -- and the openly stated goals of genocide and ethnic cleansing, explicitly directed at Jews of every terrorist organization in the Mideast.

Want to talk about unreported news? How about the long list of forbidden topics in your own posts?

Thanks for providing incontrovertible proof of my contention -- right here: :

When it is leveled at Israel, the charge of apartheid generates not counter-argument backed by counter-evidence, but rather walls of sheer stony denial, if not inarticulate eruptions of blind rage, as though either denial or sheer fury could permanently forestall argument.

Yeah, we've heard THAT one before. As if neither I nor anyone else has ever posted a single fact or argument to counter your bogus claims and unsupported assumptions.

Phfft.

How about these? Are these not "counter-arguments backed by counter-evidence," and further, ones that you have seen many, many times without a response of any kind?

From my oft-posted list of forbidden topics which DeBunkem refuses to either acknowledge or discuss -- dismissed by him as "kneejerk ranting," of course:

"(6) The fact that very many Arabs never left Israel at the time of its founding, and many (20% of the Israeli population) live there in peace and freedom as full citizens to this day."

Palestinian Arabs work, own land and businesses, VOTE, and even serve in the Israeli Knesset, in Israeli government-bureau offices, in the Israeli Army, and as judges and attorneys in the Israeli legal system. How much of that could be said of South African blacks under apartheid?

Don't anybody expect DeBunkem to rush in with "counter-arguments backed by counter-evidence." All these arguments are directly and substantively pertinent to his mantra of "apartheid," but Debunkem claims that he's never seen them -- only "walls of sheer stony denial" and "inarticulate eruptions of blind rage."

Repeated unsupported claims, anyone?

To quote myself yet again :

I don't expect an actual RESPONSE to any of this, of course; only another change of subject, probably on a new thread. There are enough OLD ones that DeBunkem has abandoned in the face of something other than "sheer stony denial" and "inarticulate eruptions of blind rage." Maybe his own "denial or sheer fury" is supposed to be an answer on those threads.

Here are the lists. First the Forbidden Topics (these are supposed to be nothing but “sheer stony denial� and “inarticulate eruptions of blind rage,� mind):

(1) The decades-long campaign of Palestinian attacks against unarmed civilians chosen as primary targets for mass murder

(2) The responsibility of the Palestinian terrorists for the deaths of Palestinian civilians due to their own inarguably criminal tactics

(3) The openly and explicitly stated, and never renounced, Palestinian goal of the total eradication of Israel and the extermination or expulsion of every Jew in the Mideast

(4) The decades of Government-sponsored and encouraged old-school Nazi-style anti-Semitic hate propaganda to which the Arab public is subjected, which includes Holocaust denial, claims of worldwide Jewish conspiracy, the promoting of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as an authentic document, and even, incredibly, dramatizations of the notorious Blood Libel as factually true

(5) The explicit Palestinian goal of “ethnic cleansing� in order to establish a Judenrein Arab nation in the West Bank, and eventually from the Jordan to the sea

(6) The fact that very many Arabs never left Israel at the time of its founding, and many (20% of the Israeli population) live there in peace and freedom as full citizens to this day

(7) The factual record of endlessly repeated Israeli offers of “land for peace�

(8) The blatant and proven anti-Israel bias of the supposedly “unbiased� UN

(9) The blatant and proven anti-Israel bias of many supposedly “unbiased� NGOs

(10) The FACT that looking to mutually exclusive historical narratives of the past offers no solutions, only more endless conflict

And now the abandoned threads, where my “sheer stony denial� and “inarticulate eruptions of blind rage� apparently ended the debates:

Uprising Threatens Status Quo in Gaza Ghetto?

The Media and the Mideast: Power and Responsibility

Israel and the Other Arabs: Signs of Hope

AIPAC spying on US

What I learned from a 1937 World Atlas

Noam Chomsky: Agenda and Tactics

Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay Recognize Palestinian State

Justifying Israel (ff.)

Israel and Palestine -- Whose Land Is It?

8 Reasons Leftists should be Pro-Israel

Question for DeBunkem

Are Jews “Unrightly� Occupying Israel?

Berserk Israeli Terrorist NOT a Racist?

And then, of course, there are the threads addressed to DeBunkem where he has never deigned to reply at all:

To the Chorus of Chronic, Compulsive Critics of Israel

Questions for Debate: Israel

Oh, to be an Ideologue (on the Left OR the Right)

Human Rights Watch: Bias and Agenda

Are These Events Relevant?

United Nations PROMOTES Racism and Hatred -- Again

Letter from a Forgotten Jew

�How Can You Defend Israel?�

�How Can You Defend Israel?� Part II

Repeated Unsupported Claims

Once again -- merely smearing your opponent (with claims of "projection," e.g.) and ignoring his arguments isn't "civil and respectful debate." What it IS, I shall decline to say; but debate, it isn't.

I'm on "Ignore," of course, so there'll be no answer to all these arguments.

In other words, same ol', same ol'. Nothing new here.

I'll be around from time to time, just to make sure nobody gets away with this sort of blatant one-sided propagandizing disguised as phony pretend-debate. Don't expect me to respond every time, though. Hardly worth the effort. Perhaps others here will take the hint and point out all the facts that DeBunkem does not dare to acknowledge or discuss and all the arguments that he (falsely) claims never to have seen.

As for the rest of the topics on this forum -- I've said what I have to say. Don't bother to send me PMs, either. Everyone with whom I care to keep in touch has my email address.

Be well, everyone. Like I said -- I'll be around.

Well said.

If one wishes to debate, seems to me they'd at least try to hear what folks have to say.

How about the viewpoint of not sending money to an aggressive country, no matter the name? especially during hard economic times?

[cnorman18]

How about the viewpoint of not sending money to an aggressive country, no matter the name? especially during hard economic times?

Oh, I for one would be on board for that; but what does that have to do with Israel?

There also seems to be a national consensus in favor of continuing to support a close ally and trading partner which is the only free and democratic state in the region -- a nation that is not only NOT "aggressive," but is, on the contrary, on the DEFENSE against constant and unrelenting attack from enemies sworn to destroy it completely and expel or exterminate all its people. Rather a different matter, in my humble opinion -- and it appears, from the consensus attested to by Al-Jazeera above, that most of our lawmakers share that opinion.

Of course, I DO have that odd and apparently unusual belief that one ought to stand by one's friends. Even when one must take exception to their mistakes and even act upon them, one ought at least acknowledge it and show some support when they are viciously and unjustly attacked. But I guess that's just me.

[sickles]

How about the viewpoint of not sending money to an aggressive country, no matter the name? especially during hard economic times?

Oh, I for one would be on board for that; but what does that have to do with Israel?

There also seems to be a national consensus in favor of continuing to support a close ally and trading partner which is the only free and democratic state in the region -- a nation that is not only NOT "aggressive," but is, on the contrary, on the DEFENSE against constant and unrelenting attack from enemies sworn to destroy it completely and expel or exterminate all its people. Rather a different matter, in my humble opinion -- and it appears, from the consensus attested to by Al-Jazeera above, that most of our lawmakers share that opinion.

Of course, I DO have that odd and apparently unusual belief that one ought to stand by one's friends. Even when one must take exception to their mistakes and even act upon them, one ought at least acknowledge it and show some support when they are viciously and unjustly attacked. But I guess that's just me.

You can believe what you like, but as was pointed our earlier in this thread, this money we were talking about was part of a deal to stop ISRAEL from aggressively (even if the best defense is the best offense, they sound like bush) seeking lands along its borders to settle upon. And while we are on the topic, werent there people living in that godawful spit of land when israel was formed as a nation? What happens when any group of people comes in and tells another group of people "this site is holy to us, so get the f out!"? Needless to say, they disagree abit. But dont dare paint israel as a victim. They used allies and force to push thier way in there, and they will continue to need "support" as long as they wish to ignore or bully the people (i dont care who they are, muslims, christians, or mini migdet men) they displaced. Unrest is appropriate when conquerers come take your lands. It doenst matter how many times the land has changed hands. A wrong and wrong dont make a right.

[cnorman18]

You can believe what you like, but as was pointed our earlier in this thread, this money we were talking about was part of a deal to stop ISRAEL from aggressively (even if the best defense is the best offense, they sound like bush) seeking lands along its borders to settle upon. And while we are on the topic, werent there people living in that godawful spit of land when israel was formed as a nation? What happens when any group of people comes in and tells another group of people "this site is holy to us, so get the f out!"? Needless to say, they disagree abit. But dont dare paint israel as a victim. They used allies and force to push thier way in there, and they will continue to need "support" as long as they wish to ignore or bully the people (i dont care who they are, muslims, christians, or mini migdet men) they displaced. Unrest is appropriate when conquerers come take your lands. It doenst matter how many times the land has changed hands. A wrong and wrong dont make a right.

If you want to rewind and reargue a long string of facile assumptions, fractured pseudo-history, and bogus claims that have already been debated to death elsewhere, feel free, but I've been there and done that. You might begin by taking a look at some of the threads I've listed above. I don't come around here much any more, and I don't have time to tutor history these days -- only to occasionally counter DeBunkem's propaganda posts. Have a nice day.