- ‹ previous
- 3020 of 8795
- next ›
Syriana: Newly Announced Israel-Syria Peace Talks Run Against Grain of Washington's Anti-Engagement Policy
Just a week after President Bush, speaking at Israel's Knesset, likened those who would advocate engagement with "terrorists and radicals" to Nazi appeasers, the governments of Israel and Syria—a close ally of Iran—have announced that official peace talks are underway between their nations, mediated by Turkey. "It is better in this situation to speak rather than to shoot," declared Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert in a statement Wednesday. "This is what the sides agreed."
Noted the Syrian foreign ministry in a similar statement: "Both sides have expressed their desire to conduct the talks in good will and decided to continue dialogue with seriousness to achieve comprehensive peace."
The Bush administration, which was informed of the planned talks by Israel and Turkey, offered reluctant support. "It is our hope that discussions between Israel and Syria will cover all the relevant issues," a State Department official, speaking on background, told Mother Jones. He outlined Washington's outstanding concerns with Syria, including its "support for terrorist groups, facilitation of the passage of foreign fighters into Iraq, and intervention in Lebanon, as well as repression inside Syria. An agreement dealing with these issues would be a true contribution to peace."
While Bush-era Washington has been consumed with ideological debates over whether talking to hostile regimes and militant groups rewards or legitimizes them, a parade of veteran senior Israeli security and diplomatic officials has pushed the case, both in Israel and Washington, that engaging adversaries such as Syria and Hamas could advance their nation's security interests. "The alliance between Syria and Iran is mainly one of convenience," Israel's former foreign ministry director general and Mossad official David Kimche told me in January in a suburban Tel Aviv cafe. "There is no deep connection. And it's worth our while, if we could weaken that link."
What's more, Kimche added, Syria very much wants Washington at the table. "Syria doesn't want to talk without the Americans," he said. "But from the American side, on Iraq, there has to be improvement. And the anger of the Americans at the moment is that they see Syria being behind the ongoing crisis in Lebanon."
Alon Liel, former director general of Israel's Foreign Ministry, has participated on the Israeli side of back channel Israel-Syria talks in recent years. "One of the reasons that I believe we should explore the possibility of speaking with Syria on an official level is that this body needs oxygen," he told me in February during a visit to Washington. "And we can keep the [peace] process alive through the Syrians because we can bluff with the Palestinians for another two months, but not more. We need a real process, and the Syrians are open to do it.
"The problem we are having now is that the circumstances have changed and the Syrians are a regional player," he added. "They are seen as an Iranian proxy, and Israel cannot sign a bilateral agreement with Syria as long as Syria is positioned as it is at moment in the region."
Such a situation, Liel suggested, would require two sets of talks. "On one desk we have the Syrians and the Israelis discussing the [bilateral] issues of border, normalization, water, demilitarization," he explained. "At another table, we'd have the Syrians, Israelis, Americans, and maybe the Europeans, in order to discuss how Syria is forming a military alliance with Iran, the need to kick out [Hamas political leader Khaled] Meshal from Damascus, and to stop smuggling arms to Hezbollah, and what they'd get in return." (Olmert has reportedly offered to give the Golan Heights back to Syria if it meets Israeli conditions.)
Washington and Jerusalem also part ways over Syria's role in Lebanon. The Bush administration sees Lebanon's March 2005 Cedar Revolution --which led to withdrawal of Syrian troops a month later, and subsequent democratic elections -- as a crowning achievement in its efforts to spread democracy in the Middle East. Some Israeli officials take a more jaundiced view. "We were very active in Lebanon, and we learned a lot of things," Kimche told me. "The Syrians do not see Lebanon as independent. They see it as part of Syria. There is no Syrian embassy in Lebanon, and there never was a Syrian embassy in Lebanon."
Washington is not backing away from its demand that Damascus recognize Lebanese independence, the State Department official insisted Wednesday: "Syria should carry out UN Security Council resolutions relating to Lebanon by recognizing its sovereignty and independence and delineation of their common border."
It's unclear what brought about the change in Washington's position toward Israel-Syria talks, from passive rejection to tacit endorsement -- or, as the case may be, if Israel simply decided to move on the talks in spite of Washington's lingering objections. "I think that the administration is of two minds on this," says David Schenker, a former Pentagon policy advisor on Syria and Lebanon. "On the one hand, the administration supports Israeli efforts to forge peace treaties with its neighbors. This is something that is an objective good."
"On the other hand," he notes, "the administration recognizes that negotiations with Syria now have a really pernicious effect on our embattled allies in Lebanon. "First, Syrians get to rub salt in the wounds of their enemies in Beirut. Secondly, and most importantly for Damascus, any negotiations with Israel undermine international consensus for isolating Syria and undermine potentially international support for the international tribunal" investigating the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, which set the Cedar Revolution in motion.
The White House is in a precarious position, Schenker says. "It doesn't want to stand in the way of progress. But everything the Syrians are saying would suggest no deal." Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, he adds, is saying that a strategic realignment away from Iran is out of the question.
For his part, Israel's Olmert said he had no illusions about the prospects for success. "The negotiations will not be easy," he said. "It is possible that they will take a long time and involve difficult concessions."
While driven by its own complex interests, such an attitude stands in contrast with the Bush administration's ideological reluctance to meet with its foes (although it has done so with North Korea, Libya, and militant groups in Iraq). But some Israeli security and diplomatic officials express increasing impatience with Washington's policy of non-engagement. "We need you to do diplomacy, because the military option does not work," former Israeli Foreign Minister director general Shlomo Ben-Ami said at a Washington dinner in March. "It's the first time in history that my ally does not speak with our enemies. We need you to engage these parties."
" ... a Canadian government commission concluded ... that Arar, a Syrian-born CANADIAN CITIZEN was sent to be tortured in Syria by American authorities ..." (MoJo, Syria and the US, Sept. 06)
"In April, 2008, President Assad told a Qatari newspaper that Syria and Isreal had been discussing a peace treaty for a year ... This was confirmed in May, 2008, by a spokesman for Isreali Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ..." (Wikipedia-Syria)
Quoting Assad: "...there will be no direct negotiations with Isreal until a new US president takes office. ...the Bush administration 'does not have the vision or will for the peace process. It does not have anything."
What we do have...:
"'Untouchable' corruption in Iraqi agencies" NBC News, 2007
"'Corruption protected by senior members of the Iraqi government,' the report said, 'remains untouchable.'"
"Contract fraud and employee theft of medicines, food, vehicles are viewed by investigators as the greatest problems," the report said, adding that 'military sources have reported that the Mehdi Army [sic] finances operations from diverted medicines."
I've read a little about the corruption in Palestine; the refuge camps are cheated...
In the USA we have the Whistle-Blower Law...
Offering a reward seems to work good...
I guess not all Jews listen to flaming Bushes and condemn themselves to 40 years' wandering in the wilderness as a result. This development represents the triumph of good sense over hot air.
" guess not all Jews listen to flaming Bushes . . "
Ah . . . a play on words . .
Not a particularly clever one.
The Israelis have been wanting peace negotiations with Syria for decades. Syria's official position, up till now has been:
"First give us back the Golan and then we would be willing to talk."
Obviously, such a position was not a viable starter.
Therefore LawyerAlex:
"This development represents the triumph of good sense over hot air."
Is propagandic.
I have no problem talking to almost anyone because I believe that the better arguments are supposed to produce the better results.
Though I understand that lawyers do not necessarally function on that band-width.
Alex,the site, "Jewish Voice for Peace" to learn the position of real progressive(not the Likud neocon types) Jews. JVP created and distributed a booklet on divesting from the occupation to all 1,600 delegates who are voting on resolutions in the Methodist and Presbyterian Church USA General Assembly this year. JVP members were also calling Methodist delegates to emphasize the importance of divesting from US companies profiting from the Israeli occupation of Palestinians.
The 'Jewish voice for peace' recently discontinued its public blog site. Within about a month thereof, so did the Rachel Corrie Foundation:
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/sf-forum/
This is fairly standard for hard-leftists. Free speech does not promote their causes.
This is just the usual crop of disinfo as poured into Laura's ears by such straight talkers as David Kimche ("told me in a suburban Tel Aviv cafe", gee whiz) and Alon Liel. The claim that "Olmert has reportedly offered to give the Golan Heights back to Syria if it meets Israeli conditions" is an outright lie : Olmert has never budged on the issue of the north west shore of the Kinneret, which it is Israeli policy to retain, since they are not prepared to give Syria direct access to the Lake. Why do you bother to copy all this stuff over to here, Laura?
The issue that really matters here isn't peace, or International relations; the issue is how Olmert can distract people from the criminal investigations currently occuring against him. His government will fall sooner or later, and there is realistically no way talks will have concluded before then.
This is important for people to preen correctly, and distract the public. That is all.
David Manheim:
Virtually all modern Israeli politicians have been involved in some sorts of corruption. Its almost a prerequisite. Its an unofficial "no confidence" vote. As such, Olmert will not be able to change the subject because the subject has been pro-actively changed in order to get rid of him. Therefore, there is no 'quid-pro-quo' re: Syria.
Israel will probably attack the Iranian nuke factory and if Iran retaliates against Israeli civilian-centers, as per their threats, they shall have the 'judgement day' their leaders so vigorously persue.
Trollstein, your post displays that you are an anti-Semite like John Hagee. Israel will never attack anybody since Jews are peace loving people.
It's only normal that two neighbours should move to secure their shared border. Let them talk, and away from media glare.
And let's hope talks can take place with Hamas too, and start moving away from armed conflict as a tactic.
Ira C.
Get off the crack-pipe.
(It does not mix well with the blotter you dropped.)
Jews are peace loving alright but they (religiously) believe in:
a) Premptive counter-measures.
b) eye-for-an-eye.
[Translation: "don't fuss with us"]
ashkenazim say, We'll give land for peace. how many lies can we discover in this very terse utterance?
1. israel is giving israeli land to palestinians.
2.palestinians are the warmongers; thus, by stopping resistance to the occupation, pals would be giving jews peace
3. only one side is wrong to jews; the side that is wrong is palestine.
4.israel's never wrong
5.israel wishes only peace, never starts violence, always has good intentions
6.ashkenazim have not expelled at gun point ab. 700,000 nonjews; in fact, there was no palestine nor nonjews living in expalestine at any time since hebrews arrived in canaan.
7. arabs have since early this century attacked us in our own land. more could be said.
i'm trying to say that the utterance "land for peace" applies to syria also and not just expalestine. what are jews up to now?
are syrians this stupid evento talk to jews? thank u
Bob:
Unlike Ira C, I think you should go back ON your meds.
The Israel/Palestine controversy is a very complex one--that can not be summed-up with a few sound-bites. Anyone who tries is generally trying to pull something over.
There are two groups of people who are claiming title to the same land for entirely different reasons. Probably the weakest reason the Hebrews have is their claim to "Biblical rights" because those of other faiths (99.5% of the world) do not accept such claims. Probably the weakest reason the Arabs have is that there are more of them.
In between these reasons there may (or may not) be a peaceful solution.
What guys like you need to get over is the idea that a peaceful solution MUST be imposed on the parties, even if it requires both an entire re-write of modern history and/or special provisions in International Law that do NOT apply to anyone else but the Arabs and Jews.
to trollstein,
u say "95.5% of religions do not accept biblical claims".
there's over 1 bn christians on this planet.
as far as i know, most of these people support ashkenazic claims for biblical lands or palestine.
actually, state for jews would have never been established if it wasn't for christian lands: communist and capitalist.
ashkenazim are only partially semitic; this ethnos is largely composed of euroasians who latched onto judaism/zionsm.
mizrahim are purely semitic and possibly purely jewish.
the master people of the three judaistic peoples are ashkenazim.
even yahwweh must be turning in his grave seeing that some of his followers are whiter than he.
u obvioulsy believe in magic of words; else, u wouldn't have said i need medication.
go ahead, throw muck all u want.
may i point out that by resonating with reasons, not much is explained; dwelling on facts and causative actors/factors is illuminating.
anything can be rationalized; even hitler in his Mein Kampf would have been justified in much of what he did if the world would have evaluated his reasons as factual knowledge.
it's not a fact that either palestinians ot the three jewish peoles have a valid claims to "biblical lands"
pals own and have been owning palestine for ca 1300 yrs; thus the word "claim" (an ashkenazim/christian ruse)does not apply to pals.
only ashkenazim/christians can use, if they want to, the word "claim"
please go on "claiming"
russians, poles, canadians do not ever claim their respective lands; they possess it.
there was no causative factors for ashkenazim to invade expalestine.
i do not know how many ashkeanzim percentagewise live abroad? probably 8mn. so where is their claim for land?in the west or arab lands, ie, canaan? thank u
Jack Bernstein, author of The Life Of An American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel explains:
"At the eastern edge of Europe, there lived a tribe of people know as the Khazars. About the year 740 A.D., the Khazar king and his court decided they should adopt a religion for their people. So, representatives of the three major religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, were invited to present their religious doctrines. The Khazars chose Judaism, but it wasn't for religious reasons. If the Khazars had chosen Islam they would have angered the strong Christian world. If they had chosen Christianity they would have angered the strong Islamic world. So they played it safe--they chose Judaism, not for religious reasons but for political ones.
Sometime during the 13th century, the Khazars were driven from their land and they migrated westward with most of them settling in Poland and Russia. These Khazars are now known as Ashkenazi Jews. Because these Khazar Ashkenazi Jews merely chose Judaism, they are not really Jews, at least not blood Jews.
Throughout their history, these Polish and Russian Ashkenazi Jews practiced communism/socialism and worked to have their ideas implemented in these countries.
By the late 1800s significant numbers of these communist/socialist Jews were found in Gemany, the Balkans and eventually all over Europe. Because of their interference in the social and governmental affairs of Russia, they became the target of persecution by the Czars. Because of this, migration of these communist/socialist oriented Jews began. Some went to Palestine; some to Central and South America; and a large number of them came to the U.S." [1]
Sephardic Jews are the oldest of the two types and historians believe they are most likely related to the Jews of the Bible since the majority of them came from areas described by the Bible, mainly the middle east and northern Africa. They are related by bloodline to the Arabs but do not, of course, share their religion. The Sephardim make up only about 10% of all Israeli Jews.One would think that all Jews would enjoy equal rights and privileges in a Jewish state but alas, that is not the case. Sephardim are often discrimated against by the majority Ashkenazis in housing, employment and other areas of life.
Bob:
1. There is and has always been some animocity between Euro Jews and 'Oriental' & sephardic Jews. They managed to live through it and NOT blow each other up.
2. The preservation and therefore the need for a national refuge for the Jewish people, is NOT a purely genetic question. There are also jet-black Jews (in the Sudan and other parts of Africa) and some dark-skin Jews in India and even some Asian ones in China.
As was abundantly apparant from WW2, during certain times and due to circumstances which are not totally clear, the world chooses to sacrifice its Jews. The words: "Never Again" were NOT code words meaning 'not for a generation, to allow them to re-stock for a while'.
The Jewish identity may be genetic and it may also include cultural, intellectual and even aspects of 'inherent memory'.
That is the only "Ethnic Clensing" Israel engages in. It is an attempt to cleanse the Jewish 'inherent memory' from the horror of the repeated cycles of butchery, that has followed the Hebrew nation around for 2,000 years.
to trollstein,
chinese, arabs; peoples of africa, asia and americas have not sacrificed ashkenazim (to u jews). it was christian lands who are responsible for butchery of slavs, gypsies, and ashkenazim.
ashkenazim have been slaughtered because their slayers thought of ashkenazim as the trouble makers.
nat., ashenazim have their own history; poles, russians, germans have their own respective narratives or histories.
let historians deal with history. for my purposes, it doesn't matter an iota who did more evil/good.
my sole concern is US/ israeli crimes against palestinians.
as far as i know, pals are guilty of just one crime; that of killing innocent civilians.
i do not need to enumerate crimes by israel. i'll just posit one: child-, woman-, manhunting is an unprecedented crime.
those who approbate such horrendous crime like to lead us of on tangents, peripheral issues, selected anecdotes, or national traits, murky historical record, etc.
to clarify issue further, we could say that US has TRUTH1, Chinese TRUTH2, pals TRUTH3, jews TRUTH 4, an so on.
but if a land attakcs another, can it do that armed with Truth11? of course not. all wars are based on lies; delusional, illusional, paranoid thinking; greed, hatred, revenge,etc. thank u
One would think that all Jews would enjoy equal rights and privileges in a Jewish state but alas, that is not the case. Sephardim are often discrimated against by the majority Ashkenazis in housing, employment and other areas of life.
For instance, because there is a chronic, critical shortage of housing in Israel it is often necessary to decide who will have first chance at any available housing. Because Sephardic Jews are not considered equal to those of the Ashkenazi variety they are often placed further down the list. The order in which people were usually considered when vacancies arise: Ashkenazi Jews who have lived in Israel for many years are given first choice.
Second in line are Ashkenazi Jews from Europe -- especially if they are married or marry an Israel-born Ashkenazi Jew.The next favored are Ashkenazi Jews from the U.S. -- especially if they marry an Israeli bom Ashkenazi.Sephardic Jews have the next choice of whatever housing is left.At the bottom of the list are Moslems, Druze and Christians.
A similar pattern is followed when it comes to employment. The best jobs are usually awarded to Ashkenazi Jews first, Sephardic Jews second and other religious groups such as Christians, Druze and Muslims are last, usually meaning that the latter are left with the menial jobs that Jews prefer not to do. An Ashkenazi Jew married to a Sephardic Jew will be treated as Sephardic when it comes to housing or employment because they are seen as having been "tainted" by Sephardim.
Even among the Ashkenazis there is a pecking order. Ashkenazi Jews from America tend to be looked down upon while those from Eastern Europe are treated with more respect. Besides being treated unfairly in housing and employment, Sephardic Jews are often the victim of harassment and racial slurs slung at them by the Ashkenazis and occasionally there are physical assaults. However, these are rarely reported to the police since the vast majority of times nothing will be done and there will be further repercussions for having notified the authorities.
Bob:
You ever read one of those Dr. Bronner's soap bottles? Since the soap company has limited space and a lot to say, they ramble, sometimes incoherently. I can hardly make any sense of what you are saying and though this is not the first time, I never complained before--as not to encourage you. For example, you wrote:
"chinese, arabs; peoples of africa, asia and americas have not sacrificed ashkenazim (to u jews). it was christian lands who are responsible for butchery of slavs, gypsies, and ashkenazim."
I have no idea what you said.
But as it relates to my earlier comment, Jews are at risk of being discriminated against in almost any venue. The few Chinese Jews are least at risk because they do not compete with other "monotheistic" religions. However, even Indian Jews are (at times) mistreated because a large part of India is Muslim and even the polytheistic Hindus still can be found scorning at the Jewish community in Goaa, for example. Black Jews in Ethiopia needed to be evacuated to Israel by the Israeli Defense Forces.
You guys just don't get it. It is NOT up to the non-Jews to evaluate the threat posed against Jews. If it ever was up to non-Jews, that game ended with WW2.
If there is anything inherently different or unique about the so called "Jewish Soul", it is that the Jews remaining alive today, who amount to about 1/80th of their natural population (removing all the varied historical genocides) have acquired a 6th sense about their own pending danger. If you were to find an island where no humans have been, the wildlife would have no fear of humans. Wherever humans have been, the wildlife knows better then to be seen. Jews are no less capable then such wildlife.
You think this is about Palestinian-Arabs?
Their population has been pawnized as a tool for the Pan Arabic obsession, which, in accord with some of their Scriptures, exists to humiliate and punish Jews.
At this time-being, mainly because the Hebrew nation has a nuclear arsenal, the only weapon available to the "Arab Cause" is to try to discredit and raise public opinion against Israel. So the controversy WAS about the Israeli troops in Gaza, until the Israelis left Gaza, then it became about something else and thousands of rockets began flying into Israel from Gaza. Now the controversy is about the Israeli counter-measures to those rockets.
But is really all about the same two issues:
1. The Qur'an speaks of "Judgment Day" which is supposed to vanquish the world of unbelievers.
2. In the mean time, it is intolerable for the militant Arab wing to see a thriving Israel, which, while under nearly constant attack, still manages to produce a standard of living on par with all but the richest oil producing Arabs.
The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund's ethical council is considering whether to recommend the fund sell its ($20 million) of bonds in Israel Electric Corp. because of participation in a blockade of the Gaza Strip. The Church of Norway also asked the government to review its investments and possibly withdraw from companies that "are active in the construction of the wall and Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank." "Information that the Israeli government is using this company to cut electricity supplies to Gaza, and thereby worsening the situation for civilians there, has made Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen ask the ethics council to investigate the company."
trollstein.
did u not say that the "world had sacrificed jews"?
did u not mean ashkenazim? or did u include also mizrahim and sephardim?
i can't talk ab. mistreatment of sephardic/mizrahic jews.
however, according to historians, ashkenazic people have been slaughtered by germans; aided by france, lithuania, et al. arabs, chinese, africans, americans are not responsible for the slaughter of slavs, ashkenazim, and gypsies.
u say u do not understand this. OK.
anent quran, i can say i detest it as much as the torah and bible. so rest assured, i do not support arab aims other than that of their greater democratization. i wish same for israel.
"it's not up to us to evaluate the threat to jews".
i never have done that, since there is no threat to jews as far as i know. there is no threat to existance of israel either.
i have said that 80% of the world will never accept an odious ideology like zionism.
u can conclude, if u wish, that that's a threat to existence of a jewish state. and if a state for jews only fails, i can rejoice.
ashkenazim in canada and US wield proportionately more econo-politico-military power than any other people.
and of course, people are scared of ashkenazim.
thus ashkenazim are under continuous threat just as we are threatened by them.
they do not only threaten us. they take away our liberties. it's ahkenazic canadians that control much of media.
in US sit'n is even more critical.
so, u not only terrorise pals, u terrorise all of us.
even finkelstein lost his job because he spoke the truth.
there is no more free speech in canada or US because of the asheknazic people. that's sad.
such a small number of people scaring/infuriating so many good people.
Finkelstein accuses the lobby of using the Holocaust to stifle debate on Israel and to embezzle funds earmarked for Holocaust victims. Much of Finkelstein's research on Israel relies on mainstream human rights organisations, which he says universally condemn Israel for torture, illegal imprisonment and intentionally killing civilians.
Many suspect that his dismissal is part of a national house-cleaning against critics of Israel and the pro-Israel lobby. The alleged campaign has seen numerous academics fired or demoted, and high-profile speeches at US universities cancelled following pressure from pro-Israel groups.
Even mainstream activists like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who was key in bringing down South Africa's apartheid regime, have incurred the wrath of the lobby for criticising Israel.
According to Finkelstein, the furor over the Israel issue has everything to do with the lobby.
"There is nothing unusual about the Israel/Palestine issue, apart from the fact that there is a lobby here that prevents any kind of rational debate," he said.
Bob:
Sephardic is exactly translated into "Hispanic", although there is confusion because of the 'Sephardic right' (religious right) in the Temples, which are generally attended by 'Oriental" Jews (M.E.).
Many Sephardic towns in Europe were removed from the map in WW2. Especially in Yugoslavia, where the 'Utashi' brigades were even feared by Hitler.
You wrote:
" . . .since there is no threat to jews as far as i know . . "
People are strange Bob. When I was young, WW2 was still fresh in people's minds and Jews were "trendy" as friends. The 2nd Vatican of the late 1960's was a major positive step and the Catholics (en-masse) took this opening to warm up to the Jews.
Ralph Nader and Jane Fonda were both supporters of Israel, as was Leftist Presidential Candidate Eugene McCarthy.
Nowadays, we have films by Mel Gibson, which serve to return the Jews to the 4th Lateran Counsel of 1215. The Humongiously powerful oil producers have managed to deflect attention away from themselves, even though some have financially supported the Militant wing of radical Islam for decades, and while no one is watching oil hit $130./bbl, the Jews are being blamed for all the world's problems and for controling the world media.
There is a threat today Bob. It's not dissimilar from the late 1920s and early 1930s when everyone thought Hitler was a clown and a blow-hard.
People who lived through that time will attest, if it looks like a pogrom, walks like a pogrom, talks like a pogrom, well, you know the rest.
"i have said that 80% of the world will never accept an odious ideology like zionism."
And I have said that Israel cares not about mass hypnosis.
Why is it perfectly OK for countries like Saudi Arabia to have their constitution be the Qur'an. Recently, they announced they would permit the building of one Christian Church (but not in Mecca). While I give this decision credit I can't help wondering why Israel, with its hundreds of mosques and churches is considered the 'totalitarian monster' against all other religions? Are there Temples or Mosques in the nation of the Vatican? No one calls the Pope a racist.
"ashkenazim in canada and US wield proportionately more econo-politico-military power than any other people."
The key word here is "proportionately". So what? 2% Jews control 6% of the wealth. They also have advanced degrees. Many people can not accept (though quite true) that the general US population supports Israel on General princible. So they create fantasms, such as the 'all powerful Jewish lobby.'
We also supported So. Korea and Taiwan for GP. When the Muslims were being butchered in Bosnia, the combined Euro nations were too frightened to police their own back yard. So the USA had to kick some ass and did we hear crys of the universal 'Jewish consipracy'? Not from the Muslims. But the Jew-bashers have never had an ounce of shame and I am absolutely certain that some within the Serbian contigent did blame the Jews.
"Even mainstream activists like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who was key in bringing down South Africa's apartheid regime, have incurred the wrath of the lobby for criticizing Israel."
What does Bishop Tutu have anything to do with Israel?
Why is he considered any sort of expert?
Why has he been silent while literally millions of Christian Blacks were butchered (and enslaved) in So. Sudan?
As for the "Israel lobby", there would not be any need for such a thing if Israel was not under perpetual attack. Try being a politician in Texas if the NRA is against you.
Try being a politician in So. Florida if the AARP is against you.
Its an entirely organic event when university professors are disciplined--for teaching the students racist or other propaganda. Also, history is supposed to be factual. When it departs too far from reality, the community (including the academic community) is supposed to take action. Read Phillis Chesler's "The New Anti-Semitism" for a full briefing on the Finkelstein phenomenon.
re:antisemitism.
being antiashkenazic or antizionist is not being anti-judaistic or anti-mizrahim or against ashkenazim who reject judaism/zionism.
thus, the label "antsemitism" i evaluate as a bugbear;ie, an attempt to ban looking at what zionists with help from EU/US do.
it's ab. what one does and not ab what one is.
talking ab what one is and avoiding to talk what one does is an ancient ruse.
but generally speaking, the ruse is employed more often by the strong adversarial side than the weak.
just like the monsoons, downpours, fire, so are wars caused. while we study the causes for fire, we do not, as far as i know, study the cause of warfare.
we can postulate some causes for warfare (waging wars is a panhuman trait):fear, hatred, supremacism, miseducation, greed; lust for power or revenge.
this topics should be on the table; in schools, and elsewhere.
at least one of the postulated causes is involved in all wars except perhaps in the trojan war.
often, of course, all or most of the postulated causes are factors in all wars.
we all are part of one nature. there is no divided planet for two peoples: ashkenazic and non-ashkenazic part.
there is no palestine for ashkenazim only. unless, of course, Israel/US/EU permits it. thank u
The USA is under the same degree of Jewish domination that Weimar Germany was under in 1929.
Sir Arthur Bryant, a respected historian of the 1920s, wrote that although Jews comprised only 1% of the German population, in 1924 in the Reichstag they constituted 25% of the Social Democrats.
Jews controlled 57% of the metal trade, 22% of grain, and 39% of textiles. More than 50% of the Berlin Chamber of Commerce were Jewish, as were a spectacular 1,200 of the 1,474 members of the German Stock Exchange.
Of the 29 legitimate theaters in Berlin, 23 had Jewish directors. Authorship was almost a Jewish monopoly. In 1931, of 144 film scripts worked, 119 were written by Jews and 77 produced by them.
In the USA today, the third richest man($28billion), Adelson, is a rabid Likud Zionist that supports Bush and Olmert.
good golly Steinberg, I can't figure out if you're a Nazi or a leftist. you're confusing me.
brian, does the facts bother you? You goys just need to accept that we have better God given genes, because we are God's chosen people.
OBAMA = BETRAYAL
Obama supporters are foolish to think that he will never betray them.
Obama was a close friend of Pastor Wright for TWENTY YEARS.
Obama threw Wright under the bus for personal ambition.
McCain would not betray his country even after 5 years of torture.
You can put lipstick on a traitor, but he's still a traitor.