Michael Scheuer at antiwar.com, reports on a debate at Georgetown University last week hosted by the Doha Foundation. Scheuer and Avraham Burg argued for the U.S. to finally get tough on Israel, and Alan Dershowitz and Dore Gold arguing agin it. The affirmative won, 2-1.
after Mr. Dershowitz — hands waving in the air — raked me over the
coals for suggesting that such a thing as the malignant influence of
Israel-Firsters even exists in U.S. politics and foreign-policy making,
I argued that the roles of Messrs. Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle and others
in facilitating America’s war of self-immolation in Iraq suggested
there was indeed a strong Israel-First influence in the highest
councils of the U.S. government. Mr. Dershowitz’s response was
classic, predictable, irrelevant, and a successful tactic to divert
debate from the issue at hand. He loudly told the audience something
akin to: "Listen to the ethnic names Scheuer is using! He is a bigot,
a bigot." As the name-caller from Harvard Yard railed on, I said that
the names James Woolsey, Victor Davis Hanson, Andrew McCarthy, and the
two evangelical preachers mentioned above could be added to the list
but I suspect the words were drowned out by my opponent’s contemptible
but effective theatrics.
Mr. Dershowitz and Mr. Gold seem to believe that Americans who disagree with them will always refuse to publicly attack the reality of pro-Israel subversion as long as the Israel-Firsters can pull from the stone the great Excalibur of U.S. politics and strike Americans with a blade emblazoned "bigot" and "anti-Semite." Perhaps the 2-to-1 vote of the Doha Debate’s audience against Mr. Dershowitz and Mr. Gold suggests that times are beginning to change, at long last, in favor of genuine U.S. national interests.
Mr. Dershowitz and Mr. Gold seem to believe that Americans who disagree with them will always refuse to publicly attack the reality of pro-Israel subversion as long as the Israel-Firsters can pull from the stone the great Excalibur of U.S. politics and strike Americans with a blade emblazoned "bigot" and "anti-Semite." Perhaps the 2-to-1 vote of the Doha Debate’s audience against Mr. Dershowitz and Mr. Gold suggests that times are beginning to change, at long last, in favor of genuine U.S. national interests.
One addendum. The Doha Foundation of Qatar presumably has a lot of Arab money, and presumably paid the performers. 3/4 of whom are Jews. What is the lesson about globalized diversity, Mr Dershowitz?
This is a great illustration regarding what I've always felt about the power and media structure in the US. Issues are not decided by who makes the stronger argument but rather who gets to be the referee and dictate which argument is to have been determined to have "won."
As this piece shows, Mr. Dershowitz is a 1st class WATB when he cannot bully the crowd into seeing things his way.
Perhaps the unjustified slur of anti-Semitism will become a synonym for anti-Israeli aggression, and then a badge of honor.
Tommy, from your mouth to God's ear.
Twenty years from now anyone who was never called an anti-Semite for his opposition to Israeli expansionism will feel ashamed of himself.
Its too bad that Schuer's arguments are so thin.
"First, when Mr. Dershowitz stressed that the Israel-Palestine war was not a religious conflict, I asked him why so many Republican and Democratic leaders – and evangelical Israel-Firsters like Reverends Haggee and Graham – claim that it is America’s duty to ensure that God’s promise to Abraham about the land of Israel is kept. Mr. Dershowitz responded "they are wrong,"
…
which can only mean that Israel’s claim on the land they took from the Palestinians, with the West’s help, is based on Israel having more and better guns than Palestinians, as well as unqualified U.S. military support.
…
You mean, NOT that Israelis reside there, have established governance, social services, rule of law, access to courts, free speech.
Whatever had happened to the common decency? People aren't ashamed to openly talk of their "interests" anymore. In better, more honest times it would be considered vulgar and unbecoming.
To betray a friend because it suits you better! What a noble endevour! What a noblest of causes!
"We are America! We're your friend and we will stand by you, with you, no matter the cost!"
Riiight…
"Perhaps the unjustified slur of anti-Semitism will become a synonym for anti-Israeli aggression, and then a badge of honor."
the mask comes out and the nazi grimace comes in full view.
Oh, and "The Doha Foundation of Qatar presumably has a lot of Arab money, and presumably paid the performers. 3/4 of whom are Jews. What is the lesson about globalized diversity?"
It is simple – there are many a lowlife creature like the Mondowohkeiss here, or the abominable Avram Burg (both bringing shame to their names), that are all too willing to serve the Arab Supremacism Beast – be it for money (Burg), or out of repressed fear or a childish desire to belong (Mondowoshkeiss).
Hyperbole Arrgh thinks that anti-Israeli aggression is nazism? Another definition we have to swallow…without proof…without logic…without intelligence?
"Israeli expansionism"
translation from Nazistisch: Israel deporting its own citizens from their homes and freeing up territory in order to create a Judenfrei region for Arab fanatics, where no Jew would contaminate the pure air of Islamic Domination. That kind of expansionism.
Don't forget! The Earth is Hollow and the Jew threatens to conquer its insides too!
Witty,
Scheuer did specify that he was the weakest out of the four. My reading of the sentence you highlighted is the inception of the State and its continued appropriation of West Bank land.
Given the choice between Arrgh's racist vision or "the Arab Supremicism Beast", I'll choose the Arab Supremicism Beast please.
I think the proper response is:
Why do you always try to change the subject with your pathetic name-calling? It's not Anti-Semitism to voice disagreement with policies that one believes are wrong, cruel, stupid and destructive. It's not Anti-Semitism to stand up for people's right to dissent. And it's sheer mendacity to redefine the term "Anti-Semitism" to mean Anti-whatever awful policies you're trying to promote. It's an effort at thought control, and it dishonors the memories of the many victims of real Anti-Semitism, as well as the bedrock American belief in free and open debate.
The debate at Georgetown will be aired on BBC World News this weekend. A few days after that you'll be able to find it online at this link–
Doha Debate, March 25 2009
(It's amazing how the rest of the world has been discussing the influence of the Israel lobby on US foreign policy for years, but Americans are only now beginning to talk about it. Perhaps it has something to do with the structure of our media?)
D.
Perhaps it has to do that in fact the Arab lobby is much more influential and dominates the debate in other parts of the world. While America takes a more moral, nuanced view of things.
But let's review….
1: Jewish groups speak out in favor of Israel amounts to a nefarious lobby and issues of dual loyalty.
2: Arab sponsored groups speaking out in favor of Palestine amounts to multicultural diversity.
The double standard is nothing short of disgusting. But all too predictable.
this arrgh person is very given to straw man absurdities, isn't he? Not even the miserable Dersh would invent hollow earth straw man arguments.
Looks like there was another debate that was won. The Angry Arab "slaughtered", word used by one blogger who attended the debate, the Israeli ambassador.
The audience gave a lot of boos to the Israeli shithead.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/04/my-debate-with-that-guy.html
Blogger's take of the debate: link to themustardseed.wordpress.com
#
You mean, NOT that Israelis reside there, have established governance, social services, rule of law, access to courts, free speech.
Posted by: Richard Witty | April 02, 2009 at 08:54 PM >>>>>>>
News fash for witty..the Arabs established countries, civilizations, governments, rule of Law and etc. long before the jews..without the help of the western world's money and in spite of us colonizing gentile invaders.
When the jews come close to establishing anything like the Otterman empire,or the US or France or England or Germany or even Russia and actually supports itself…let us know. They are going in to their 61st year as a US and German welfare dependent.
Why can't Michael "the Holocaust Museum is part of a clandestine Jewish operation to control American foreign policy" Scheuer be both — accurate in his pronouncements about "Israel-firsters" (esp. those with Jewish-sounding surnames) as well as a bigot? The two aren't mutually exclusive, and seem to find a comfortable home with Scheuer.
Therefore:
Are there genuine questions of dual loyalty that can be raised in regards to key policy-makers? Yes.
Does Michael Scheuer also happen to be a bigot (not anti-Semite, but a bigot)? Yes.
Done and done.
@ American:
Tell me more about this "Arab rule of law" of which you speak. Specifically, in which Arab country can I find it?
#
Done and done.
Posted by: Shirazi | April 03, 2009 at 01:45 AM>>>>>>>
Not quite done. If you ever read his stuff or if you saw his testimony before congress last year you would know that Scheuer is just as blunt and agressive in calling out gentile politcans, Arabs, Russians, Koreans, China and everyone else that he perceives as a threat to the US government. He's a realist on steriods…to Scheuer there's the US..and then there's…the other everyones who aren't the US.
If he's a bigot, he is a bigot in the same sense as the jews are bigots in that his first commandment is.. "Is it good for the US"? …whereas the Jews is.. "Is it good for Israel and the Jews'?
It's none of the tedious Witty's business how the Arabs, or any other Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, choose to run their own countries. It has no bearing at all on the intolerability of Israeli, and broader western, Jewish-inspired genocide.
"To betray a friend because it suits you better! What a noble endevour! "
I see no reason to stand by Israel when it hasn't been a friend to the United States since the Pollard affair and the assault on the USS Liberty.
I also cannot see the point of standing by any country that is doing its level best to drag the United States into a ruinous and totally unnecessary war with Iran for its own security. Certainly a war with Iran won't help the United States. Once Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz and oil hits $250 a barrel, there will be a worldwide depression that will last a generation and turn the United States into a second-rate power. We should shun Israel for what she's trying to do to us.
turn the United States into a second-rate power
ha, I like that. What do you think you are now? You're a fifth-rate power, you just don't see it yet.
You know, I sort of guessed this from the beginning but i think Shirazi is probably Suzanne. Probably most of these trolls are only around a handful at most.
And if anti-Israel means anything, it means the State of Israel. States are political entities.
So Zionism.
And being an anti-Zionist is a moral imperative.
And it's sheer mendacity to redefine the term "Anti-Semitism" to mean Anti-whatever awful policies you're trying to promote.
Great line.
When Jews evoke anti-Semitism, in the face of rational thought that would apply to any religion or race, it’s an insult, and we ought to be morally and intellectually outraged because it’s a subtle and manipulative mind and speech control tactic designed to usurp our first amendment right. When successful repeatedly, reasoning diminishes and Constitution rights and principles are chipped away systematically under the threat of bullying until a critical mass is reached; then, we are done; overnight a foreign cultural formation emerges; the rule of law is replaced by Talmudic law. So the major problem with the Jewish control weapon–anti Semitism, is that we have accepted it. After 9/11 people became semi-conscious for the first time since the 1960 as if we have been sleepers. Now with our eyes wide open, we are saying enough of this madness, no one has the right to engage in mental, financial, and political abuse simply to advance religious agenda.
What is disturbing to me is: How can Jews pride themselves on being on the front line of civil rights pretending to be concerned about equal justice when in fact, Blacks were used to advance an agenda, and turn right around and slaughter the very 1947 human right act that was put forth for them solely after WW ll. What about the 2000 men that died at Peal Harbor that Roosevelt could have prevent but didn’t simply to get America into the War for a Jewish cause. And what about the financial crash that could have been averted, a Jewish creation and the new deal welfare remedy for Jews. How many American suffered? In Deadly Enemy, Deadly Friend, Sniegoski critique Ginsberg’s Fatal Embrace: Jews & the State and the mystery is solved:
In the 1960s, the Jews played key roles in the civil rights revolution and the concomitant Great Society programs. For Jews, Ginsberg points out, support for black civil rights was not only a "moral commitment" but also an "important political tactic" to weaken the white South and the ethnic machine politicians in the North, and, as a consequence, increase their own relative power within the Democratic coalition. Moreover, the advancement of the concept of "equality of opportunity" bolstered Jewish power throughout society. (pp. 125-26) Jews opposed the Vietnam War because it inhibited the expansion of those liberal Great Society programs in which their power resided.
By the end of the Great Society reforms, Jews, in Ginsberg's view, had become the major force in American politics and government: "From the 1970s onward, Jews led or were influential in most, though not all, of the political reform, feminist, consumer rights, gay rights, environmentalist and other public interest groups and related foundations, study groups, and think tanks that came to dominate the Democratic party during the 1970s and continue to be the leading forces within that party today." (p. 137) And Jews wield considerable power in the institutions of the American welfare state, holding as they do prominent positions in the "public or quasi-public economy of government agencies, helping professions, private foundations, think tanks, and universities." (p. 140) Since Jewish power and wealth is either directly or indirectly tied to the national government, rather than to state and local governments or to the strictly private sector, Jews have a vested interest in its maintenance and expansion. In short, Ginsberg contends, Jews support the liberal welfare state for reasons of material self-interest:
There is no justification period for putting up a wall to humiliate and denigrate a people whether you like them or not. What spiritual force sanction the demolision of Gaza. such unnecessary violence is supposedly protected because the bible G-d made a promise 2000 years ago? Honest history does not support this claim, and it makes G-d out to be a racist bully and who can love such a entity?
Witty: "You mean, NOT that Israelis reside there, have established governance, social services, rule of law, access to courts, free speech.You mean, NOT that Israelis reside there, have established governance, social services, rule of law, access to courts, free speech."
All conquering armies establish governance when they take over someone else's lands. That still doesn't mean they have any right to be there. As for Israeli's establishing free speech in the West Bank that won't even happen under Netanyahu's proposals to establish a limited sovereignty Palestinian state. Israel will still control the Palestinian's "electromagnetic spectrum."
Not that Israel proper is any better when it comes to free speech. Try handing out a Christian pamphlet on the streets of Jerusalem. See how far that gets you.