The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The 'Israeli lobby' mirage > Comments

The 'Israeli lobby' mirage : Comments

By Colin Rubenstein, published 21/4/2006

If the "Israeli lobby" is so powerful, why does Lowenstein get published so frequently?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 20
  10. 21
  11. 22
  12. All
bushbred,

I agree completely with you that Iran's nuclear weapons (if they get them) would be pointed directly at Israel.

However, I take a radical view and think this will be a good thing.

Most experts think Israel is probably a one bomb country. This means one bomb and Israel would be no more. It seems too good to be true. The fact is the world would be a more stable and peaceful place without the Israeli nightmare. But it's not going to happen. The mullahs in Tehran (as with Saadam) may be unpleasant but they haven't embraced suicide on a national scale. They know any attack on Israel would bring an overwhelming US response (not that there's any such thing as a pro-Israel lobby in the US).

With the real threat of MAD (as opposed the hysterical bleatings at present) Israel would be forced to be more reasonable with its neighbours. Importantly, after sixty years, they would actually have a reason to make peace.

Of course, the situation would be much better (and safer) without the brinkmanship, but with a just and negotiated peace. However, when we can't even get past the point of acknowledging the existence of a Jewish lobby, well, chances seem slim.
Posted by eet, Sunday, 23 April 2006 6:03:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not being a person with a full awareness of every little bit of history of the Middle East, I see that people obviously blame Israel (or existence of) for causing much of the trouble. If true then it is amazing that Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty in which the Sinai was return to Egypt? That to me indicates that at least Israel has agreed to peacefulness in some part of the Middle East. Also indicates to me that it may be possible for others to do the same. And so if they agree to remove the need to destroy Israel from their philosophy this might help? Also why have most Arab nations not pushed this further. Why did Arafat knock back that deal during Clinton’s time?.
And what about Jordan in all this? Before Israel I believe that the early PLO was brutally kicked out of Jordan? Isn’t Jordan part of the the whole UN deal on Palestine? Why is Jordan’s history in all this been ignored? Why did not the Arab nations help Palestinians at that time. No Jews or Christians around, is that it? I do not know. Sigh! I simply just wonder why people can’t just live and let live
Posted by The Big Fish, Sunday, 23 April 2006 8:18:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Strewth:

Your insight into the professional nature of criminal defence lawyers is not news, they are slippery and get guilty people off the hook. It would be far more convincing if you were to explain how this makes the paper he wrote incorrect? You know, substance as opposed to character assassination. Chomsky made disparaging remarks about the veracity of the M&W paper as well. I trust you will get to supplying us with the appropriate lurid paragraphs to put him in his place as well.

Also, you glaringly avoid mentioning the virtues of the M&W article. Do you actually believe it is valid and factually correct? A well reasoned, unbiased and important contribution by two respected academics? Anthony Lowenstein fell for it. Perhaps you are more discerning.

Then again, considering how little the authors deviate from the usual talking points, it is hard to see how you could distance yourself from their position without undercutting your own.

eet:

Your comment about the Jewsih Lobby indicates that you have entirely missed the point. As for MAD:

Hashemi Rafsanjani (the moderate one) has threatened Israel with nuclear destruction, boasting that an Iranian attack would kill as many as five million Jews. He estimated that even if Israel retaliated, Iran would probably lose only fifteen million people, which he said would be a small sacrifice from among the billion Muslims in the world.

“Confronting the New Anti-Semitism,” Washington Times, July 25, 2004.

Sucks to be a Palestinian sometimes.
Posted by Mr.P.Pig, Sunday, 23 April 2006 8:33:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Colin Rubinstein fails to deal with the core premise of the article which clearly argues why America’s interests are not served by its egregiously biased support of Israel. It is therefore logical to assume, and as Mearsheimer and Walt clearly show, that there are other forces at work in US policymaking.

Even Ariel Sharon has been quoted saying the US is in the ‘hands’ of Israel. What else could explain the US support for Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine and its continued colonization of the Occupied Territories given the level of human rights abuses which take place daily and the war crimes committed by the Israeli Defence Forces.

Polls may show that most citizens do not see Israel as a strategic liability but this is because most citizens in most places are generally ignorant as to the truth of Israel’s foundation and the State sanctioned terrorism it has used over the past five decades to control the Palestinian people and take yet more of their land. The reason for this is the power of 'lobby groups' who are quick to accuse anyone who criticises Israel, no matter how justifiable, of anti-semitism.

Australians may see Israel as a sister democracy but this is because they are ignorant of the truth. In reality Israel is a racist State with preferential treatment for Jews. And, it can hardly have common values while it maintains one of the worlds most vicious occupations and works to deny any hope of freedom to the people it occupies.

The Australian Jewish community does want peace but, like most Israelis and many Jews elsewhere, on its own terms where Israel gets all that it wants and the Palestinians almost nothing they want, or for that matter deserve as human beings.

Israeli peace is predicated on Israel keeping as much of the Occupied Territories as it chooses, locking the Palestinians into Bantustan ‘concentration camps,’ making Palestinian Statehood impossible, keeping all of Jerusalem and removing Arab Israelis from the city as soon as practicably possible and denying non-Jewish Israelis the same rights as Jewish Israelis.
Posted by rhross, Monday, 24 April 2006 2:12:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr P.Pig, thanks for links to "London Review of Books".
I wish I could say I agree with you concerning Dershowitz.
Having read both the Mearsheimer/Walt article and the responses in the "letters to the editor" column, and then the separate Dershowitz response provided, I can't accept that Dershowitz is able to fundamentally demonstrate that Mearsheimer/Waltz are, in substance, incorrect.
Sorry.
The editors themselves felt moved to comment that some people had misread Mearsheimer/Walts as "anti-semitic" either gladly or fearfully; these having:
"... something in common, they appear to come from people who have not read the article, and seem incapable of distinguishing between criticism of Israeli or US foreign policy and anti-semitism".
They suggest that Mearsheimer/Walts will return to answer queries and points raised in the next edition, so patience must now be exerted to see if the process then yields further clarification.
Posted by funguy, Monday, 24 April 2006 3:46:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr P. Pig.
You refer to 'threats' made against Israel by the Iranian President as if this were justification for Israeli and American aggression toward iran. Apart from the fact that Iran does not have a nuclear capability, and there are numerous leaders, George Bush included, who 'threaten' other nations without it being taken as a real threat, why should this posturing .... the general view of many people with a deeper understanding of Iran is that it is posturing, and more for public consumption than anything else ... be a reason to 'nuke' Iran as George Bush posits?

The United States defends Taiwan against Chinese 'aggression' and yet makes little comment about Chinese threats to bomb Taiwan.

Why is there one rule for the Iranians and one for the Chinese? Could it be because of the power of the Israeli lobby in the United States? Just possible don't you think?
Posted by rhross, Monday, 24 April 2006 7:55:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 20
  10. 21
  11. 22
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy