Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > In The News > World News
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #46  
Old Jan 10, '13, 7:08 am
OneSheep OneSheep is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Posts: 1,160
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Critics slam Chuck Hagel's likely nomination as Defense secretary

Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaA View Post
actually I'd look to the NEA and Teamsters unions for influence in far greater measure than the "Jewish Lobby." That term is quite amusing...dying to find all of these Jews pulling strings...oh yeah Soros, devout Jew that he is. PUH LEASE....this is starting to sound like the early days of Nazism....it's the JOOOOOOOZZZZZZZ.

Hope we can come up with a more accurate group to demonize.

Lisa
Hi Lisa

It sounds like we share an aversion to antisemitism. I don't really recall anyone in the conversation, though, who communicated antisemitism.

Is there any group to accurately demonize? If so, please supply the name of such a group, and we can investigate.

I'm hearing a little anger from your corner. It's okay, and understandable...
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old Jan 10, '13, 7:53 am
LisaA LisaA is offline
Senior Member
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 6,488
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Critics slam Chuck Hagel's likely nomination as Defense secretary

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSheep View Post
Hi Lisa

It sounds like we share an aversion to antisemitism. I don't really recall anyone in the conversation, though, who communicated antisemitism.

Is there any group to accurately demonize? If so, please supply the name of such a group, and we can investigate.

I'm hearing a little anger from your corner. It's okay, and understandable...
Actually the anti-Semitism was the charge against Hagel himself although there are a few posters who reliably slam Israel, are pro-Palestinian, who accuse the "Jewish lobby" of having undue influence and thus could be characterized as anti-Semitic. I can't judge anyone's heart of course but when the words regarding Israel and Jews are negative, that is evidence of their outward attitude toward the Jews and Israel. If they want to provide a different impression, perhaps they could temper their language?

When references are made to the "Jewish lobby" despite little or no evidence such a group exists (note the comment regarding the assn of realtors and my comment about the NEA being far more numerous if not influential) then it gives the impression that there is something about being Jewish that is suspect.

Historically Jews have been targeted as scapegoats for hatred and persecution. Thus when a modern day politician makes the same charges without providing specific evidence, it leads me to believe that this is just a new chapter in a very old book.

As to anger, no, I was being facetious...as I said, the Jews make convenient scapegoats for a number of groups.

Back to the thread, I hear Hagel's appointment is in jeopardy. Hopefully there will be reasoned discussion about his qualifications vis a vis other potentially better candidates.

Lisa
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old Jan 10, '13, 10:53 am
OneSheep OneSheep is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Posts: 1,160
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Critics slam Chuck Hagel's likely nomination as Defense secretary

Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaA View Post
Actually the anti-Semitism was the charge against Hagel himself although there are a few posters who reliably slam Israel, are pro-Palestinian, who accuse the "Jewish lobby" of having undue influence and thus could be characterized as anti-Semitic. I can't judge anyone's heart of course but when the words regarding Israel and Jews are negative, that is evidence of their outward attitude toward the Jews and Israel. If they want to provide a different impression, perhaps they could temper their language?

When references are made to the "Jewish lobby" despite little or no evidence such a group exists (note the comment regarding the assn of realtors and my comment about the NEA being far more numerous if not influential) then it gives the impression that there is something about being Jewish that is suspect.

Lisa
Well, the "Jewish Lobby" is a misnomer, and so is "Israeli lobby" because as was said in this thread, a lot of media in Israel would be considered anti-semitic according to the Wall Street Journal. The JDL and plenty of others view any criticism as simply antisemitic. This is also a misnomer. A person can criticize without being prejudiced.

As far as the West Bank Real Estate Lobbies go (please feel free to provide a better term), they are, according to the congressman I talk to, the most powerful lobby concerning our foreign policy. One could argue that the military equipment industry is also a huge influence, but such an influence is not necessarily conflict-specific.

In 1998, Fortune magazine rated AIPAC the second most influential lobby, with AARP being first. AIPAC is only one of the many lobbies pushing for expansion of Israel's territory, and there are many individuals and groups that are not lobbyists per se who send a lot of money to campaigns. I've read that AIPAC wanted a lower profile, so after 2000 they split up into regional offices so they are more below the radar. I did a quick google search to confirm this, but I need to look further.

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs had this to say:

http://www.wrmea.org/wrmea-archives/...shington-.html

Excerpt:

However, AIPAC is so well-known inside the Beltway that when anyone refers to "The Lobby," no one asks, "Which one?" In fact this highly professional organization is backed up by a group called "The Council of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations," which serves as the coordinating committee for efforts on behalf of Israel by 52 national U.S. Jewish organizations, several of them with budgets larger than AIPAC's.

Anyway, perhaps your local congressman has a different story. I don't agree with Chosenpeople's assessment that Hagel's appointment would prove the lobby's weakness. After all, the WBRE lobby has successfully pushed for legislation that severely limits policy and diplomacy with Iran. Hagel is not necessarily going to be dovish. Even powerful lobbies don't win every time.

Please feel free to make suggestions as to how I can temper my language. All the players involved, lobbyists too, are good people who have their hearts set on what they see as justice and/or security. The fact that they are powerful does not change this assessment.

But yes, I do agree that the lobby has undue influence.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old Jan 10, '13, 11:17 am
LisaA LisaA is offline
Senior Member
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 6,488
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Critics slam Chuck Hagel's likely nomination as Defense secretary

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSheep View Post
Well, the "Jewish Lobby" is a misnomer, and so is "Israeli lobby" because as was said in this thread, a lot of media in Israel would be considered anti-semitic according to the Wall Street Journal. The JDL and plenty of others view any criticism as simply antisemitic. This is also a misnomer. A person can criticize without being prejudiced.

As far as the West Bank Real Estate Lobbies go (please feel free to provide a better term), they are, according to the congressman I talk to, the most powerful lobby concerning our foreign policy. One could argue that the military equipment industry is also a huge influence, but such an influence is not necessarily conflict-specific.

In 1998, Fortune magazine rated AIPAC the second most influential lobby, with AARP being first. AIPAC is only one of the many lobbies pushing for expansion of Israel's territory, and there are many individuals and groups that are not lobbyists per se who send a lot of money to campaigns. I've read that AIPAC wanted a lower profile, so after 2000 they split up into regional offices so they are more below the radar. I did a quick google search to confirm this, but I need to look further.

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs had this to say:

http://www.wrmea.org/wrmea-archives/...shington-.html

Excerpt:

However, AIPAC is so well-known inside the Beltway that when anyone refers to "The Lobby," no one asks, "Which one?" In fact this highly professional organization is backed up by a group called "The Council of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations," which serves as the coordinating committee for efforts on behalf of Israel by 52 national U.S. Jewish organizations, several of them with budgets larger than AIPAC's.

Anyway, perhaps your local congressman has a different story. I don't agree with Chosenpeople's assessment that Hagel's appointment would prove the lobby's weakness. After all, the WBRE lobby has successfully pushed for legislation that severely limits policy and diplomacy with Iran. Hagel is not necessarily going to be dovish. Even powerful lobbies don't win every time.

Please feel free to make suggestions as to how I can temper my language. All the players involved, lobbyists too, are good people who have their hearts set on what they see as justice and/or security. The fact that they are powerful does not change this assessment.

But yes, I do agree that the lobby has undue influence.
Appreciate the extent you've gone to make a point but a fourteen year old article is hardly a cutting edge source.

As to special treatment for Israel, as realtors say there are three important factors, location, location, location. Whle we have other strong and long term allies, they are not squeezed into a box of hostile neighbors as is Israel. So if the UK or the EU or Japan engages in lobbying for military support, I am far less concerned about their situation than of Israel which has suffered repeated attacks.

As to influence over the Administration, there are many articles pointing to the increased influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR and other anti-Israel groups.

I just see all of these attacks on the "Jewish Lobby" as being a bit overblown. What weapon system, what military installation, what unit has been deployed on behalf of Israel? Yes we do give them military aid but we also give aid to Egypt, Turkey and other non Jewish countries.

The minute Hagel's name was floated there were two labels that jumped out...anti-gay and anti-Semitic. Whether either or both are true remains to be seen in the process of considering this nomination. I'm just sorry we don't have a nominee who is closer to the miltary than Hagel who fought in Vietnam. A lot has changed since then and I'd much rather see a General Petraeus or General McKrystle in the spot. Too bad they were destroyed by IMO unimportant and triviial issues.

Lisa
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old Jan 11, '13, 11:16 am
OneSheep OneSheep is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Posts: 1,160
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Critics slam Chuck Hagel's likely nomination as Defense secretary

Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaA View Post
Appreciate the extent you've gone to make a point but a fourteen year old article is hardly a cutting edge source.
Agreed. The greatest evidence I have personally is from conversations with our local congressman. Not easy to find on the web, but there are plenty of other stories on the web to this effect. I can't seem to locate dollar amounts donated from Palestinian sources. There is plenty out there about AIPAC-type sources.

Quote:
As to special treatment for Israel, as realtors say there are three important factors, location, location, location. Whle we have other strong and long term allies, they are not squeezed into a box of hostile neighbors as is Israel. So if the UK or the EU or Japan engages in lobbying for military support, I am far less concerned about their situation than of Israel which has suffered repeated attacks.
Problem is that Israel continues to provoke attacks by confiscating lands and treating the Palestinians as foreigners in their own land. I would be against supporting Japan if they were doing the same. I would be in favor of military aid to Israel if Israel dismantled all the settlements deemed illegal by the U.N., stopped confiscating land and resources, and allowed the Palestinians to have their own state.

Quote:
As to influence over the Administration, there are many articles pointing to the increased influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR and other anti-Israel groups.
Perhaps, but this has not made any difference in terms of winning campaigns and influence. Our congress voted to limit any diplomatic efforts with Iran. This is not a matter of U.S. security. We have everything to gain by seeking diplomacy. War should always be a last resort, and congress has violated Just War Theory by passing the legislation. I would hate to be a soldier watching his comrades die, knowing that diplomacy was an option that congress inhibited.

Again, this is not the "Jewish Lobby" or even the "Israeli Lobby". This is a lobby that specifically wants to protect what it sees as its right to confiscate Palestinian land. Plenty of Christians think the same way, and donate to AIPAC and other similar PACs. Confiscation of Palestinian land does not add to Israeli security. It only triggers scorn from Palestine and the rest of the world. Many Israelis and Jews oppose land confiscation and settlements.

Quote:
I just see all of these attacks on the "Jewish Lobby" as being a bit overblown. What weapon system, what military installation, what unit has been deployed on behalf of Israel? Yes we do give them military aid but we also give aid to Egypt, Turkey and other non Jewish countries.
Aid to Egypt has all the appearances of buying off the Egyptian military to protect Israel. Why else does it make any sense whatsoever? I don't know why we give military aid to Turkey. Is it coincidental that we are talking about another non-aggressive neighbor of Israel?

George Jr. began talking about an attack on Iraq in his first cabinet meeting, before 9/11 and all of that, but well into the second intifada, which began in late 2000 during campaign season. IMO our attack on Iraq was a response to the second intifada, in response to Saddam Hussein's support of the families of suicide bombers and other possible support. The WMD thing was never true intelligence. Israel understandably wanted Saddam out. And why did we put so much effort into bombing Palestinian neighborhoods in Baghdad?

The first attack on Iraq not-so-mysteriously coincided with the first intifada. Look it up: we enticed, even provoked, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Saddam fell for the bait.

Did we really establish a no-fly-zone over Iraq to stop Saddam from attacking the Kurds and/or Saudis (where we already have military bases)? Hmmm.

Please feel free to submit evidence to the contrary. I just can't make it all add up any other way. All the players are to be forgiven and understood, but we just need to make an effort to do so and to figure out solutions that acknowledge peace and justice for everyone: Israelis, Palestinians, Iranians, Americans included. It takes diplomacy. I hope our new Secretary of State has the same view.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old Jan 11, '13, 11:27 am
LisaA LisaA is offline
Senior Member
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 6,488
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Critics slam Chuck Hagel's likely nomination as Defense secretary

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSheep View Post
Agreed. The greatest evidence I have personally is from conversations with our local congressman. Not easy to find on the web, but there are plenty of other stories on the web to this effect. I can't seem to locate dollar amounts donated from Palestinian sources. There is plenty out there about AIPAC-type sources.



Problem is that Israel continues to provoke attacks by confiscating lands and treating the Palestinians as foreigners in their own land. I would be against supporting Japan if they were doing the same. I would be in favor of military aid to Israel if Israel dismantled all the settlements deemed illegal by the U.N., stopped confiscating land and resources, and allowed the Palestinians to have their own state.



Perhaps, but this has not made any difference in terms of winning campaigns and influence. Our congress voted to limit any diplomatic efforts with Iran. This is not a matter of U.S. security. We have everything to gain by seeking diplomacy. War should always be a last resort, and congress has violated Just War Theory by passing the legislation. I would hate to be a soldier watching his comrades die, knowing that diplomacy was an option that congress inhibited.

Again, this is not the "Jewish Lobby" or even the "Israeli Lobby". This is a lobby that specifically wants to protect what it sees as its right to confiscate Palestinian land. Plenty of Christians think the same way, and donate to AIPAC and other similar PACs. Confiscation of Palestinian land does not add to Israeli security. It only triggers scorn from Palestine and the rest of the world. Many Israelis and Jews oppose land confiscation and settlements.



Aid to Egypt has all the appearances of buying off the Egyptian military to protect Israel. Why else does it make any sense whatsoever? I don't know why we give military aid to Turkey. Is it coincidental that we are talking about another non-aggressive neighbor of Israel?

George Jr. began talking about an attack on Iraq in his first cabinet meeting, before 9/11 and all of that, but well into the second intifada, which began in late 2000 during campaign season. IMO our attack on Iraq was a response to the second intifada, in response to Saddam Hussein's support of the families of suicide bombers and other possible support. The WMD thing was never true intelligence. Israel understandably wanted Saddam out. And why did we put so much effort into bombing Palestinian neighborhoods in Baghdad?

The first attack on Iraq not-so-mysteriously coincided with the first intifada. Look it up: we enticed, even provoked, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Saddam fell for the bait.

Did we really establish a no-fly-zone over Iraq to stop Saddam from attacking the Kurds and/or Saudis (where we already have military bases)? Hmmm.

Please feel free to submit evidence to the contrary. I just can't make it all add up any other way. All the players are to be forgiven and understood, but we just need to make an effort to do so and to figure out solutions that acknowledge peace and justice for everyone: Israelis, Palestinians, Iranians, Americans included. It takes diplomacy. I hope our new Secretary of State has the same view.
Wow you have some interesting ideas.

Palestinian lands being confiscated by Israelis? Really? Please get a little history. The Israelis actually dragged their own people out of lands they granted back to the Palestinians. The Palestinians responded by sending in rockets.

Tell me about these "confiscated lands?" Is this a recent phenomenon? It seems to be greatly under reported.

Conspiracy theories about the Iraq War abound. FWIW CLINTON talked about regime change in Iraq. I don't recall that President Bush started saber rattling before 9/11. In fact he was overwhelmed dealing with the implosion of the economy that Clintion bequeathed to him. President Bush campaigned and came into office as a domestic issues president, most notably with respect to education and literacy. He was thrust into becoming an international affairs president by 9/11. This was not his choice. But PLEASE CAN WE QUIT REFIGHTING THE IRAQ WAR? Good grief! It's like those who still complain about the Church because of the Crusades....

As to Palestine and Israel, this says it all IMO: If Palestinians lay down their arms there will be no more war. If the Israeli's lay down their arms there will be no more Israel.

Lisa
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old Jan 11, '13, 11:30 am
SamH SamH is offline
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Posts: 16,829
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Critics slam Chuck Hagel's likely nomination as Defense secretary

Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaA View Post
As to Palestine and Israel, this says it all IMO: If Palestinians lay down their arms there will be no more war. If the Israeli's lay down their arms there will be no more Israel.

Lisa
Excellent observation.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old Jan 11, '13, 3:30 pm
OneSheep OneSheep is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Posts: 1,160
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Critics slam Chuck Hagel's likely nomination as Defense secretary

Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaA View Post

Palestinian lands being confiscated by Israelis? Really? Please get a little history. The Israelis actually dragged their own people out of lands they granted back to the Palestinians. The Palestinians responded by sending in rockets.

Tell me about these "confiscated lands?" Is this a recent phenomenon? It seems to be greatly under reported.
Well, we all seem to know about the Israelis pulling out of Gaza, but we never heard about how the land (at least some of it) had been confiscated from the people living there.

Since 1967, this site says there have been over 750,000 acres confiscated by Israel:

http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=40

Much land was confiscated when building the wall, but there is the big confiscation from 1976, which is much of the impetus for "land day":

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/wo...alem.html?_r=0

But I hear about confiscations of land and homes every year. Here is a report from 2007:

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/10/10/headlines#10107

excerpt:

In Israel and the Occupied Territories, the Israeli military has ordered the seizure of vast new swaths of Palestinian land in the West Bank. The land surrounds four Palestinian villages outside East Jerusalem. The move appears aimed at expanding the Israeli settlement of Maleh Adumin ó already Israelís largest in the West Bank

And 2009 in Ramallah and Bi'lin:

http://www.imemc.org/article/61579
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...346155494.html

You could also spend some time on this site to learn more. No, you cannot find this in our mainstream media:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

You can check the "overview statistics" tab on that site.

It is my understanding that most of the lands are confiscated for "security purposes", but this is followed by construction of settlements.

Here is a more visual perspective:

http://www.theglobaleducationproject...-2003-map.html

Looks a bit different from what we always thought of as the "West Bank" does it not?
Have no doubt, though, that all of the confiscations have been justified by the Israeli side, and their point of view is understandable and I forgive them.

Quote:
Conspiracy theories about the Iraq War abound. FWIW CLINTON talked about regime change in Iraq. I don't recall that President Bush started saber rattling before 9/11. In fact he was overwhelmed dealing with the implosion of the economy that Clintion bequeathed to him. President Bush campaigned and came into office as a domestic issues president, most notably with respect to education and literacy. He was thrust into becoming an international affairs president by 9/11. This was not his choice. But PLEASE CAN WE QUIT REFIGHTING THE IRAQ WAR? Good grief! It's like those who still complain about the Church because of the Crusades....
I am pretty much convinced that Gore would have behaved the same way as Bush in his first cabinet meeting. BTW: it was a "60 minutes" report. I think that if Clinton could have remained in office, he would have had the same cabinet agenda.

We don't have to "refight" the Iraq war, but understanding why it happened is extremely important. As Rush Limbaugh says, "If you want to know why something happens in Washington, follow the money" (I'm sure he is not the first who said this). I am showing you the view that seems to make the most sense to me. It is important to know what is going on so that we can address the real issues. I am quite open to information that would throw more light on the subject.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old Jan 11, '13, 10:12 pm
LisaA LisaA is offline
Senior Member
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 6,488
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Critics slam Chuck Hagel's likely nomination as Defense secretary

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSheep View Post
Well, we all seem to know about the Israelis pulling out of Gaza, but we never heard about how the land (at least some of it) had been confiscated from the people living there.

Since 1967, this site says there have been over 750,000 acres confiscated by Israel:

http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=40

Much land was confiscated when building the wall, but there is the big confiscation from 1976, which is much of the impetus for "land day":

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/wo...alem.html?_r=0

But I hear about confiscations of land and homes every year. Here is a report from 2007:

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/10/10/headlines#10107

excerpt:

In Israel and the Occupied Territories, the Israeli military has ordered the seizure of vast new swaths of Palestinian land in the West Bank. The land surrounds four Palestinian villages outside East Jerusalem. The move appears aimed at expanding the Israeli settlement of Maleh Adumin ó already Israelís largest in the West Bank

And 2009 in Ramallah and Bi'lin:

http://www.imemc.org/article/61579
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...346155494.html

You could also spend some time on this site to learn more. No, you cannot find this in our mainstream media:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

You can check the "overview statistics" tab on that site.

It is my understanding that most of the lands are confiscated for "security purposes", but this is followed by construction of settlements.

Here is a more visual perspective:

http://www.theglobaleducationproject...-2003-map.html

Looks a bit different from what we always thought of as the "West Bank" does it not?
Have no doubt, though, that all of the confiscations have been justified by the Israeli side, and their point of view is understandable and I forgive them.



I am pretty much convinced that Gore would have behaved the same way as Bush in his first cabinet meeting. BTW: it was a "60 minutes" report. I think that if Clinton could have remained in office, he would have had the same cabinet agenda.

We don't have to "refight" the Iraq war, but understanding why it happened is extremely important. As Rush Limbaugh says, "If you want to know why something happens in Washington, follow the money" (I'm sure he is not the first who said this). I am showing you the view that seems to make the most sense to me. It is important to know what is going on so that we can address the real issues. I am quite open to information that would throw more light on the subject.
Again your contention about land grabs dates back to the 1967 war. That was a while ago. The claims the land is being confiscated are according to "international law" and we all know how credible those words are when applied to either the US or Israel. As to my source, I will again listen to the talk "Why They Fight" about the history of this conflict. From my recollection a) most of the land was PURCHASED not taken (long ago) and b) there are MORE not fewer Palestinians on that land now than before the existence of Israel. I'll get back to you with more citations.

I think the most significant thing to me was actually BEING in Israel a couple of months ago. Our guide was a Palestinian Christian thus very sypmathetic to the Palestinian cause. So I heard quite a bit from his side of things but quite honestly I SAW a lot as well. The Israelis have made the desert bloom with acres and acres of well tended fruit and nut trees. Their cities and small settlements are neat, clean and prosperous. The Palestinian areas, rural and urban are filthy, non productive and depressing. Trash is everywhere. Men sit on the street drinking tea and jawboning. Land in the Palestinian areas that could be cultivated is little more than a garbage dump waiting to happen. In fact one settlement that was cleared of Israelis to make way for the Palestinians had a huge system of greenhouses left behind. And what did our enlightened settlers do? They destroyed the greenhouses because they were from the evil Jews. So tales of all of the great Palestinian efforts to care for "their" land are not very credible to me.
There is far more to overcome than a land grab on either side. The reality is that the culture of the Palestinians, the Islamist agenda, their hatred for the Jews, and their inability to exist peacefully with Israel and its people mean this will never end until Israel does.

As to the Iraq War, like Vietnam we learned with hindsight that a war based on bad information is a bad thing. I see a lot more caution with respect to our involvement overseas as a result. As to Hagel (maybe let's get back to the thread?) he has apparently claimed we went to war "for oil" which would be hilarious if it were not so depressing. If we wanted to take over a country to get their oil, it would have been a lot cheaper to invade Mexico! That sort of argument just makes me wonder who was fitted with a tin foil hat. There is just no evidence of "blood for oil" but that Hagel said this, that he demonizes the "Jewish lobby" that he was against sanctions directed toward Iran all make me wonder whose side he's on. I hope the nomination is scuttled. Surely we have someone who's on our side for SecDef

Lisa
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old Jan 12, '13, 10:41 am
OneSheep OneSheep is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Posts: 1,160
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Critics slam Chuck Hagel's likely nomination as Defense secretary

Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaA View Post
Again your contention about land grabs dates back to the 1967 war. That was a while ago. The claims the land is being confiscated are according to "international law" and we all know how credible those words are when applied to either the US or Israel. As to my source, I will again listen to the talk "Why They Fight" about the history of this conflict. From my recollection a) most of the land was PURCHASED not taken (long ago) and b) there are MORE not fewer Palestinians on that land now than before the existence of Israel. I'll get back to you with more citations.
It is true that some land was purchased. I don't know the mix. But the confiscations are real, and they are ongoing. It is wrong to gloss over this, because it is a really big deal to the Palestinians, as it would be for me if I were in the same situation. Did you see the map? I used to be a farmer, and it would be very angering to have someone confiscate my life's work or my water. Please check the links.

Quote:
I think the most significant thing to me was actually BEING in Israel a couple of months ago. Our guide was a Palestinian Christian thus very sypmathetic to the Palestinian cause. So I heard quite a bit from his side of things but quite honestly I SAW a lot as well. The Israelis have made the desert bloom with acres and acres of well tended fruit and nut trees. Their cities and small settlements are neat, clean and prosperous. The Palestinian areas, rural and urban are filthy, non productive and depressing. Trash is everywhere. Men sit on the street drinking tea and jawboning. Land in the Palestinian areas that could be cultivated is little more than a garbage dump waiting to happen.
It is my understanding that the vast majority of water resources were purchased and/or confiscated by the Israelis some time ago. Palestinians have enough to live on, but not much to do anything else. Progress costs money, and if you start with poor people, it is very difficult. Keep in mind, much of the wealth in Palestinian hands left in '48 and '67. It is difficult to invest in your countryman's agricultural pursuits when Israel may come around and confiscate what you have developed for "military purposes". Israelis have a great deal of credit available, and they have infrastructure and a stable government. Palestinians would like to have this, but are not allowed.

The Palestinian Christian guide knows who is buttering his bread and will not give the whole story. Christians have a very fine line to walk, but are just as limited as Arabs in terms of their rights.

Check the short video on the page here:

http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/

Quote:
In fact one settlement that was cleared of Israelis to make way for the Palestinians had a huge system of greenhouses left behind. And what did our enlightened settlers do? They destroyed the greenhouses because they were from the evil Jews. So tales of all of the great Palestinian efforts to care for "their" land are not very credible to me.
There is far more to overcome than a land grab on either side. The reality is that the culture of the Palestinians, the Islamist agenda, their hatred for the Jews, and their inability to exist peacefully with Israel and its people mean this will never end until Israel does.
Well, we have a question, "Why did the Palestinians destroy the greenhouses?". It would be extremely uncharacteristic of the Israelis to leave behind the water resources necessary to operate these greenhouses, but I am not ruling out the possibility that they did. There is plenty of hatred on both sides. And as far as destroying structures, check the links I sent you. Much more destruction is done by the Israelis.

(to be continued)
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old Jan 12, '13, 10:54 am
OneSheep OneSheep is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Posts: 1,160
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Critics slam Chuck Hagel's likely nomination as Defense secretary

Hi again Lisa! here is a continuation:

Quote:
As to the Iraq War, like Vietnam we learned with hindsight that a war based on bad information is a bad thing. I see a lot more caution with respect to our involvement overseas as a result. As to Hagel (maybe let's get back to the thread?) he has apparently claimed we went to war "for oil" which would be hilarious if it were not so depressing. If we wanted to take over a country to get their oil, it would have been a lot cheaper to invade Mexico! That sort of argument just makes me wonder who was fitted with a tin foil hat. There is just no evidence of "blood for oil" but that Hagel said this, that he demonizes the "Jewish lobby" that he was against sanctions directed toward Iran all make me wonder whose side he's on. I hope the nomination is scuttled. Surely we have someone who's on our side for SecDef
Lisa
I understand your contempt for people who are trying to do the best they can for both sides, because they appear to be favoring the other side when they consider "the enemy's" needs. I think that you are trying to do what is right, but your accusation that Hagel demonizes the "Jewish lobby" may be bearing false witness, and I would ask that you refrain from such comments unless you have something more than a misnomer "Jewish Lobby" to back it up. Oof, that sounded so righteous on my part, sorry about that. Just a request. I'm on your side, too, in that I want the Israelis to be safe.

As far as the oil issue, in a very roundabout way I think that the Iraq war was partly about oil, but not in the usual sense. Saddam Hussein bucked the U.S.-controlled world system by selling oil for Euros. This was in retaliation to sanctions. Any sale of oil in the world without using U.S. dollars is a threat to the value of our currency. Wars cost a lot of money, and this threat to our currency helped justify the funding of the war. Again, this is the only way I can make sense of the whole situation. I am very open to evidence to the contrary. I am sorry this is a bit of diversion, but I am trying to shed a little light on the comment by Hagel in a way that makes sense to me.

It is also very key to note that Iran is selling oil for Chinese Yuan and other currencies, which is also very significant, and this latest action started in May-September of last year. So what we went to war for in 2003 is now becoming almost an insignicant reason. In those days, though, the dollar was king. Amazing to say that, it was only 10 years ago. This oil-for-other currencies could ultimately lead to the collapse of our dollar.

http://www.examiner.com/article/doll...oil-using-yuan

So, if we can pound Iran into stopping its oil sale for other currencies, like we did in Iraq, we may make a small boost in our currency. But are we now willing to again take on Russia, which started doing the same in 2005 (I think), and China (2012) for doing the same? Such justification really no longer exists. And our actions in Iraq triggered a lot of resentment in many world leaders.

It is important to understand that the American dollar had increased value because wherever you were in the world, you had to buy your oil with our currency. Without this hegemony, we are now in real trouble. It is no longer helping our currency to have the biggest military in the world. Popularity follows our moral stances too; our military actions and support of Israeli settlements are extremely unpopular in the world.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old Jan 12, '13, 11:04 am
chosen people chosen people is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: January 11, 2007
Posts: 2,036
Religion: Jewish
Default Re: Critics slam Chuck Hagel's likely nomination as Defense secretary

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSheep View Post
It is true that some land was purchased. I don't know the mix. But the confiscations are real, and they are ongoing. It is wrong to gloss over this, because it is a really big deal to the Palestinians, as it would be for me if I were in the same situation. Did you see the map? I used to be a farmer, and it would be very angering to have someone confiscate my life's work or my water. Please check the links.



It is my understanding that the vast majority of water resources were purchased and/or confiscated by the Israelis some time ago. Palestinians have enough to live on, but not much to do anything else. Progress costs money, and if you start with poor people, it is very difficult. Keep in mind, much of the wealth in Palestinian hands left in '48 and '67. It is difficult to invest in your countryman's agricultural pursuits when Israel may come around and confiscate what you have developed for "military purposes". Israelis have a great deal of credit available, and they have infrastructure and a stable government. Palestinians would like to have this, but are not allowed.

The Palestinian Christian guide knows who is buttering his bread and will not give the whole story. Christians have a very fine line to walk, but are just as limited as Arabs in terms of their rights.

Check the short video on the page here:

http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/



Well, we have a question, "Why did the Palestinians destroy the greenhouses?". It would be extremely uncharacteristic of the Israelis to leave behind the water resources necessary to operate these greenhouses, but I am not ruling out the possibility that they did. There is plenty of hatred on both sides. And as far as destroying structures, check the links I sent you. Much more destruction is done by the Israelis.

(to be continued)

It makes perfect sense that you take your information from a virulent extremist radical anti-Zionist group, that denies the right of Jewish self determination and the right of the Jewish State to exist as an independent state. It has the same validity as learning as learning about Jews, Blacks and Catholics from a KKK site.

I am enclosing a link of interviews given in 2010 by Morsi, who is now the president of Egypt. It eloquently explains the narrative which you wish to present.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UU...layer_embedded
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old Jan 12, '13, 1:44 pm
Mulligan2 Mulligan2 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2012
Posts: 399
Default Re: Critics slam Chuck Hagel's likely nomination as Defense secretary

President Obama won re-election, so he is free to nominate the candidate of his choice. Chuck Hagel is clearly qualified to be Secretary of Defense. Some people may disagree with his positions - and by extension, the positions of the President - but the election is over.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old Jan 12, '13, 4:13 pm
OneSheep OneSheep is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Posts: 1,160
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Critics slam Chuck Hagel's likely nomination as Defense secretary

Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen people View Post
It makes perfect sense that you take your information from a virulent extremist radical anti-Zionist group, that denies the right of Jewish self determination and the right of the Jewish State to exist as an independent state. It has the same validity as learning as learning about Jews, Blacks and Catholics from a KKK site.
Hey, chosen people, welcome back! I haven't heard from you since the last time I asked you if you had forgiven the Palestinians. I hope you have taken some time to consider doing this. I know, it is hard to do.

I really don't believe that the Jewish Voice for Peace is virulent, extremist or radically anti-Zionist, and things that I have said do not represent their views, I only referred to them to give the basics. Take the time, if you can bear it, to watch "Israel-Palestine 101" on their website (jvp.org). I think it takes a fairly balanced approach. JVP is not anti-Zionist, they side with Zionists who believe in a different approach to the situation over there.

I have much to learn about Jewish self-determination versus Palestinian self-determination. Perhaps you could send me a link that compares the two? In the mean time, if you feel any resentment toward JVP, I invite you to forgive them, they are really looking out for Israel's best interest. They have a different approach, though: they have an approach that shows compassion to both sides.

Are you really comparing Jewish Voice for Peace with the KKK?

BTW: I watched the Morsi video, and I don't agree with his approach. If you read my posts on this thread, you can see that I do not endorse his suggestions.

Last edited by OneSheep; Jan 12, '13 at 4:30 pm.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old Jan 15, '13, 8:42 am
chosen people chosen people is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: January 11, 2007
Posts: 2,036
Religion: Jewish
Default Re: Critics slam Chuck Hagel's likely nomination as Defense secretary

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSheep View Post
Hey, chosen people, welcome back! I haven't heard from you since the last time I asked you if you had forgiven the Palestinians. I hope you have taken some time to consider doing this. I know, it is hard to do.

I really don't believe that the Jewish Voice for Peace is virulent, extremist or radically anti-Zionist, and things that I have said do not represent their views, I only referred to them to give the basics. Take the time, if you can bear it, to watch "Israel-Palestine 101" on their website (jvp.org). I think it takes a fairly balanced approach. JVP is not anti-Zionist, they side with Zionists who believe in a different approach to the situation over there.

I have much to learn about Jewish self-determination versus Palestinian self-determination. Perhaps you could send me a link that compares the two? In the mean time, if you feel any resentment toward JVP, I invite you to forgive them, they are really looking out for Israel's best interest. They have a different approach, though: they have an approach that shows compassion to both sides.


Are you really comparing Jewish Voice for Peace with the KKK?

BTW: I watched the Morsi video, and I don't agree with his approach. If you read my posts on this thread, you can see that I do not endorse his suggestions.
http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Israel/..._for_peace.htm

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...-palestinians/

http://www.thejewishweek.com/editori...ashing-and-bds

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-ma...on-january-19/
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > In The News > World News

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8048Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: georget
4829CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: Vim71
4295Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: James_OPL
4027OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: fencersmother
3813SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3377Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3184Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: libralion
3150Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
2962For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: libralion
2701Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 1:09 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2013, Catholic Answers.