bud

there are many example why the above is more b.s. by the zionist PR machine, who tries to create a controversy where controversy does not exist. crying wolf is a favourite pastime of the loud and absurd zionist PR machine. just the other day, david makovsky joined u.s. envoy martyn indyk’s "peace" team. how does makovsky's addition to this team, including indyk's position himself prove the incredible influence the zionist lobby has on u.s. foreign policy? makovsky, a zionist jew, former editor of the right-leaning jerusalem post, was until now a fellow at the washington institute for near east policy. AIPAC and indyk, then a researcher for AIPAC, were the driving force behind the institute. the example shows how powerful and influential AIPAC and the israeli lobby and how absurd it is to claim that obama's policy is anti-israel. it's absurd to even suggest that any other lobby, including the arab lobby comes anywhere close to influencing u.s. foreign policy like the israeli lobby does. the israeli lobby has an unmatched influence on the u.s. foreign policy, especially when it comes to matters concerning israel. i don't expect you to take my word for it, instead take the words of: President Bill Clinton, who said that AIPAC was "better than anyone at lobbying in this town," Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who called it "the most effective general-interest group … across the entire planet." Former Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) said upon his retirement that "you can't have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here," Former Congressman Lee Hamilton (D-IN) who served for 32 years, said "there's no lobby group that matches it ... they're in a class by themselves." Or consider the words of the late Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) who said "I was never put under greater pressure than by the Israeli lobby, nor has the Senate as a whole. It's the most influential crowd in Congress and America by far." Former head of AIPAC, Morris Amitay, once noted that "we rarely see [oil and corporate] interests lobbying on foreign policy issues. … in a sense, we have the field to ourselves." Or as AIPAC's former legislative director, Douglas Bloomfield, told the BBC in 2003: "AIPAC has one enormous advantage. It really doesn't have any opposition." Precisely. you want to deny the obvious, then you will have to deal with the fact that you are denying what the people above have said.

what is the point of debating something that is based on fiction? there is no debate whether or not hezbollah is occupying lebanon because they're not. they may be buddies with the hardliners in iran, but they're not occupying lebanon. the lebanese law and government accepts hezbollah as a legitimate part of the lebanese government. that's why it's ridiculous to try to debate this. there is also no debate within international law, that israel is occupying palestinian land.

i don't think anything is black and white. so far, i have brought up the points that saudi and israel are in bed together and you tried to refute that. then there was talk about israel and zionist influence over american foreign policy and you have comeback with a hysterical reaction and accusations of anti-semitism despite the overwhelming evidence that there is an unmatched influence by israel and the zionist lobby on american politics. i point to facts. i provide links to back them up. i am coherent. i am to the point. i am focused. i base my argument on reality. while you are and you do none of those. let me know when you're able to respond to any of the points. until then, i'm not going to be responding to incoherent and erratic posts.

we're talking about the influence of foreign policy and you bring up the lobbying of an ex senator so that dubai could buy a port. yeah, it's great that you're able to visit wikipedia and post information that does NOT refute the power and influence that israel and the zionist lobby has over the american foreign policy, but it doesn't change reality. you need to stay focused rue. you waste people's time, so i like to spend as little time as possible to deal with your incoherent, unfocused keyboard pounding. here is part of an article by stephen walt, that crushes a similar moot argument that jeffrey goldberg tried to make about arab lobbies: Let's look at the vast influence that the "Arab lobby" has wielded in recent years. 1. It is undoubtedly the all-powerful Arab lobby that ensures that Israel gets $3-4 billion in economic and military aid each year, even when it does things that the United States opposes, like building settlements. And were it not for the Arab lobby, the United States would be putting a lot of pressure on Israel to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and come clean about its nuclear arsenal. 2. It was the vaunted Arab lobby that convinced President Bush to delay a U.N. ceasefire resolution during the Lebanon War of 2006, so that Israel could try to finish off Hezbollah and continue bombing civilian areas in Lebanon. Pressure from the Arab lobby also convinced Congress to pass a resolution backing Israel to the hilt, and to remove language from the original draft that called for both sides to "protect civilian life and infrastructure." 3. When Ambassador Charles Freeman was nominated to chair the National Intelligence Council in 2009, the vast Arab lobby promptly launched a successful smear campaign to deny him the post, running roughshod over his outnumbered and powerless defenders at the New Republic,Wall Street Journal, Atlantic Monthly, and Washington Post. 4. When Obama asked Israel to implement a settlement freeze in 2009, the Arab lobby promptly swung into action and drafted open letters warning the President not to put any pressure on Israel. These resolutions passed overwhelmingly in both Houses, another sign of the Arab lobby's political clout. 5. When Israel attacked Gaza in December 2008, the Arab lobby was there to prevent the U.S. from interfering. And when the Goldstone Report raised the issue of possible Israeli war crimes in that war, the Arab Lobby no doubt called the Obama administration and told it to condemn the report, which it promptly did. 6. Needless to say, the insidious power of the Arab lobby no doubt explains why we have a former employee of the "pro-Israel" Washington Institute for Near East Policy (and former head of the Jewish People's Policy Planning Institute) in a key role guiding U.S. Middle East policy. Aaron Miller was dead wrong when he said the United States acts as "Israel's lawyer"; the Arab lobby ensures that U.S. government officials constantly take the Arab side whenever disputes arise. 7. The long arm of the "Arab lobby" also shapes our public discourse, aided by the chorus of pro-Arab, pro-Palestinian, and pro-Muslim columnists and pundits at the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New Republic, and Atlantic Monthly. And you'd better not say anything critical of an Arab country or of Islam, or the Anti-Defamation League will denounce you and you might even lose your job. 8. And don't forget to sign up for the Arab Lobby's annual "Policy Conference" in Washington, where you will see a bevy of politicians from both parties lining up to proclaim their commitment to the "unshakeable" alliance between the United States and the Arab and Muslim world. Obviously, none of these things happened because of the "Arab lobby," but the Israel lobby played a key role in all of them. In short, Goldberg's latest assertions don't even pass the giggle test. And if he wants to talk about money, let's consider campaign contributions. According to The Economist,between 1990 and 2004 pro-Israel political action committees gave nearly $57 million dollars to candidates and parties, while Arab-American and Muslim PACs gave slightly less than $700,000. Wow: that's some "Arab lobby!" And that's just the PAC money, not contributions by individuals. link the above article was written before adelson came into the picture, you know, the same ugly, diabolical morally bankrupt zionist billionaire who has built his empire through casinos. the same one-issue guy, who has advocates nuking iran, the same degenerate who spent over $30 million on elections in the u.s. because he wanted a real zionist yes-man in the office. rue: you can fight reality or you can learn and then accept reality: Or we could discuss the role of Haim Saban, an Israel-American businessman who has said that "I'm a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel." Saban has been the largest single contributor to the Democratic Party in recent years, and according to a profile by Connie Bruck in The New Yorker,Saban told a conference in Israel that there were "three ways to be influential in American politics … make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets." Gee, if I said something like that, Goldberg would probably say I was channeling the Protocols. In short, despite the money that some Arab countries spend on PR firms, the "Arab lobby" is not a meaningful political force when it comes to the broad thrust of U.S. Middle East policy, and certainly not on issues affecting Israel. But you don't have to take my word for it. You could ask former President Bill Clinton, who said that AIPAC was "better than anyone at lobbying in this town," or former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who called it "the most effective general-interest group … across the entire planet." Former Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) said upon his retirement that "you can't have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here," and former Congressman Lee Hamilton (D-IN) who served for 32 years, said "there's no lobby group that matches it ... they're in a class by themselves." Or consider the words of the late Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) who said "I was never put under greater pressure than by the Israeli lobby, nor has the Senate as a whole. It's the most influential crowd in Congress and America by far."

this is the original b.s. statement that myself and hudson were referring to by shady: he is trying to draw a parallel between israel's occupation of the palestinian territories to hezbollah being in lebanon.

what are you talking about? hezbollah is a legitimate party in lebanon and it's not considered an occupier. how do you come up with these wild fantasies? it's like saying israel is occupying the u.s. because it has major influence over a number of congressmen and senators in the u.s., through the millions it donates to them, in order to influence the bills and votes.

ah right. okay. so let's exam the top house israeli funded recipient and how they respond to their masters: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen $238,685 ros-lehtinen, who is the chair of the house foreign affairs committee is one of the biggest influenced ($) of the american politicians in the house. she is heavily funded by the israeli lobby. one of her top individual donors is the extremist settlement king, Irving Moskowitz. he is behind many of the extremist settlements in the west bank and east jerusalem. this explains why she is behind all the bills that AIPAC has requested. basically, the bills concerning iran and the occupied territories. she introduces them and then the rest of hundreds of israeli funded american politicians say yes to them. it's so simple in how it works. if you want to deny the heavy influence of the israeli lobby, then you need to deny that ileana ros-lehtinen and hundreds of other such politicians exist.

it's not a secret that AIPAC and pro-israeli lobbies pay out lots of money to these u.s. politicians. all you have to do is to look at the money the congressmen/women and senators receive from AIPAC. the more money they receive, the harder they fight for AIPAC. it's not some conspiracy. it's how politics work. you want to see a list of contributions to american politicians, go here. this is how the warmongering zionists influence the u.s. foreign policy.

Former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy says Israel “is indestructible” and shouldn't be governed with "memories of the holocaust." it's not just the u.s. administration coming out against bibi, AIPAC and the AIPAC bought congress and senate. israeli experts are also coming out against warmongering as well. link

if you could pay attention for once, it wouldn't have to be re-explained to you over and over. the pro-israeli influence is exerted through campaign contributions coordinated by AIPAC. AIPAC bet on romney to win the presidency and they lost on that. bibi even made ads against obama during the elections. it's not a secret that AIPAC and pro-israeli lobbies pay out lots of money to these politicians. all you have to do is to look at the money the congressmen/women and senators receive from AIPAC. the more money they receive, the harder they fight for AIPAC. it's not some conspiracy. it's how politics work. you want to see a list of contributions to american politicians, go here. the top pro-israeli $ recipient is senator mark kirk. this is the guy who made the following wtf comment when kerry and co went to the senate banking committee to make their case for a delay in increased sanctions on iran to give diplomacy a chance: “How do you define an Iran moderate? An Iranian who is out of bullets and out of money.” these are the diabolical, ugly people who support yours and bibi's cause.

you didn't give any specific examples why obama's position is weak. every case is unique to itself. the democrats are not in danger of losing seats in congress when the elections come up. in fact, it looks like the extremely weak GOP is the one who will be losing out. there isn't much worry about donor money from the democrat side and the only big lobby group not happy about obama straying from the usual unflinching support of israel's policy is AIPAC. it's not an internal policy. it is a foreign policy and the americans, it doesn't matter how much lobbying is done, will not support another war. so obama has a lot going for him. kerry looks to be a lot more capable than hillary. he has a stronger presence and has more than enough experience to be the face of the foreign policy. bibi has dug himself a hole and it's not so cool anymore to support the warmonger. especially since iran has been so forward about wanting to have a real resolution, without giving up their rights under the NPT. obama is in a good situation.

obamacare has had a pretty crappy start but once it starts working, it will at least show glimpses of something that most of the western countries have. obama had no teeth in his first term. he had to first get re-elected before being able to do anything. now that he has, either this is all a big charade and he will cave in like all of them have in the past, or he will actually flex the power he has as the president of the united states and make a deal with iran and sidestep bibi and his cries for war. what do you mean by iran wanting it all? they've already agreed to a lot of concessions and that's why we almost had a deal, until pepé le pew walked in, at the orders of king bibi and pimp saudi to sabotage the deal. as for the palestinians: if they wanted it all, they would want what international law has said: borders of 1967 and the return of the refugees. however, information from past talks (many of them) have shown that they're open to land swaps and compensation for the refugees. so i don't know what the fun you're talking about. it's obvious that it's israel who is into the sabotage business and doesn't want progress in diplomatic negotiations and wants the status quo to continue as far as the palestinian issue. in the case of iran, it wants it to be either attacked or have 'no' nuclear technology. despite having the right to nuclear technology under npt. who said AIPAC equals jews? some of the biggest critics of israel's aggression and some of the leaders of human rights are jews. in fact, many of the younger jews who live outside israel, no longer support israel's policies. they don't feel like their western values are compatible with israel. really, majority of the pro-israeli non-jews are christian zionists who believe in fairytales. like the ones where jews burn alive in what is now, israel. they're the useful idiots that the zionists have gathered to get support in the u.s. otherwise, majority of the people around the world, including in the EU see israel for who it is; one of the biggest threats to peace. the fact that they have warmongers like bibi as their PM and past warmongering PM's such as sharon, is a good explanation as to why people feel that way.

i love the honesty that's coming out of the white house! perhaps bibi shouldn't have campaigned against obama or have his friend adelson spend millions against him. bibi's arrogance is being crushed. U.S. dismisses Israeli assessment on Iran as 'exaggerated, not based on reality' Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said on Wednesday that the sanctions relief package offered to Iran could be worth as much as $40 billion to Tehran. But when asked about Steinitz's estimate, State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki criticized Israel and said that Steinitz's "number, I can assure you, is inaccurate, exaggerated, and not based on reality." link now the white house is trying to get the american people behind them, like they did when israel wanted u.s. to go to war with syria. they know they can't count on the aipac influenced congress and senate, so they're taking their case right to the american people to avoid another meaningless war.

she could do well. she knows who not to piss off. the aipac lobby: The national security/foreign policy position page on Warren’s campaign website reads as though it was cobbled together from AIPAC memos and the website of the Israeli Foreign Ministry by the Democratic Party hacks who are advising her. It is pure boilerplate that suggests she knows about as much about the Middle East as Herman “Uzbeki-beki-stan-stan” Cain, and that she doesn’t care. Warren’s statement on Israel consumes far more space than any other foreign policy issue on the page (she makes no mention of China, Latin America, or Africa). To justify what she calls the “unbreakable bond” between the US and Israel, Warren repeats the thoughtless cant about “a natural partnership resting on our mutual commitment to democracy and freedom and on our shared values.” She then declares that the United States must reject any Palestinian plans to pursue statehood outside of negotiations with Israel. lots of liberals and the left may be getting all googooly eyed for her, but she has her demons. she realizes that in order for her to go to the next step in the american political system, there is one lobby group that she cannot piss off.

you're nothing but a troll. due to your ultra-nationalistic feelings and the inability to admit fault, to protect your tribe, you can't come to admit the obvious, blatant discriminatory laws against non-jews, both inside israel and in the occupied territories. this is a problem within you and i really don't want to waste my time with you. this is my last post in this regard, where i will acknowledge you: There are more than 50 Israeli laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel in all areas of life, including their rights to political participation, access to land, education, state budget resources, and criminal procedures. israeli discriminatory laws

bingo.

no one here suggested that they're "allies". once again you went off on another one of your ramblings based on something that no one ever said. you need to pay better attention.

yes you did. so with your latest comment, i'm assuming that you are finally acknowledging that israel has discriminatory laws against non-jews. yes?

agreed. iran can simply pull out of the NPT and begin building the weapons. meaning that reaching the point in nuclear technology would be a deterrent. i don't blame the iranians for wanting this technology. i trust the iranian government more than i would the saudis and the pakistanis. which is where we're at now. i think the current u.s. government (not the aipac lobbied congress) prefers iran over saudi. the same country which has the extremist wahabists. the same country where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from. the same country that funds al quaeda behind closed doors. so it's almost a no-brainer to support iran over saudi. one problem here is that the iranian government is anti-israel. i don't think to the extent that they would try to 'nuke' them, but to the extent that they'd be feared as the neighbour on the block who has a gun and would be willing to show it off against the only bully on the block, israel. i really do think that this could all end happily if the settlements were halted, there was some land swapping and the palestinian refugees were compensated and a real palestinian state was formed. unfortunately, the israeli government is controlled by the likudites and their settler parties, who, for religious, emotional and financial reasons, want to continue the destructive colonialism.

what nuclear weapons? the israeli, u.s. and other international agencies have all confirmed that iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. the fear that israel and saudi seem to have is that iran will use the nuclear technology that it is allowed to have under the NPT and start a nuclear weapons program in the future.

you keep saying "fast track" like there are any other tracks. you must acknowledge that they specifically made a law, in 2003, to not allow palestinian/muslim/arab israelis to bring their spouse's into israel. when you create a law like this against a specific group, you are discriminating against them. Court okays Citizenship Law, legalizing discrimination of Arabs According to the 2003 law, Arab citizens of Israel who marry Palestinians will have to emigrate in order to live with their spouses. Israeli Arab MK Ahmed Tibi famously said that “Israel is indeed a Jewish-democratic state: it is democratic for Jews and Jewish for all the rest.” link

france's sabotage of the nuclear deal between p5+ 1 and iran should be looked at beyond their talking points. according to every other country at the geneva meetings, there was a real, secure deal on the table that even the french diplomats had agreed on, until the french minister flew into geneva and stopped everything. Diplomats said to be furious after France objected to a stopgap deal being presented as a fait accompli in this case, france's best interest looks to be arms sales to saudi and other sunni arab states who have been abandoned by the original great satan, america, who has decided to give diplomacy a try. some western officials accused France of sabotaging the hopes of a deal to curry favour with Israel and the Gulf Arab states. here is a little more on the economic benefits for france in the la times: multiple motives may be involved, including France's desire to halt nuclear proliferation but also interests in selling arms to Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations in the Persian Gulf that fear Iran's regional power and would appreciate the French stand. the saudis have come a long way since the deterioration of iran which started after the revolution. a combination of the iraq, iran war, the brutal u.s. sanctions and the stubborn and overly proud past governments have made iran fragile. saudi has always looked at iran, the shiite islamic republic, with great envy and they have been inching their way into becoming the 'it' state in that region. everything was in place for saudi: a tactless, dysfunctional iranian government, lead by ahmadinejad and the latest middle east dictator boogyman, the syrian government, who looked to be on its way out. then suddenly, out of nowhere, the moderate, rouhani comes into power. he has surrounded himself with capable politicians, such as the u.s. educated iranian foreign minister, zarif, who hasn't missed an opportunity to speak to anyone who is willing to listen. the charm offensive is on, which includes the successful social media blitz. some argue that khameini, the one who has the final say in these big matters, has given rouhani and his posse his blessing to negotiate a way out of what has transpired, without giving up what every signatory to the NPT is allowed to have, nuclear technology, within limits. some would also argue that the recent brutal sanctions have worked and they have harmed the pocket books of those who are in power in iran and now they have no choice but to negotiate a deal. this confirms what both the u.s. military and mossad leaders have said, 'the iranian regime is a rational actor'. natanyahu, has suddenly turned into a panicking and babbling warmonger, instead of the usual calculative warmonger. the saudis, have shown their frustration with the obama administration on two fronts, which are connected: their unwillingness to take military action against the syrian government and obama for wanting a real and genuine effort at diplomatically engaging with iran's new, friendly government. to complete this ménage à trois, enter france, who has for so long been a former shadow of itself. by picking to go with saudi and israel, it may have decided on a move that may bring some prosperity and some influence on the world stage. in the coming weeks, we will see how strong the influence of the saudis and the likudites will be and if they can counter a willing group of western countries, who look to want a real deal with what seems to be a willing partner in iran.

expansion of illegal settlement is not winning. more peaceful than how it is now. regardless how peaceful they will be; they have a right to have a state. those who are against the formation and existence of a palestinian state are no better than those who are against the existence of a israeli state. why are you against the existence of a palestinian state?

eh? okay? so anyway. israel has many discriminatory laws against non-jews inside israel. there is no point in going over the others with you as you're having a hard time accepting this one: one of these discriminatory laws, is the citizenship law. where a non-jew israeli is prohibited from bringing their non-jewish spouse into the country. whatever the reasoning behind this law, it's still discriminatory and contradicts what you said earlier, which is:

yes of course. it has been the u.s.' official policy. however, i have never seen any administration question israel's genuineness and true intentions. kerry did that: How could Israel credibly claim to be working for peace, he asked, when it kept on building settlements in an area that was going to be Palestine?