Prof. Mearshheimer - Israel: Sinking Ship

[ekrem]

Sinking ship: Israel [ WORLD BULLETIN- TURKEY NEWS, WORLD NEWS ]

Also you have to read his book. Maybe then you will know in what sick system you actually live -- if you did not know before.

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374177724]Amazon.com: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (9780374177720): John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt: Books[/ame]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Sinking ship: Israel [ WORLD BULLETIN- TURKEY NEWS, WORLD NEWS ]

Also you have to read his book. Maybe then you will know in what sick system you actually live -- if you did not know before.

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
Amazon.com: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (9780374177720): John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt: Books

Good article, thanks.

 

[rhodescholar]

Sinking ship: Israel

Noone outside of the pal arab filth, gives a flying fuck what this animal says or writes, noone.

Hopefully soon, like the dog finkelstein, he will vanish from the map like the dodo bird...

 

[hipeter924]

Sinking ship: Israel [ WORLD BULLETIN- TURKEY NEWS, WORLD NEWS ]

Also you have to read his book. Maybe then you will know in what sick system you actually live -- if you did not know before.

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
Amazon.com: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (9780374177720): John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt: Books

Israel’s Philosopher of Finance

In the past year, Israel's economy has managed to defy both the global economic crisis and the worsening security situation, posting an annualized 4.4 percent growth in the last quarter of 2009. Yuval Steinitz, Israel's 51-year-old finance minister, a philosopher by profession and a close ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, claims much of the credit. Steinitz sat down recently with NEWSWEEK's Dan Ephron to explain his approach and the challenges Israel faces. Excerpts:
When the crisis hit, Israel did the opposite of the rest of the world. You raised taxes and didn't inject money into the system the way other countries did. What made you think that would work when your economy is similar to other developed countries?
Actually, our economy is quite different than most other countries in the West. We manufacture almost no consumer goods. In the U.S., if you lower taxes to encourage people to consume, they'll buy American cars, or at least Japanese cars produced in America. In our economy, if people use the money to buy a new car, it won't be an Israeli car. So if I encourage people to buy more, it doesn't help.
But I've read that the real reason Israel wasn't affected as badly is that Israeli institutions weren't invested in mortgage-backed securities.
This was an advantage but it wasn't enough. In the beginning of 2009, we were in a big crisis. Government revenues were going down, unemployment was climbing sharply, our exports were collapsing. We suffered different effects, mainly on our exports—but exports are about 50 percent of our economy. When our government was formed, right away we announced a two-year budget and a tax reduction in the long term [preceded by a tax hike]. And you see the recovery.
I've read also that the rich-poor gap is now bigger in Israel than anywhere else. How did that happen?
This is officially true, but there are different ways of calculating it. We calculate it quite differently. If you take not salaries but standard of living, if you take into account that all Israelis have health care, then it's slightly less. Still, it is serious and we want to reduce it further.
The U.S. peace envoy, George Mitchell, suggested recently that the U.S. could withhold loan guarantees in order to get concessions from Israel. I read your response in the Israeli press: you said Israel doesn't need U.S. loan guarantees. Is that true?
Look, I think Mitchell explained that he was misunderstood, that he didn't want to give any message of pressure or threats against Israel. I think it would be totally unjustified and unfair to pressure Israel.
More generally, when the U.S. wants Israel to act in a certain way, is it legitimate for it to say, "You're getting aid money, you're getting loan guarantees, this is going to be used as leverage"?
I think not, and I must say we don't see such an attitude.
Israel gets nearly $3 billion in U.S. aid every year, more than any other country. When the aid started 30 years ago, Israel's economy was much smaller, maybe a fifth of what it is today. Are we approaching a time when Israel will no longer need the money?
Unfortunately, this is still necessary. We are spending much more of our GDP on defense than any other country, more than double any other Western country. Now, the United States supports the defense of Western Europe with NATO [and that of] countries like Japan and South Korea. And if you count the expenditures, they're much higher than the aid to Israel. So it is justified.
Explaining Israel's Booming Economy - Newsweek

 

[P F Tinmore]

The article did not mention Israel's economy.

Sinking ship: Israel [ WORLD BULLETIN- TURKEY NEWS, WORLD NEWS ]

 

[hipeter924]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmffgIqlAYA]YouTube - "The Three Terrors"[/ame]

 

[P F Tinmore]

YouTube - "The Three Terrors"

Another propaganda flick from those We Con The World assholes..

 

[jillian]

s'matter, moron, don't like when your propaganda is interrupted?

pathetic loser.

 

[P F Tinmore]

s'matter, moron, don't like when your propaganda is interrupted?

pathetic loser.

I am always open to defend my position with the facts.

 

[rhodescholar]

s'matter, moron, don't like when your propaganda is interrupted?

pathetic loser.

I am always open to defend my position with the facts.

Asshole, you have yet to provide a fact in any thread I've seen you post in. Make some more fucking idiotic claims, like how jews were treated well in arab muslim nations, asshole. Embarass yourself some more, fuckbrain.

 

[P F Tinmore]

s'matter, moron, don't like when your propaganda is interrupted?

pathetic loser.

I am always open to defend my position with the facts.

Asshole, you have yet to provide a fact in any thread I've seen you post in. Make some more fucking idiotic claims, like how jews were treated well in arab muslim nations, asshole. Embarass yourself some more, fuckbrain.

The Jews are treated well in Palestine. Can you show otherwise?

 

[hipeter924]

I am always open to defend my position with the facts.

Asshole, you have yet to provide a fact in any thread I've seen you post in. Make some more fucking idiotic claims, like how jews were treated well in arab muslim nations, asshole. Embarass yourself some more, fuckbrain.

The Jews are treated well in Palestine. Can you show otherwise?

The 1929 Palestine riots, also known as the Western Wall Uprising or the Buraq Uprising, refers to a series of demonstrations and riots in late August 1929 when a long-running dispute between Muslims and Jews over access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem escalated into violence. During the week of riots 116 Arabs and 133 Jews were killed and 232 Arabs and 198 Jews were injured and treated in hospital.[1][2]

1929 Palestine riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know how you work, just fiddle round with the numbers and wording (reality doesn't matter). After all you can't have more Jews dying than Arabs or it will make it look like Jews were victims preyed upon by Muslim Arabs.

Thus here is the edited propaganda version for you: During the week of riots 11,600 Arab women and children and 13 Jewish terrorists were killed and 23,020 Arab women and children and 19 Jewish terrorists were injured and treated in hospital.

 

[calvin]

thanx for sharing

 

[P F Tinmore]

Asshole, you have yet to provide a fact in any thread I've seen you post in. Make some more fucking idiotic claims, like how jews were treated well in arab muslim nations, asshole. Embarass yourself some more, fuckbrain.

The Jews are treated well in Palestine. Can you show otherwise?

The 1929 Palestine riots, also known as the Western Wall Uprising or the Buraq Uprising, refers to a series of demonstrations and riots in late August 1929 when a long-running dispute between Muslims and Jews over access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem escalated into violence. During the week of riots 116 Arabs and 133 Jews were killed and 232 Arabs and 198 Jews were injured and treated in hospital.[1][2]

1929 Palestine riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know how you work, just fiddle round with the numbers and wording (reality doesn't matter). After all you can't have more Jews dying than Arabs or it will make it look like Jews were victims preyed upon by Muslim Arabs.

Thus here is the edited propaganda version for you: During the week of riots 11,600 Arab women and children and 13 Jewish terrorists were killed and 23,020 Arab women and children and 19 Jewish terrorists were injured and treated in hospital.

From your link:

A commission of enquiry led by Sir Walter Shaw took public evidence for several weeks. The main conclusions of the Commission were as follows.[12]

The fundamental cause ... is the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future. ... The feeling as it exists today is based on the twofold fear of the Arabs that by Jewish immigration and land purchases they may be deprived of their livelihood and in time pass under the political domination of the Jews.

1929 Palestine riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Zionist's stated goal was to take over Palestine. The mass importation of Jews by the Zionists was seen as a means to attain that goal. The attacks by the Palestinians were defensive moves against this takeover.

It is irrelevant that the planned takeover was by the Jews. It could have been any group with the same results. It was not an attack against "Jews" but a defense against the takeover.

 

[hipeter924]

The Jews are treated well in Palestine. Can you show otherwise?

The 1929 Palestine riots, also known as the Western Wall Uprising or the Buraq Uprising, refers to a series of demonstrations and riots in late August 1929 when a long-running dispute between Muslims and Jews over access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem escalated into violence. During the week of riots 116 Arabs and 133 Jews were killed and 232 Arabs and 198 Jews were injured and treated in hospital.[1][2]

1929 Palestine riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know how you work, just fiddle round with the numbers and wording (reality doesn't matter). After all you can't have more Jews dying than Arabs or it will make it look like Jews were victims preyed upon by Muslim Arabs.

Thus here is the edited propaganda version for you: During the week of riots 11,600 Arab women and children and 13 Jewish terrorists were killed and 23,020 Arab women and children and 19 Jewish terrorists were injured and treated in hospital.

From your link:

A commission of enquiry led by Sir Walter Shaw took public evidence for several weeks. The main conclusions of the Commission were as follows.[12]

The fundamental cause ... is the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future. ... The feeling as it exists today is based on the twofold fear of the Arabs that by Jewish immigration and land purchases they may be deprived of their livelihood and in time pass under the political domination of the Jews.

1929 Palestine riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Zionist's stated goal was to take over Palestine. The mass importation of Jews by the Zionists was seen as a means to attain that goal. The attacks by the Palestinians were defensive moves against this takeover.

It is irrelevant that the planned takeover was by the Jews. It could have been any group with the same results. It was not an attack against "Jews" but a defense against the takeover.

The Commission addressed two aspects of the disturbances, the immediate nature of the riots and the causes behind them. In the words of Naomi Cohen:-

‘Delving beneath the immediate causes – i.e., the Western Wall dispute, inflammatory publications on both sides, the enlargement of the Jewish Agency, inadequate forces to maintain order, the report called attention to the underlying causes of friction in England’s wartime pledges and in the anti-Jewish hostility that had resulted from the political and economic frustrations of the Arabs. It went on to criticize the immigration and land-purchase policies that, it said, gave Jews unfair advantages. The commission also recommended that the British take greater care in protecting the rights and understanding the aspirations of the Arabs. The Shaw report was a blow to Zionists everywhere,’ [3]
​

Read the whole report. It's your version of cherry pudding.

Though the bit in bold is the main reason or the general colonial policy at the time to pit ethnic groups and religions against each other.

 

[P F Tinmore]

1929 Palestine riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know how you work, just fiddle round with the numbers and wording (reality doesn't matter). After all you can't have more Jews dying than Arabs or it will make it look like Jews were victims preyed upon by Muslim Arabs.

Thus here is the edited propaganda version for you: During the week of riots 11,600 Arab women and children and 13 Jewish terrorists were killed and 23,020 Arab women and children and 19 Jewish terrorists were injured and treated in hospital.

From your link:

A commission of enquiry led by Sir Walter Shaw took public evidence for several weeks. The main conclusions of the Commission were as follows.[12]

The fundamental cause ... is the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future. ... The feeling as it exists today is based on the twofold fear of the Arabs that by Jewish immigration and land purchases they may be deprived of their livelihood and in time pass under the political domination of the Jews.

1929 Palestine riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Zionist's stated goal was to take over Palestine. The mass importation of Jews by the Zionists was seen as a means to attain that goal. The attacks by the Palestinians were defensive moves against this takeover.

It is irrelevant that the planned takeover was by the Jews. It could have been any group with the same results. It was not an attack against "Jews" but a defense against the takeover.

The Commission addressed two aspects of the disturbances, the immediate nature of the riots and the causes behind them. In the words of Naomi Cohen:-

‘Delving beneath the immediate causes – i.e., the Western Wall dispute, inflammatory publications on both sides, the enlargement of the Jewish Agency, inadequate forces to maintain order, the report called attention to the underlying causes of friction in England’s wartime pledges and in the anti-Jewish hostility that had resulted from the political and economic frustrations of the Arabs. It went on to criticize the immigration and land-purchase policies that, it said, gave Jews unfair advantages. The commission also recommended that the British take greater care in protecting the rights and understanding the aspirations of the Arabs. The Shaw report was a blow to Zionists everywhere,’ [3]
​

Read the whole report. It's your version of cherry pudding.

Though the bit in bold is the main reason or the general colonial policy at the time to pit ethnic groups and religions against each other.

"the enlargement of the Jewish Agency" A sign of the takeover.

"friction in England’s wartime pledges" i.e. promising the Arabs an independent state then reneging with the Balfour paper.

"the immigration and land-purchase policies that, it said, gave Jews unfair advantages." A sign of the takeover.

"British take greater care in protecting the rights and understanding the aspirations of the Arabs." The indigenous population had the right to self determination and create their promised independent state. This went out the window under the British.

Thank you for proving my point of the Palestinians defending themselves from a planed takeover.

 

[hipeter924]

From your link:

A commission of enquiry led by Sir Walter Shaw took public evidence for several weeks. The main conclusions of the Commission were as follows.[12]

The fundamental cause ... is the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future. ... The feeling as it exists today is based on the twofold fear of the Arabs that by Jewish immigration and land purchases they may be deprived of their livelihood and in time pass under the political domination of the Jews.

1929 Palestine riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Zionist's stated goal was to take over Palestine. The mass importation of Jews by the Zionists was seen as a means to attain that goal. The attacks by the Palestinians were defensive moves against this takeover.

It is irrelevant that the planned takeover was by the Jews. It could have been any group with the same results. It was not an attack against "Jews" but a defense against the takeover.

The Commission addressed two aspects of the disturbances, the immediate nature of the riots and the causes behind them. In the words of Naomi Cohen:-

‘Delving beneath the immediate causes – i.e., the Western Wall dispute, inflammatory publications on both sides, the enlargement of the Jewish Agency, inadequate forces to maintain order, the report called attention to the underlying causes of friction in England’s wartime pledges and in the anti-Jewish hostility that had resulted from the political and economic frustrations of the Arabs. It went on to criticize the immigration and land-purchase policies that, it said, gave Jews unfair advantages. The commission also recommended that the British take greater care in protecting the rights and understanding the aspirations of the Arabs. The Shaw report was a blow to Zionists everywhere,’ [3]
​

Read the whole report. It's your version of cherry pudding.

Though the bit in bold is the main reason or the general colonial policy at the time to pit ethnic groups and religions against each other.

"the enlargement of the Jewish Agency" A sign of the takeover.

"friction in England’s wartime pledges" i.e. promising the Arabs an independent state then reneging with the Balfour paper.

"the immigration and land-purchase policies that, it said, gave Jews unfair advantages." A sign of the takeover.

"British take greater care in protecting the rights and understanding the aspirations of the Arabs." The indigenous population had the right to self determination and create their promised independent state. This went out the window under the British.

Thank you for proving my point of the Palestinians defending themselves from a planed takeover.

Not really, it just shows the natural views at the time to equate Jews as constantly causing trouble. Plus 'takeover' is rubbish, as it was conquered by the Ottomans who then ethnic cleansed the Jews from the area.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Commission addressed two aspects of the disturbances, the immediate nature of the riots and the causes behind them. In the words of Naomi Cohen:-

‘Delving beneath the immediate causes – i.e., the Western Wall dispute, inflammatory publications on both sides, the enlargement of the Jewish Agency, inadequate forces to maintain order, the report called attention to the underlying causes of friction in England’s wartime pledges and in the anti-Jewish hostility that had resulted from the political and economic frustrations of the Arabs. It went on to criticize the immigration and land-purchase policies that, it said, gave Jews unfair advantages. The commission also recommended that the British take greater care in protecting the rights and understanding the aspirations of the Arabs. The Shaw report was a blow to Zionists everywhere,’ [3]
​

Read the whole report. It's your version of cherry pudding.

Though the bit in bold is the main reason or the general colonial policy at the time to pit ethnic groups and religions against each other.

"the enlargement of the Jewish Agency" A sign of the takeover.

"friction in England’s wartime pledges" i.e. promising the Arabs an independent state then reneging with the Balfour paper.

"the immigration and land-purchase policies that, it said, gave Jews unfair advantages." A sign of the takeover.

"British take greater care in protecting the rights and understanding the aspirations of the Arabs." The indigenous population had the right to self determination and create their promised independent state. This went out the window under the British.

Thank you for proving my point of the Palestinians defending themselves from a planed takeover.

Not really, it just shows the natural views at the time to equate Jews as constantly causing trouble. Plus 'takeover' is rubbish, as it was conquered by the Ottomans who then ethnic cleansed the Jews from the area.

The takeover was not rubbish. It was a stated goal by the Zionists. They said they were going to do it. It was in their actions. It was in the Balfour Declaration. It was in the actions of the British. It was in the news papers. It was street talk.

It was all true because that is what happened. And, it is still happening with the constant building of settlements on Palestinian land.

The Palestinians had the right to resist this planned takeover then and they have the right to eliminate the occupation now.

 

[hipeter924]

"the enlargement of the Jewish Agency" A sign of the takeover.

"friction in England’s wartime pledges" i.e. promising the Arabs an independent state then reneging with the Balfour paper.

"the immigration and land-purchase policies that, it said, gave Jews unfair advantages." A sign of the takeover.

"British take greater care in protecting the rights and understanding the aspirations of the Arabs." The indigenous population had the right to self determination and create their promised independent state. This went out the window under the British.

Thank you for proving my point of the Palestinians defending themselves from a planed takeover.

Not really, it just shows the natural views at the time to equate Jews as constantly causing trouble. Plus 'takeover' is rubbish, as it was conquered by the Ottomans who then ethnic cleansed the Jews from the area.

The takeover was not rubbish. It was a stated goal by the Zionists. They said they were going to do it. It was in their actions. It was in the Balfour Declaration. It was in the actions of the British. It was in the news papers. It was street talk.

It was all true because that is what happened. And, it is still happening with the constant building of settlements on Palestinian land.

The Palestinians had the right to resist this planned takeover then and they have the right to eliminate the occupation now.

Sorry but that went over my head, just read one word and it gave me: "Darfur".

 

[rhodescholar]

The Jews are treated well in Palestine. Can you show otherwise?

****, YOU made the claim they are/were treated well. YOU prove it, fuckhead.