Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (5505)	3/12/2003 5:01:41 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Isa there something insidious when a congressman, for example, says that "the automobile lobby is strongly opposed to this safety regulation"? Lobbies lobby for things all the time. That's how the political process works. I have more respect for your intelligence than to believe you don't understand the hypothetical. Why not stop attacking the messenger and focus on the message, on trying to establish whether it was fair comment, was overstatement, or was understatement?

To: Neocon who wrote (5505)	3/12/2003 5:22:45 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

"I do not get the point. Either there is something insidious in Jewish participation in the political process, or there is not. If there is not, why make out as if they alone were driving policy?" I did not detect anything that inferred incidiousness. He wants support for the anti-war movement. He sees the Jewish leaders in a unique position to speak on this particular venture. If they were to come out in opposition to the war, I would fall out of my seat in shock. It would send the whole debate into a dilemma. It is reasonable for them to support it as I see my own support of it to be well reasoned. It was stupid of him to expect them to speak against it or to suggest that they should, but I don't see where he is implying incidiousness in Jewish participation; just that they are influencial, and in this particular case if they did things his way it could be a major coup for the anti-war effort. Stupid but not anti-semitic. "I have no idea what the effect of Jewish opposition would be, that is wholly speculative, and merely serves to insinuate that Jews are "in charge" of Middle East policy....... " Israel has a pretty big stake in what happens. Jewish spokes persons in America are usually supportive of the interests of Israel in Middle Eastern affairs. Israel is considered a freindly nation to our government. Especially regarding Middle Eastern policy Israel and the US have seen eye to eye on most issues. However we aren't talking policy here we are talking go or no go. If another ally, say Panama, Panamanian immigrants/decendants to the US opposed the war it would not cause me to fall out of my chair. To think of Jewish spokes persons as having an influence in politics is not anti-semetic, especially when the politic is a go-no-go decision for their enemy neighbor. The man didn't say "in charge" and I didn't get that impression from his idiotic comments. You know I would be one of the first to jump on that band wagon if I did.

To: Neocon who wrote (5505)	3/12/2003 5:23:56 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Let's look again at the actual quote. (I know you prefer original sources to textbooks. <g>) Here's what, according to that editorial, he actually said. "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I think they should." That is two statements. 1. If the Jewish community (he didn't use the word lobby, notice, someone else brought that word in) weren't strongly supporting war with Iraq, Bush wouldn't be pushing it. Is that false? I don't know. Nor do I know whether it's true. But it's not totally implausible. No one can deny the very close link at the highest levels of government between the US and Israel. If it were not for US financial and milirary aid, Israel probably (I only say probably, not definitely) would not exist today. But if the US had given it no aid since 1946, I doubt it could have achieved its economic success and built a military capable of defeating the several Arab assaults on it since then. Even today, we give huge amounts of foreign aid to Israel. And unless most of the major news media are blowing total smoke, that is a result of quite a lot of lobbying by Jewish groups. That's all perfectly legal, of course, if they do it in a legal way. Brazil, Bolivia, et. al. are also entitled to ask for huge amounts of foreign aid. But as it turns out, they don't get it. The Israeli support groups are clearly more powerful in Washington than the Bolivian support groups. Nothing wrong with that. But nothing wrong in saying it, either. Facts are facts, and reality is reality. As a member of Congress, he's likely to have a much better pulse on the power and positions of the various groups lobbying Congress and working the administration than I do. I have facts which would cause me to disbelieve his statement on its face. Do you? As to Jews making up only a small proportion of the population, that is true, but they are politically very influential. They are heavily concentrated in several important states (particularly New York and Florida), and their political influence is, I think it's hard to deny, disproportinate to their number. 2. He also said "The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I think they should." As to the second part of that, that's his opinion and he's perfectly entitled to have it. As to the first part, as one of only 535 or so members of Congress he probably has a pretty good idea how much influence various constituencies have. When one of the leaders who is an object of influence indicates that one group has a lot of it, I think that deserves at least a fair hearing. He may be wrong, but it's not obvious on the face of the statement that he's wrong. As to why make a point of Jewish participation in the political process, his statement was actually a compliment -- he was saying hey guys, you have the ability to stop this war. Please use that influence and stop it. I wish he though I had that much influence!