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.

Politics : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (6386)	12/5/2004 11:31:35 AM
From: Crimson Ghost	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22250

----------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESBYTERIAN DIVESTMENT FROM ISRAEL CAUSING CHARGES AND COUNTER-CHARGES "Is divestment anti-Semitism? No, the charge is rubbish." MIDDLEEAST.ORG - MER - Washington - 4 December: A few months ago the establishment American Presbyterian Church took the official decision to "divest from Israel". The Israelis and some of the American Jewish organizations they rely on in the U.S. won't admit it, but they are feeling a little heat. Taking their cues from some of the academic discussions and university divestment campaigns that have been largely silenced, the Presbyterian Church after so many years finally stepped forward and took a formal decision to divest its funds from Israel and major Israeli-connected companies. Now what's going on with the Presbyterian's is not at all "anti-semitism" as that term has been known over the years. It is anti-Israel, and many of the American Jewish Zionist organizations will insist it is anti-Jewish -- which in a sense is true if the positions these Jewish organizations take are fair game for protest, which indeed they are. But politically and financially exploiting the memory of the Holocaust, and charging any and all who speak up against Israel with anti-semitism, have always been the trump cards the Israelis and their largely controlled American Jewish organizations have tried to play. And they have done so for years and years now wrongly and unfairly against so many in public life, especially politicians, academics, and writers. The Presbyterians deserve not only a great deal of credit for taking the courageous positions they have this year with regard to divestment from Israel, but for standing up strongly against the false charges of anti-semitism and beginning to focus on the accusers -- their affiliations, their motives, and their extraordinarily compromised relationships. And Mortimer B. Zuckerman is certainly near the top of that list. This "guest column" published Wednesday in an Indiana daily misses so many things that could and should be said. But even so it is an illustration from the American heartland that there are new winds blowing now with regard to Israel, U.S. funding of Israel, "embedded" journalists (many American Jews) working for and with the Israelis, and the whole canard of charging "anti-semitism" to intimidate people of good will and real moral values from facing the realities both of today's Middle East and today's Washington. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Saying no to Israel is not anti-Semitism by B J Paschal* DOES AN AMERICAN religious denomination such as the Presbyterian Church have the right to divest an $8 billion portfolio from Israel? Apparently not, according to the U.S. News & World Report, headed by Editor-in-Chief Mortimer B. Zuckerman and other pro-Israel embedded “journalists” such as John Leo. How could this magazine, which claims to be “America’s most credible print news source,” attempt to vilify the Presbyterian Church General Assembly’s decision to selectively divest from companies that profit from Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories? Answer: The “free press” clause in the First Amendment. But don’t the “religion clauses” in the First Amendment give Presbyterians the right to do what they believe is right? Don’t Presbyterians have the right to demand of companies that, before they buy their shares, they want them to share their values? John Leo says “No!” These “leftists” simply “pummel Israel whenever possible.” Their “fixation on Israel” is a “one-sided expression of ideology.” Why not criticize “China, Libya, Syria or North Korea”? asked Leo. The answer is simple. We taxpayers give Israel more wrong money than any nation on planet Earth, and we demand very little of Israel. It’s time for a change. The U.S. News (Oct. 19) used a report from the right-wing ideologues at the Institute on Religion and Democracy to call the General Assembly a bunch of “fringe leftists.” Rubbish! Why didn’t Leo point out that 14 members of the House of Representatives (including three of 52 Presbyterians in Congress) have implored the Presbyterian Church to rescind its decision? That’s government interfering with people of faith. But the 14 representatives justify their “messing with religion” by pointing out that the church’s action is causing “terrible distress.” To whom? I hope to the government of Israel. We Presbyterians have criticized the Republican-controlled Congress for failing to be a balanced arbiter for peace in the Middle East. Why did Leo fail to mention that fact? While Congress, the New Yorker and U.S. News have repeatedly denounced the Palestinian authority, they have never condemned Israel’s continuous illegal construction of settlements on the West Bank. Why? The Anglican Church has announced its intention to adopt a corporate divestment strategy similar to that of the Presbyterian Church. What about the evangelicals? They believe they stand for high moral purpose in politics. They don’t. Therefore, don’t hold your breath for them to suddenly find Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. Is divestment anti-Semitism? No, the charge is rubbish. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * A guest column by B J Paschal in the News-Sentinel published in Fort Wayne, Indiana on 1 December 2004. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: geode00 who wrote (6386)	12/6/2004 3:58:23 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22250

Re: Frankly anyone may be right in their opinion about Iraq but I don't see where the Bush admin gains in having a Shiite autocracy in Iraq along the lines of the hostile one in Iran. What's the advantage? "It appears, then, that, however important sectarian affiliation may have been in the past, in the latter 1980s nationalism was the basic determiner of loyalty. In the case of Iraq's Shias, it should be noted that they are Arabs, not Persians, and that they have been the traditional enemies of the Persians for centuries. The Iraqi government has skillfully exploited this age-old enmity in its propaganda, publicizing the war as part of the ancient struggle between the Arab and Persian empires. For example, Baathist publicists regularly call the war a modern day "Qadisiyah." Qadisiyah was the battle in A.D.637 in which the Arabs defeated the pagan hosts of Persia, enabling Islam to spread to the East. "The real tension in Iraq in the latter 1980s was between the majority of the population, Sunnis as well as Shias, for whom religious belief and practice were significant values, and the secular Baathists, rather than between Sunnis and Shias. Although the Shias had been underrepresented in government posts in the period of the monarchy, they made substantial progress in the educational, business, and legal fields. Their advancement in other areas, such as the opposition parties, was such that in the years from 1952 to 1963, before the Baath Party came to power, Shias held the majority of party leadership posts. Observers believed that in the late 1980s Shias were represented at all levels of the party roughly in proportion to government estimates of their numbers in the population. For example, of the eight top Iraqi leaders who in early 1988 sat with Hussein on the Revolutionary Command Council--Iraq's highest governing body-- three were Arab Shias (of whom one had served as Minister of Interior), three were Arab Sunnis, one was an Arab Christian, and one a Kurd. On the Regional Command Council--the ruling body of the party--Shias actually predominated. During the war, a number of highly competent Shia officers have been promoted to corps commanders. The general who turned back the initial Iranian invasion of Iraq in 1982 was a Shia. [...] saag.org