White House Calls on Israel to Wait Until After Elections

[DuctapeFatwa]

The White House has sent messages to Israel to hold off with the removal of Gaza’s Jewish community, namely the prime minister’s unilateral Gaza disengagement plan, until after the national elections in America which take place in November.

http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=58850

[htuttle]

1. Why, how straight-forward of them

Everything must take a back seat to the Bush campaign.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. They don't say if it was a conference call

bush called Kerry tonight too.

[htuttle]

4. A conference call...

...would have been much more convenient.

[DiverDave]

5. Whats that supposed to mean?

bush called kerry? WTF?

[htuttle]

6. That appears to be a fact

There was thread about it in LBN, I think. If not, then in GD. Trying to be 'gracious' or some such thing by congratulating him. Maybe a frat boy attempt to look 'unconcerned'. Feh.

Here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=423080&mesg_id=423080

[ms_splash]

7. so, why would there be a conference call with israel and kerry?

still don't understand the point of the post

[DuctapeFatwa]

10. So they could all talk. A conference call connects 3 or more speakers

[ms_splash]

14. yes, thanks, i know what a conference call is

I just want to know why bush would want to talk to kerry and israel at the same time.

[DuctapeFatwa]

21. I don't know that they did. It would be more efficient.

[LiberalFighter]

19. gw* doesn't know how to be gracious or want to be.

He is ALWAYS looking for a knife to stick in someones back.

[MikeGalos]

12. Most likely

it's a veiled way of saying "All the candidates (except the whacko fringe candidate only I am noble and wise enough to support) are secretly owned by the vast International Jewish Conspiracy"

Or maybe not. Perhaps the posters could clarify...

For those interested, you could go to the International Jewish Conspiracy web page.

[htuttle]

16. If you are going to put words in my mouth...

...please don't make them so bitter.

Has John Kerry made it clear which side he believes is 'in the right' in the Israel/Palestine issue? Yes, he's made several statements to this effect.

Do I believe that 'all the candidates except some whacko fringe candidate only I am noble enough to support' are secretly owned by the vast International Jewish Conspiracy? WHAT? No. What kind of bullshit accusation is that? Is that some sort of backhanded way of calling me a Nazi?

Would it be so terribly unusual for the one of the front runners in a presidential race to talk with various allied heads of state before they actually win the election? No. In fact, the Bush campaign's dialogue with parties in Israel before the 2000 election is well documented, cf Richard Perle's advice to not give up anything before the election. Democratic front-runners have also been known to at least introduce themselves to foreign leaders before the GE.

For your information, I do not support some whacko fringe candidate only I am noble enough to support. I'm firmly ABB, and if Kerry wins the nomination as it appears he will, I will vote for him in November. I can still disagree with him on a variety of issues, this being one of them.

[MikeGalos]

18. Really?

That's why you think that Bush and Kerry are conspiring to secretly work together? Care to back that up? Any other issues where Bush and Kerry are secretly working together?

How about an answer from the original poster on this? How about it DuctapeFatwa? Any clarification?

[htuttle]

20. Dear Mr. Literal

There is a language construct called a 'metaphor'. I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with it's use, since that is what the 'conference call' statement was -- a metaphor.

No, I don't think Bush and Kerry are secretly conspiring to work together, but they do have very similar positions vis a vis Israel/Palestine.

Ergo, the 'conference call' metaphor was meant to indicate that both Bush and Kerry would likely have much the same things to say to Sharon. You see -- a conference call would save time, since it would be much the same phone call -- that's the metaphor.

But I don't think it's nearly as interesting when I have to explain it all out like that.

[Zero Gravitas]

22. "If you are not 100% pro-Israel"

"you're an anti-semitic bigot"

Thats the argument the pro-Israel people use in one form or another. Its not always that blatent but thats how they have successfuly stifled real debate on ths issue in this country.

[MikeGalos]

23. Name ONE pro-Israel poster who said that

or retract the statement and apologize.

Please. Feel free to find ANY example that said that or anything even close. Really. Go on. Look around.

We'll wait.

[Zero Gravitas]

24. here ya go

"it's a veiled way of saying "All the candidates (except the whacko fringe candidate only I am noble and wise enough to support) are secretly owned by the vast International Jewish Conspiracy"

You can't deny it. Its a fundamental tool of the pro-Israel lobby.

[MikeGalos]

25. I'll take that as a retraction and apology

since you couldn't find anything even remotely like the "If you are not 100% pro-Israel you're an anti-semitic bigot" garbage you accused people of saying.

On the other hand, do you REALLY think that Bush and Kerry secretly work together to call Sharon to make sure they don't offend the all-powerful Israelis and their vast and powerful "pro-Israel lobby"? Just curious because it sure sounds like you do. Maybe you could clarify?

[tom_paine]

28. That's disingenuous, Mike

You were very clear with your innuendo. No, you didn't say it outright and in the exact same fashion.

You did strongly imply something close however.

Unfortunately, I do think that Ariel Sharon is something of a Bushevik and a bad guy. That is no surprise. Successful Generals are often "bad guys" because such a persona is valuable in warfighting.

Just because he's Jewish and so am I, that doesn't mean I should unequivocally support him, either.

[MikeGalos]

39. Nobody said to support Sharon

I certainly don't. I'd love to see almost any other party form a coalition after the next election in Israel.

On the other hand, claiming that both Bush and Kerry secretly clear their actions with Sharon isn't exactly the same thing, is it?

[tom_paine]

46. It seems to me that you are drawing conclusions based on assertions

Which is exactly what you just upbrasided me for doing in your tweo replies.

You can't have it both ways, Mike. Is it ok to draw conclusions from assertions and "connect the dots" as to what people are saying or not?

If it's ok, as with you're stretch of Ductapefatwa's quip about the conference call, then my conclusions drawn from your assertions and quips are equally acceptable.

If not, then you're entire series of points is hypcritidcally based on something you decry as unacceptable.

I find it entirely ironic that you do this. Also entirely human.

But which is it? Because you can't have it both ways.

[Zero Gravitas]

29. its neither a retraction nor an apology

you'll get neither from me.

No I don't believe that Kerry & Bush secretly work together with Sharon or anybody else. I did not make that assertion. I merely observed that the pro-Israel lobby will imply directly or indirectly that anyone who does not fully support Israel is somehow anti-semitic.

It happens all the time whether you are prepared to acknowledge it or not. This tactic has been devastatingly effective and has stifled any meaningful national debate on the US support for Israel.

[htuttle]

33. Do you mean like post #31, below?

Where those who would even bring up this issue in a single post are now characterized with 'must be Sirhan Sirhan using a computer from prison'? Kind of like that?

[MikeGalos]

40. Gee

Am I a member of this secret, all-powerful pro-Israel lobby? I'd like to know since I haven't gotten my check from them this month and I figured they'd kicked me out of the global conspiracy.

Funny thing, I never called anybody an anti-Semite for "not fully supporting Israel". And you'd be hard pressed to find a case in any of the several thousand posts I've made where I have. After all, I don't "fully" support Israel. On the other hand, perhaps your difinition of "full support" is different. I've seen people say that Israel should be disbanded, all the Jews should go back where they came from (including the one's born there) and they should make reparations to virtually everyone involved. Perhaps that's what you think of as "not fully supporting". I'd say its over that line. I've seen people say that murdering children is OK because all Israelis are valid targets. Perhaps that's what you think of as "not fully supporting". I'd say its over that line as well. Let us know...

Personally, I find the facts pretty good in justifying my stands in the Middle East. Unfortunately, facts tend to be ignored in that debate partly because even the most rabid lies often start with "I know people will call me an anti-Semite for this" as a way of stifling debate. Most of the time what they're saying isn't even close to anti-Semitic but after that, every disagreement with them is met with "Stop calling me an anti-Semite" even when the point made is that they don't have a clue about a subject they're happy to ignorantly rant on and on about.

btw, once in a while a real bigot does slip in like the person this morning who posted in one of the forums that anti-Semitism was the fault of the Jews for not recognizing that anti-Semites were right and that Jews should change to make them happy.

[tom_paine]

26. I'm afraid he's got you there, Mike

It is a not-so-thinly veiled innuendo you made.

By the way: I'm Jewish and (in the interests of full disclosure) though I have much family in Israel, BOTH SIDES at this time in history are so covered in wrongness, trying to decide who is right is like trying to determine the cleanest pig in the sty.

I cannot 100% support Israel.

Should I go to the "International Jewish Conmspiracy" Page to vent my anti-Semitic spleen?

[MikeGalos]

41. No he doesn't

because I've never said that not fully supporting Israel is anything but not fully supporting Israel.

I don't "fully support" Israel. I doubt that anybody does. Including most of the Israeli electorate.

Now, objecting on grounds of veiled conspiracies is another matter. Say, like claiming that Bush and Kerry clear their policies with Israel for fear of offending the secretly all-powerful "pro-Israel lobby" that runs US foreign policy no matter who is in office.

btw: if you'd have gone to the International Jewish Conspiracy page you'd have learned a lot about we evil conspirators, like how we secretly made the new BMW-built Mini a little bigger than the old one in an insidious plot to make the Germans think they're shrinking. Or an article on how, unbenownst to us, some of us are actually giant, shape-shifting reptiles complete with hints on what to do if you discover that you are a giant, shape-shifting reptile and didn't realize it.

Here's a hint, it's not exactly a serious site. Personally, I'd highly recommend it!

[Malva Zebrina]

30. and it has been stifled on DU also

I hesitate to post anymore on those rabid, bitter sounding Israel/Palestine threads. There seems to be nothing but strident , hysterical, aggressive defensiveness, which you can or cannot agree with.

It is really like setting yourself up for an attack if you say you do not approve of Sharon's policies and do not think he or Israel is headed in the right direction--due to many factors -- if you list them or question any Likud policies, you are "anti-semitic". If you present any facts that are negative toward Israel, you are anti-semitic and you are deleted. Nevermind that what you posted is fact and is your opinion--if it is negative toward Israel/Jews/Sharon, it is automatically "anti-semtic" and deleted. This is a form of censorship at it's best.


Seem it's the same as when you question George Bush's brutal and barbaric foreign policies of pre-emptive attack, you are called "anti-American"

See? It's the same thing.

People have a right to criticize the foreign policies of any country they please. They can criticize China, or England,Germany or Israel--it does not mean they are "anti-semitic" if they do not like Sharon and say so. It does not mean they are "blaming Israel" for all things that have gone wrong in the ME and that seem to be also, barbaric. If there are facts presented, then they are facts--and by that definition, are not anti-semitic, unless one demands that all facts stated be complimentary out of necessity on DU, to Israel.

We are not obliged to compliment Israel out of fear of being labeled "anti-semitic" by DUl.

That label is really wearing itself out now because it has been used so many times unfairly and unjustly.

[MikeGalos]

38. Nope. Not even close

Criticize Sharon and you'll get hearty agreement from both sides.
Criticize Sharon and blame all Jews by association and you won't.
Criticize Sharon and say that makes anti-Semtism OK and you won't.
(A poster did precisely that on F/A today)

Criticize Israel by the same standards as any other country and you'll get a reasonable response.
Criticize Israel using a different standards than you use for every other country and you won't.

Claim that Bush and Kerry both take secret orders from Israel and you'll rightly get called a fruitcake.
Claim that there's a secret Jewish conspiracy running the US with Bush as their puppet and you'll also rightly get called a fruitcake.

It isn't that difficult to see the difference, is it?

[foo_bar]

31. I believe Sirhan Sirhan has internet access now

although I'm open to simpler explanations for obsessing over the presumptive nominee from Massachusetts failing to distinguish himself from every other candidate since WW2 on the subject of the PLO.

[mac2]

15. Except war and nation building...fear.

[Sagan]

3. Remember Clinton busting his ass for peace?

Even when he knew any benefits of his struggles would be credited to the appointed Chimp?

Not Chimpy! If he's not picked Quarterback then he's just going to take his ball and go home to Kennebunkport in a crying hissy fit.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. Why do the Israelis need to wait for the U.S. elections?

Did Bush promise them American troops? Armageddon, anyone?

[Whoa_Nelly]

9. Sure, just reschedule...

Bush: Hi there, good buddy! Was lookin' in my day timer, and had you penciled in for sending you more money, but if we can just reschedule that ol' removal of your Jewish community over in the gauze, um, gas, er, gazah area, I can guarantee to make it worth your while.

Israel: Of course. We can do that. What date would be better for you?

Bush: Oh...less'see....hmmmm...how about November Juneteenth?

Israel: Okie-dokie! And, just want you to know that you are late with last month's payment, but we can overlook that if you give us an extra million to cover our bookkeeping expenses.

Bush: Why shore! Not a problem! Consider it another abuse of money appropriations at the US citizens' expense Mission Accomplished!

[The Stranger]

11. Wait a minute. Isn't this where we become inundated with posts asking

"how does this have anything to do with Israel?"

[mac2]

13. Tell me Israel isn't involved in the problems in the ME?

[MikeGalos]

17. No

That's the message you see when any thread that has to do with American Jews suddenly turns into a debate about Israel despite the fact that American Jews are, by definition, American and not Israeli and the fact that 20% of Israelis aren't Jews.

The implication is that American Jews are all secretly more loyal to Israel than the US and perhaps we need to keep an eye on them. It's kind of the same thing that was done by the Republicans in 1960 when they implied that a Catholic President would secretly be more loyal to the Vatican than to the US. It was ugly then and it's ugly now.

[mac2]

35. Wait a minute aren't we talking about a country...Isreal?

[MikeGalos]

42. Yes

and that's why we're not getting "how does this have anything to do with Israel" posts.

I know, it seems obvious but they did ask...

[The Stranger]

43. It is an inference -- not an implication.

Similar to the inference commonly made that criticism of Israel -- or even criticism its far-right wing government by posters on a left wing web site-- is somehow anti-Semitic or "self-hating" for Jews.

The ties between U.S. politics and Israel are profound. To deny this is simply to remain in denial.

[ms_splash]

27. bush is trying for the "jewish vote"?

as if there was such a thing.

shame on him once again

edit: typo

[MikeGalos]

45. They've been trying to and failing for years

Ever since Bush Senior's staff said "Fuck the Jews, they don't vote for us" and somebody said, "hmmmm. Maybe we can find a way"

[bushisanidiot]

32. President Dipshit Knows He's Gonna Lose And He Wants President Kerry to

deal with Israel.

AWOL is giving up on israel, cuz his "roadmap" was as much a miserable failure as his Iraq invasion.

President shifterbrains can't do a damned thing right!

[MikeGalos]

44. Hey, you bought into part of it

Bush didn't come up with the "roadmap" plan. He just claimed credit for it when he thought it might work.

He's even less competent than you claimed. And THAT is a difficult achievement!

[tinnypriv]

34. Hardly a surprise

I've personally been trying to say that nothing will happen til after Nov 2004 since October.

[Malva Zebrina]

36. I guess Israel is subservient to the US

in all of their decisions re the welfare of their own country. They actually, cannot make very many decisions without the approval or the disapproval of the US.Does anyone think that is sort of a dangerous affiliation or way to do business?

[DuctapeFatwa]

37. Israel guards America's oil in the region. It's an important job!

As long as the interests of the US defense and energy industries are kept first and foremost, whatever the Israeli "government" wants to do is just fine.

[Moderator]

47. Locking.

This thread has unfortunately become bogged down with personal attacks and I/P related-posts, and no longer serves its purpose as Latest Breaking News.

Please feel free to continue discussion in the I/P forum.

Thanks!

DU Moderator