What do you think the US's policy towards Israel should be?

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
Philosophy.



It pops up from time to time in many US churches. Prosperity theology is at It's core a response to the sort of rich lifestyle that's common in the US and that isn't always in particular alignment with Christianity, and people want something to try and rationalize thier way past that.
I'll look for the thread to participate in.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
I don't see it as important, the government does, and you don't quite seem to be grasping how this works. It's not "ok, let's give Israel a few billion so they can buy F35s instead of buying them for the airforce" It's "we've already bought all the F35s we're going to, let's let Israel buy a few more to help Lockheed's quarterly figures"

And to repeat myself once again: and?

There's no need for us to be doing corporate socialism here, and if you see it as that important, those no reason the U.S. can't use that money for it's own defense. Lockheed is going to be just fine without Israeli orders.

Because intentionally acting in a morally inconsistent manner is bad?

So you're either being intentionally obtuse or you're really naive to the point of having no idea what U.S. foreign policy has been like. Ever heard of Nixon goes to China and the Khmer Rogue?

The first two aren't applicable, as the text clearly states that the US must be threatened by the terrorist activity in question, you legally cannot declare someone a terrorist because they spy on you and also assassinated some unrelated guy, they have to actually target you with the terrorism.

All three are textbook applicable, without question and you're being dishonest by pretending otherwise. Selling our advanced military technology to China endangers American lives by increasing the risk of China advancing its own technology and being able to deploy new tactics and weapons to counter our own. The stealing of State Secrets to sell does likewise. These are textbook cases and you're either woefully misinformed about who the U.S. has placed sanctions on and how, or you're being willfully obtuse. Case in point: North Korea and Russia.

Point 3 is likewise inapplicable, as Bid Laden's grievances are directed at far more than Mossad (which he doesn't even mention), presuming he is even being honest here vs just writing propaganda, which seems possible. We know from other sources the root of his discontent was the deployment of US forces to defend the Saudis during the Gulf War, which was unrelated to Israel.

And the reason OBL was disdainful of Americans being in Saudi Arabia in the Gulf War is because of their ties to Israel. OBL made it a repeated point to always cite Israel as a major reason of his antagonism to the U.S. and it's why we were "the Great Satan" and Israel "the Little Satan". I see no reason to doubt him, given this and the lack of any countervailing evidence.

It is legal to break up a non-profit organization, yes. It is not legal to do so for arbitrarily reasons.

Good thing none of my reasons are arbitrary. So far, you've not been able to present a moral argument for anything, your entire case rests on legal technicalities which speaks volumes about how much you realize you have no leg to stand on when it comes to this.

here is no such thing as a legally defined "unregistered foreign lobbyist". The only term that US law recognizes is "foreign agent", which AIPAC does not meet. Foreign agents must act under the direct control and at the orders of a foreign power, which those groups do not do.

Except we do recognize that, and further AIPAC by definition meets it.

I think you're missing the point a bit, the argument wasn't "you can't make people register, only organizations", it was "you can't make people register as agents because they're no longer agents".

Is that why there is 1,700 individually registered foreign agents? You don't suddenly stop working for a foreign government because the formal entity no longer exists, that's laughably naïve.

What is it with people like you and this maniacal obsession with the foreign agent registration act, anyway?

What is it with people like you screaming to the top of your lungs about the CCP and Chinese subversion, but then these priors go out the window when it comes to Israel? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for any American to support Israel.
 
Last edited:

History Learner

Well-known member
I was leaning towards confused acceptance, until I got to the 'over half voted Biden over Trump' part. They rather obviously sampled a massively disproportionately left-wing part of Evangelicals, which are generally a very small portion of Evangelicals.

Given that I saw a lot more Evangelicals willing to vote Trump in 2020 than in 2016, I don't see any other logical reason for the sudden massive shift. It's not like the Palestinians stopped making rocket attacks between 2018 and 2021, or the Israeli policy on dealing with Hamas and the like meaningfully changed either.

No, it's completely correct because you've confused all Evangelicals with Young Evangelicals, which is who this poll was specifically sampling; it's apples to oranges. If you think it's biased, you might want to go re-read how it was conducted by the Billy Graham foundation, and how Trump actually lost support among Evangelicals in 2020; not gained as you claimed.

Did any of this make a difference? In answering that question, we have to rely on the Edison exit polls, since there was no 2016 AP VoteCast survey to compare to the VoteCast numbers this year. Edison in 2016 showed an 80% vote for Trump among White evangelical Protestants and 16% for Hillary Clinton. That compares to Edison's 76% Trump and 24% Biden estimate this year. If we assume these figures are accurate indicators of the vote of the underlying population in both years, we would conclude that Trump's share of the White evangelical vote fell back slightly (by about four percentage points), while the Democratic share of the vote (Clinton in 2016 and Biden this year) increased by about seven points.​

A lot also changed geopolitically, with Hamas openly stating it would accept a peace upon 1967 lines and in May of 2021 the Israelis butchered thousands of civilians, which does a lot to make people question why we are supporting such an awful regime.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Your latest quote here below wasn't cited:

Did any of this make a difference? In answering that question, we have to rely on the Edison exit polls, since there was no 2016 AP VoteCast survey to compare to the VoteCast numbers this year. Edison in 2016 showed an 80% vote for Trump among White evangelical Protestants and 16% for Hillary Clinton. That compares to Edison's 76% Trump and 24% Biden estimate this year. If we assume these figures are accurate indicators of the vote of the underlying population in both years, we would conclude that Trump's share of the White evangelical vote fell back slightly (by about four percentage points), while the Democratic share of the vote (Clinton in 2016 and Biden this year) increased by about seven points.

But here it is:


Curiously, Gallup actually had their own conclusions which would've been interested to this discussion which is why I find it odd there wasn't even a link back to the article, just your quote.

Gallup said:
If we assume these figures are accurate indicators of the vote of the underlying population in both years, we would conclude that Trump's share of the White evangelical vote fell back slightly (by about four percentage points), while the Democratic share of the vote (Clinton in 2016 and Biden this year) increased by about seven points. Of course, both year's figures are estimates, as noted, with associated margins of error, and there were changes in Edison's methods in 2020 (compared with 2016) to account for the increase in early voting. So I'm cautious about reading too much into the relatively small shifts between 2016 and 2020, although the probability is higher than 50-50 that Biden may have gained on a relative basis. (The AP VoteCast surveys use a different methodology than Edison, but it's worth keeping in mind that its estimate of the White evangelical vote is almost exactly what Edison estimated in 2016.)

And furthermore, as stated in the preamble of the article:

Gallup said:
Did either of these factors make a difference in the election outcome? The answer to that question is complex. But -- at this stage in our understanding of the dynamics of the 2020 election -- I would say that if Trump's or Biden's campaign shifted the vote of these two core religious groups, the impact was fairly minimal and/or difficult to document.

So maybe there were shifts, as in the analyst gives it greater then 50-50 odds, it was still fairly minimal and difficult to document.

This is further compounded by the apparently more comprehensive AP VoteCast Survey as well as changes to the Edition Survey between 2016 and 2020. The AP Votecast Survey showed even higher rates of Evangelical support.

Gallup said:
The AP VoteCast survey shows that 81% of White evangelical Protestant voters went for Trump this year, compared with 18% who voted for Biden. The Edison exit polls estimate that 76% of White evangelicals voted for Trump, 24% for Biden.

Like any survey (and perhaps more than most surveys because of their complicated methodologies designed to capture both in-person and early/mail-in voting), the numbers produced by both of these research endeavors are estimates with margins of error around them. But even with these caveats understood, it is clear that Trump received the significant majority of the White evangelical vote.

Did any of this make a difference? In answering that question, we have to rely on the Edison exit polls, since there was no 2016 AP VoteCast survey to compare to the VoteCast numbers this year. Edison in 2016 showed an 80% vote for Trump among White evangelical Protestants and 16% for Hillary Clinton. That compares to Edison's 76% Trump and 24% Biden estimate this year.

And this was in spite of, as stated in the article, a real push by the 2020 Biden Campaign to push Biden's Catholic and religious credentials.

Gallup said:
Trump and his campaign recognized this structural pattern prior to his bid for the presidency in 2016 and targeted evangelicals in that campaign. Subsequently, once in office, Trump has done a great deal to maintain this connection with evangelical-friendly policy decisions and public pronouncements. At the same time, Biden's campaign this year made its own concerted effort to reach White evangelical voters (along with other religious voters). Biden appointed evangelical Josh Dickson as his campaign's national faith engagement director, and Dickson in turn worked diligently to reach out in many ways to the evangelical community. Plus, the Biden campaign hoped that Biden's personal Christian faith and very public discussion of the role of religion in his personal life might increase his share of the evangelical vote.

So @LordsFire I wouldn't begrudge you too much for not being aware of this drop in Evangelical support, even the pollsters who analyzed this stuff for a living apparently thought it "fairly minimal/difficult to document" but thankfully here on The Sietch we have posters who are more than comfortable in deducing their own conclusions for your benefit.


No, it's completely correct because you've confused all Evangelicals with Young Evangelicals, which is who this poll was specifically sampling; it's apples to oranges. If you think it's biased, you might want to go re-read how it was conducted by the Billy Graham foundation, and how Trump actually lost support among Evangelicals in 2020; not gained as you claimed.

Neither of the polls were conducted by the Billy Graham Foundation? Your Times of Israel link at least doesn't mention Billy Graham or his Foundation via a keyword search... or just looking at the article. Unless the Barna Group is somehow equivalent to the Billy Graham Foundation? Either way "re-reading" the article you linked for that source doesn't make anything immediately apparent.

A lot also changed geopolitically, with Hamas openly stating it would accept a peace upon 1967 lines and in May of 2021 the Israelis butchered thousands of civilians, which does a lot to make people question why we are supporting such an awful regime.

I doubt that that Hamas' statement actually made many in roads in the Young Evangelical community and the conflict back in May of 2021, despite your editorializations, had much more impact than any of the other flare ups between Palestine and Israeli.

I'd probably go more with the ideas proposed by the Brookings Institute and Providence Magazine (like I posted earlier) where the linking of Muslims and Palestinians specifically with Racial Issues seems to be the connection in mitigating support for Israel along with increased apathy about the entire Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, especially since as pointed out earlier, the poll actually failed to offer a middle or neutral option beyond supporting either/or or none of the above.

Times of Israel said:
While Israel is often deemed a top issue for evangelical voters, 65% of the young respondents said they seldom or never hear about the importance of supporting the Jewish state, with just 12% saying they hear it every week.

Brookings Institute said:
The University of North Carolina researchers also suggest that young evangelicals are less interested/know less about Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that only 38% of them say their religious beliefs led them to support Israel, while 17% say their beliefs led them to back the Palestinians. Another factor that could be probed is whether the work of progressive evangelical organizations, which focus on social justice, has been more effective among young evangelicals. A 2018, article in The New Yorker suggests that the separation of families at the U.S.-Mexico border, climate change, and various progressive causes have galvanized young evangelicals. For those interested in social justice, the plight of Palestinians has been increasingly viewed through that prism with the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Providence Magazine said:
If this is the case, we should consider the timing of both polls. The 2018 poll, conducted in April of that year, was surrounded by one unique talking point regarding Israel: President Donald Trump’s promise to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, formally acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Arguments about the political significance of Jerusalem abounded in political talk shows, articles, sermons, and public discourse. With enough buzz in evangelical circles about the need to support Israel in that season, a poll showing a favorable view of Israel is not shocking.

But in March 2021, well over half of young evangelicals reported rarely hearing talk about the importance of supporting Israel. Given the presidential election, the economy, the COVID-19 pandemic, and several other domestic issues, their conversations have largely not been about Israel, but America.

Most notably, in the wake of George Floyd’s death in 2020 and the contentious protests that followed, American evangelicals have very predictably fixated on race. Many have undertaken personal education into contemporary race relations and perpetuated new terminology. Construing American race problems within the categories of power dynamics, racial hierarchies, privilege, and systemic oppression has primed young evangelicals to see the rest of the world through these lenses too. And proponents of pro-Palestinian movements intentionally speak of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute in this same way.

Or as Matt Friedman argues, expanding on the point that Americans are still trained to see everything that occurs abroad as reflections of American race relations and two party system politics.

The Atlantic said:
In some ways, Americans haven’t progressed from the “Israeli” pioneer of Exodus, who’s white and blond and seems so awfully familiar. We’re still stuck with Ari Ben Canaan— except now he’s a racist. And if Palestinians were disdained in the old novels and reportage as non-Western, dark, and unmasculine, they’re still more or less kept in the same world of stereotypes—except those attributes are no longer considered negative. This helps explain, for example, the passivity of Palestinians in many Western accounts of what’s going on here, and why Western reporters are drawn to the tragedy of Palestinian civilians while remaining relatively uninterested in the ruthless strategy and significant accomplishments of the Palestinians’ Iran-backed military force, Hamas. In both the old and new versions of the fantasy, Israelis are actors and Palestinians are props.

Western observers are often tempted to see foreign countries as mirrors of their own, because it makes a story more compelling for members of their audience, who are interested—who isn’t?—mainly in themselves. And it means they can analyze other societies without going to the considerable trouble of studying them, learning their language, or even visiting. So Narendra Modi of India is Donald Trump, and France’s problem is racial inequality, and Dutch conservatives are Republicans. It’s seductive to think that everything you need to know you learned back in Berkeley.

Similarly, the 2021 poll question reads, “In relation to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, where do you place your support?” Three tiers of both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian support follow, separated by an option to “Support Neither.” But it is hardly likely that all who selected the latter option were simply apathetic or ambivalent about the situation. They simply had no way to voice support for both.

Providence Magazine said:
The central question of the 2018 poll was, “Where do you put your support?” followed by five choices. Between two pro-Israel options and two pro-Palestinian options sat a supposedly neutral option that read, “Support Neither.” Researchers removed an initial “I Don’t Know” option that would have taken about 14 percent of responses. This change left anyone unwilling to voice partisan support in a misanthropic-sounding middle camp.

So instead, a very telling split is evident: near-even distribution of pro-Palestinian sentiments of varying degrees (totaling 24.3 percent), followed by a similarly even distribution of pro-Israeli sentiments (all slightly higher, totaling 33.3 percent). Between these sits a clear and decisive winner: “Support Neither,” holding 42.2 percent.


Are Young Evangelicals Experiencing a Change of Heart on Israel?

Plus there's the interest in that people who identify as Evangelicals now are more diverse and progressive with liberal backers including the Open Society Foundation backing more strident anti-Israel religious organizations.

WND said:
And Soros is also using his wealth to distance evangelicals – long the leading pro-Israel constituency in the U.S. – from the Jewish state. For a decade, Soros has been giving six-figure grants to the Telos Group, which takes evangelical influencers on expense-paid tours to Israel and brings "Israeli and Palestinian leaders and activists" to speak in the U.S.

 

History Learner

Well-known member
Your latest quote here below wasn't cited:



But here it is:


Curiously, Gallup actually had their own conclusions which would've been interested to this discussion which is why I find it odd there wasn't even a link back to the article, just your quote.



And furthermore, as stated in the preamble of the article:



So maybe there were shifts, as in the analyst gives it greater then 50-50 odds, it was still fairly minimal and difficult to document.

In other words, I was right. You seem to be trying to obfuscate the fact they're talking about whether the shifts in Evangelical voting had an impact on the election itself with the original claim being about how Evangelicals voted at all. The former can be true while the latter not; certainly in the case of the claim by LordsofFire, his statement that Evangelicals increased support for Trump is not supported by any evidence and in fact said evidence shows there was a drop in support.

This is further compounded by the apparently more comprehensive AP VoteCast Survey as well as changes to the Edition Survey between 2016 and 2020. The AP Votecast Survey showed even higher rates of Evangelical support.

It seems odd to me that one trying to be as meticulous as you leaves out the very important notethat the AP VoteCast Survey didn't even exist, so how could it show higher rates of support for Trump? If you're talking relative to the Edision Survey in 2020, sure, but the question posed was about 2016 to 2020.

You also make the claim the Edison Survey is not as comprehensive as the AP's VoteCast; what is that claim based on?

And this was in spite of, as stated in the article, a real push by the 2020 Biden Campaign to push Biden's Catholic and religious credentials.

So @LordsFire I wouldn't begrudge you too much for not being aware of this drop in Evangelical support, even the pollsters who analyzed this stuff for a living apparently thought it "fairly minimal/difficult to document" but thankfully here on The Sietch we have posters who are more than comfortable in deducing their own conclusions for your benefit.

That's a wonderful misrepresentation on your part, and I too am glad I am here to point out you're attempting to conflate two entirely separate things and thus set the record straight.

Neither of the polls were conducted by the Billy Graham Foundation? Your Times of Israel link at least doesn't mention Billy Graham or his Foundation via a keyword search... or just looking at the article. Unless the Barna Group is somehow equivalent to the Billy Graham Foundation? Either way "re-reading" the article you linked for that source doesn't make anything immediately apparent.

Again, I'm glad I'm here to educate you on this matter! The Barna Group is an Evangelical polling firm based in California, with extensive ties to Billy Graham going back decades.

I doubt that that Hamas' statement actually made many in roads in the Young Evangelical community and the conflict back in May of 2021, despite your editorializations, had much more impact than any of the other flare ups between Palestine and Israeli.

Ah yes, I'm sure the Hamas declaration and the war in May of 2021 has nothing at all to do with explaining the massive drop in support for Israel among young Evangelicals between 2018 and 2021; the fact said poll was conducted in May of 2021 and thus close to the latter event in timing has absolutely no effect at all on explaining the drop and said drop just appeared out of the ether, no?

OR, maybe we can say yes it does, since it correlates with everything and additional questions asked show the aforementioned war did have an impact on public opinion?

I'd probably go more with the ideas proposed by the Brookings Institute and Providence Magazine (like I posted earlier) where the linking of Muslims and Palestinians specifically with Racial Issues seems to be the connection in mitigating support for Israel along with increased apathy about the entire Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, especially since as pointed out earlier, the poll actually failed to offer a middle or neutral option beyond supporting either/or or none of the above.

Or as Matt Friedman argues, expanding on the point that Americans are still trained to see everything that occurs abroad as reflections of American race relations and two party system politics.

Similarly, the 2021 poll question reads, “In relation to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, where do you place your support?” Three tiers of both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian support follow, separated by an option to “Support Neither.” But it is hardly likely that all who selected the latter option were simply apathetic or ambivalent about the situation. They simply had no way to voice support for both.


Are Young Evangelicals Experiencing a Change of Heart on Israel?

Plus there's the interest in that people who identify as Evangelicals now are more diverse and progressive with liberal backers including the Open Society Foundation backing more strident anti-Israel religious organizations.


We could argue about this, but I'm not going to because it decisively proves my original point; support for Israel among Young Evangelicals has collapsed and thus the long term trajectory is not favorable for a Pro-Israel position in American politics. That you cite the Brookings Institute, while earlier trying to quibble about 2020 voting patterns is very bizarre for someone so meticulous as you apparently, given the closing paragraph of your own citation:

The bottom line is that there is evidence of a substantial and unusual shift. If the Israeli right is pinning its hopes on solid support from evangelicals as the backbone of U.S. patronage of the Jewish state, anchored in a biblical narrative that sidesteps international law and norms — as witnessed during the Trump administration — the trends among young evangelicals raise questions about the trajectory of strong religiously-driven evangelical support for Israel.​
 

TheRejectionist

TheRejectionist
Regardless of sides American Evangelicals take, Israel and Palestinians pay the price.

Israel will continue to be quasi-army with a state just out of survival's will with the consequences of a PTSD-ed population in way or another or totally desisintivized by violence. Basically a low-intensity Vietnam that is going on for 74 years instead of 20. Neither is good.

Palestinians will continue to suffer and being miserable because they have three choices :

  1. collaboration with said enemy, which is barely convenient regardless of religion and political orientation, because only a part of Israel will recognize you as equal. Christians are just treated slightly better than Muslim.
  2. PLO, who failed miserably and are just kleptocrats
  3. Hamas, fundamentalist who are more than happy to take potshots at Israel who will always reply in an overkill manner
The fourth option, the saner one in my opinion, is accept the fait accompli. Which I observed in many Muslims and others in Israel proper.

Fifth option is my personal utopian wishful which will LIKELY never happen : they kick out the cunts of their politicians, get a table, sit and smoke a shisha/hookah and drink tea or whatever else and just talk or chat. Then they will find peace.

MAYBE.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Two reasons the first is prosperity theology. Basically the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. The second when I talked to some evangelicals about why they support Israel(it’s ok to support Israel for normal reasons it’s a democracy, good for our real political interests, whatever. But theological reasons are wrong.)
They basically just used a brain dead interpretation of God will bless those who bless Abraham’s seed and curse those who curse it. Basically saying Israel and Jews are gods chosen people.

...So you're making a hollow claim that prosperity theology is particular to Evangelicals, or even accepted within the vast majority of Evangelical circles.

As to the matter of Jews being God's chosen people, that'd take a much more involved review of New Testament theology on the issue to answer properly; your posts on this thread very much suggest a shallow understanding of the issue on your part though.
 

TheRejectionist

TheRejectionist
On a sidenote : while I am very critical of MANY things of Israel and Judaism practices, or those who consider themselves ethnically Jewish such as Joanna Angel, Seth Rogen, Ben Shapiro, Larry Fink, Pfizer CEO Burla and many more. I am still thankful for Israel's help when they helped, even if it was BLATANTLY out of BIBI's realpolitik, really glad for those guys and gals.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
It seems odd to me that one trying to be as meticulous as you leaves out the very important notethat the AP VoteCast Survey didn't even exist, so how could it show higher rates of support for Trump? If you're talking relative to the Edision Survey in 2020, sure, but the question posed was about 2016 to 2020.

I didn't leave it out. I actually quoted it here.

zJQnYTO.jpg


You also make the claim the Edison Survey is not as comprehensive as the AP's VoteCast; what is that claim based on?

It's based on your article that you cited without sourcing or linking:

Gallup said:
One is a continuation of the traditional exit polls conducted by Edison Research. These involve stopping voters at actual voting places both on Election Day and during early voting periods, supplemented by phone surveys of absentee and early voters. The other is AP VoteCast, a massive effort to understand how people voted, carried out by The Associated Press and NORC at the University of Chicago. Their surveying uses a number of different sample sources, with interviews conducted by phone, by mail and online in the days and weeks before the election.

Again, I'm glad I'm here to educate you on this matter! The Barna Group is an Evangelical polling firm based in California, with extensive ties to Billy Graham going back decades.

How does the Barna Group being commissioned on behalf of a secular state University link equivocate to the Billy Graham Foundation doing the polling? Is every organization that has "extensive ties" to Billy Graham or any group that the Barna Group has "extensive ties" with synonomous with one another? Would it be just as accurate to state the Pentecoastal Church commissioned the poll? The Barna Group is a massive organization that deals with lots of Pastors and congregations and customers religious and secular and I'm sure the Billy Graham Foundation is the same. I'm not sure how accurate it is to state, as you did, that the Billy Graham Foundation "conducted" this poll.

Ah yes, I'm sure the Hamas declaration and the war in May of 2021 has nothing at all to do with explaining the massive drop in support for Israel among young Evangelicals between 2018 and 2021; the fact said poll was conducted in May of 2021 and thus close to the latter event in timing has absolutely no effect at all on explaining the drop and said drop just appeared out of the ether, no?

OR, maybe we can say yes it does, since it correlates with everything and additional questions asked show the aforementioned war did have an impact on public opinion?

Except that isn't the exact case? There's plenty of reasons for why the support is different now then it was before and very little of it has to do with the Hamas Declaration or the Conflcit in May of 2021. I'd rather choose to reference a multitude of sources that are more familiar with the community and were actually cited by you.

Times of Israel said:
While Israel is often deemed a top issue for evangelical voters, 65% of the young respondents said they seldom or never hear about the importance of supporting the Jewish state, with just 12% saying they hear it every week.

Brookings Institute said:
The University of North Carolina researchers also suggest that young evangelicals are less interested/know less about Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that only 38% of them say their religious beliefs led them to support Israel, while 17% say their beliefs led them to back the Palestinians. Another factor that could be probed is whether the work of progressive evangelical organizations, which focus on social justice, has been more effective among young evangelicals. A 2018, article in The New Yorker suggests that the separation of families at the U.S.-Mexico border, climate change, and various progressive causes have galvanized young evangelicals. For those interested in social justice, the plight of Palestinians has been increasingly viewed through that prism with the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Providence Magazine said:
If this is the case, we should consider the timing of both polls. The 2018 poll, conducted in April of that year, was surrounded by one unique talking point regarding Israel: President Donald Trump’s promise to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, formally acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Arguments about the political significance of Jerusalem abounded in political talk shows, articles, sermons, and public discourse. With enough buzz in evangelical circles about the need to support Israel in that season, a poll showing a favorable view of Israel is not shocking.

But in March 2021, well over half of young evangelicals reported rarely hearing talk about the importance of supporting Israel. Given the presidential election, the economy, the COVID-19 pandemic, and several other domestic issues, their conversations have largely not been about Israel, but America.

Most notably, in the wake of George Floyd’s death in 2020 and the contentious protests that followed, American evangelicals have very predictably fixated on race. Many have undertaken personal education into contemporary race relations and perpetuated new terminology. Construing American race problems within the categories of power dynamics, racial hierarchies, privilege, and systemic oppression has primed young evangelicals to see the rest of the world through these lenses too. And proponents of pro-Palestinian movements intentionally speak of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute in this same way.

Or as Matt Friedman argues, expanding on the point that Americans are still trained to see everything that occurs abroad as reflections of American race relations and two party system politics.

The Atlantic said:
In some ways, Americans haven’t progressed from the “Israeli” pioneer of Exodus, who’s white and blond and seems so awfully familiar. We’re still stuck with Ari Ben Canaan— except now he’s a racist. And if Palestinians were disdained in the old novels and reportage as non-Western, dark, and unmasculine, they’re still more or less kept in the same world of stereotypes—except those attributes are no longer considered negative. This helps explain, for example, the passivity of Palestinians in many Western accounts of what’s going on here, and why Western reporters are drawn to the tragedy of Palestinian civilians while remaining relatively uninterested in the ruthless strategy and significant accomplishments of the Palestinians’ Iran-backed military force, Hamas. In both the old and new versions of the fantasy, Israelis are actors and Palestinians are props.

Western observers are often tempted to see foreign countries as mirrors of their own, because it makes a story more compelling for members of their audience, who are interested—who isn’t?—mainly in themselves. And it means they can analyze other societies without going to the considerable trouble of studying them, learning their language, or even visiting. So Narendra Modi of India is Donald Trump, and France’s problem is racial inequality, and Dutch conservatives are Republicans. It’s seductive to think that everything you need to know you learned back in Berkeley.

Similarly, the 2021 poll question reads, “In relation to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, where do you place your support?” Three tiers of both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian support follow, separated by an option to “Support Neither.” But it is hardly likely that all who selected the latter option were simply apathetic or ambivalent about the situation. They simply had no way to voice support for both.

Providence Magazine said:
The central question of the 2018 poll was, “Where do you put your support?” followed by five choices. Between two pro-Israel options and two pro-Palestinian options sat a supposedly neutral option that read, “Support Neither.” Researchers removed an initial “I Don’t Know” option that would have taken about 14 percent of responses. This change left anyone unwilling to voice partisan support in a misanthropic-sounding middle camp.

So instead, a very telling split is evident: near-even distribution of pro-Palestinian sentiments of varying degrees (totaling 24.3 percent), followed by a similarly even distribution of pro-Israeli sentiments (all slightly higher, totaling 33.3 percent). Between these sits a clear and decisive winner: “Support Neither,” holding 42.2 percent.


Are Young Evangelicals Experiencing a Change of Heart on Israel?

Plus there's the interest in that people who identify as Evangelicals now are more diverse and progressive with liberal backers including the Open Society Foundation backing more strident anti-Israel religious organizations.

WND said:
And Soros is also using his wealth to distance evangelicals – long the leading pro-Israel constituency in the U.S. – from the Jewish state. For a decade, Soros has been giving six-figure grants to the Telos Group, which takes evangelical influencers on expense-paid tours to Israel and brings "Israeli and Palestinian leaders and activists" to speak in the U.S.

Again the issue isn't whether there was a drop, is that you deliberately withholding evidence and sources and analysis that you obviously had access to is worth pointing out I feel, especially since you were asked about it and being oddly "obfuscating" in the matter. I don't understand why your being so obtuse considering your viewpoint with what appears to be lies of omission. 🤷‍♀️
 

King Arts

Well-known member
...So you're making a hollow claim that prosperity theology is particular to Evangelicals, or even accepted within the vast majority of Evangelical circles.

As to the matter of Jews being God's chosen people, that'd take a much more involved review of New Testament theology on the issue to answer properly; your posts on this thread very much suggest a shallow understanding of the issue on your part though.
You know instead of taking potshots in the wrong thread you can say what you want in the correct thread for it.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
There's no need for us to be doing corporate socialism here, and if you see it as that important, those no reason the U.S. can't use that money for it's own defense. Lockheed is going to be just fine without Israeli orders.

I'm sure a few billion here and there will be no big deal to Lockheed, yes. I'm equally sure the congressional representatives who come from districts that Lockheed is based in will continue to decide that giving Lockheed more work and more orders is a win win situation for all involved, and so the government will continue to throw money at them regardless.

So you're either being intentionally obtuse or you're really naive to the point of having no idea what U.S. foreign policy has been like. Ever heard of Nixon goes to China and the Khmer Rogue?

"We've done morally dubious stuff before, therefore we should continue to do things that are morally dubious" is not a great defense, particularly in this case where stuff like Nixon and China where at least clear cases of realpolitik and national interest while this vendetta against Israel you seem to have is.....not.

All three are textbook applicable, without question and you're being dishonest by pretending otherwise. Selling our advanced military technology to China endangers American lives by increasing the risk of China advancing its own technology and being able to deploy new tactics and weapons to counter our own. The stealing of State Secrets to sell does likewise. These are textbook cases and you're either woefully misinformed about who the U.S. has placed sanctions on and how, or you're being willfully obtuse. Case in point: North Korea and Russia.

Now you're moving the goalposts. This wasn't about sanctions, this was about declaring the mossed a terrorist organization, which is, as I pointed out via the text of law in question, not legally possible.

Now you're saying that we should be applying sanctions because they spied on us or sold military equipment decades ago. As Husky noted, lot of countries do the latter and we don't care, and everyone spies on everyone and no one cares.

I am aware, as you keep saying, that it's possible to just constantly pursue a series of political actions with the net effect of basically "screw Israel" using various means that are not inconsistent with how we've acted in the past. However, those means, morally dubious and otherwise, had a clear principled goal, whereas the only apparent goal of the things you keep demanding is "screw Israel" with no real higher cause or ideals in focus, you just want to hurt Israel for the sake of hurting Israel.

And the reason OBL was disdainful of Americans being in Saudi Arabia in the Gulf War is because of their ties to Israel. OBL made it a repeated point to always cite Israel as a major reason of his antagonism to the U.S. and it's why we were "the Great Satan" and Israel "the Little Satan". I see no reason to doubt him, given this and the lack of any countervailing evidence.

That's another goalpost shift. Originally, you claim we should declare mossad a terrorist group because as result of their action, Osama was allegedly motived to attack us. He didn't actually say that, now it's just our "ties" to Israel in general that are the issue.

It is politically impossible to sanction an ally because terrorists demanded it.

Good thing none of my reasons are arbitrary. So far, you've not been able to present a moral argument for anything, your entire case rests on legal technicalities which speaks volumes about how much you realize you have no leg to stand on when it comes to this.

You have provided no reason to disband AIPIC or the ADL whatsoever, aside from "they maybe spied on some people 30 years ago" and "JEEEEWWWWS" (the latter is unspoken, of course), which obviously not a valid reason to try and destroy the organization now.

Pointing out that you seem to be wanting to pursue your vendetta against jews via any means, legal and otherwise (normally otherwise, in fact) would actually seem to strengthen my arguments rather than weaken them. Perhaps save the "you are already debunked" Kenshiro stuff for when you've really got a compelling case to be made?


Those are clearly just you throwing out the first link google gives you, and unfortunately it doesn't actually support your case.

The first one doesn't actually say anything about the alleged legal status of "unregistered foreign lobbyist", and I'd argue it helps me, because it repeatedly states the term is "foreign agent", not "foreign lobbyist" as you've insisted. Which is a nitpick perhaps, but if you're constantly insisting the jews are evading US law and should be made to account for it, it would help if you could correctly identify the legal issue in question.

The second one is just a bunch emotive rambling that fails to actually make any kind of point, at least no one in line with what you claim, it supports me quite well:

He told me that he came up with the AIPAC formula — AIPAC as an American organization lobbying for Americans — so that AIPAC would be legally permitted to engage in politics and not have to reveal its activities. A devoted American and liberal Democrat, Kenen believed American and Israeli interests and values weren’t likely to diverge anyway, so what’s the problem?
....
Of course, when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was actively seeking peace and an end to the occupation, that was the moment AIPAC chose to separate itself from Israel, resulting

An American organization, advocating for Americans, separate from any foreign control, is by definition not a foreign agent and does not need to register as one. The closest this rambling piece of crap comes to point is this part:

It is time to require AIPAC to register as what it is: a foreign agent. It will still be able to advocate for Israel, but as an Israeli lobby, which admits to getting its marching orders from the Israeli government.

If AIPAC was in fact getting marching orders from Israel, then it would be a foreign agent and would have to register, but at no point in this article does the writer actually provide a shred of evidence that it does any such thing, he just assets it does and we're supposed to take his word for it, because....reasons.

Is that why there is 1,700 individually registered foreign agents? You don't suddenly stop working for a foreign government because the formal entity no longer exists, that's laughably naïve.

Yes, you do, that's how being an employ of a foreign agent works. If you worked for, say, the Bahamas tourism agency, and the agency shut down and you no long worked for them, you don't just automatically become an agent of the Bahamas by default, you'd have to reestablish a relationship with the government of the Bahamas in some other capacity in order to keep working for them as an agent.

What is it with people like you screaming to the top of your lungs about the CCP and Chinese subversion, but then these priors go out the window when it comes to Israel? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for any American to support Israel.

Ok, well for one I actually haven't said anything about Chinese influence, but if I did, I would note that the issue is not that foreign governments wield influence in the US, the issue is what they use it for, and that anti-Israel posters like you have not done a good job of establishing that Israeli influence is uniquely negative or destructive.

Secondly, even if you feel that there is no reason for any American to support Israel, that's not really your call to make, people have the right to hold whatever beliefs they want, and to band together with like minded people to rally political support for that belief. You can, and have been, arguing for your own contrary opinion here in this thread, however you seem to be doing a bad job of it, because you can't actually support most of your main claims ("AIPAC is a foreign agent but hasn't registered as one", "we should retaliate against anyone that spies on us", etc).
 

History Learner

Well-known member
"We've done morally dubious stuff before, therefore we should continue to do things that are morally dubious" is not a great defense, particularly in this case where stuff like Nixon and China where at least clear cases of realpolitik and national interest while this vendetta against Israel you seem to have is.....not.

Good thing there is nothing whatsoever morally dubious about cutting ties with Israel and it is a perfect example of realpolitik in action. Our support for Israel and its crimes-and they are indeed crimes-in Palestine is what is consistently cited by Muslims as a reason for their hatred and dislike of the United States. It's a major reason why nations like Iran are engaged in conflict with us and why numerous terrorist groups target us. Cutting off Israel would serve to split us from them and their actions, enabling us to achieve better relations-with associated improvements in national security and economics.

Israel does absolutely nothing for the U.S. and that's why you can only defend it in generalities or in obstructionist, technicality arguments. There are less than 10 million Israelis but over 80 million Iranians alone. Basic math spells it out quite well.

Now you're moving the goalposts. This wasn't about sanctions, this was about declaring the mossed a terrorist organization, which is, as I pointed out via the text of law in question, not legally possible.

No goalposts have been shifted, I talked about sanctions at large and declaring Mossad a terrorist organization from my very first post.

As for the legality of it, you claimed it but categorically failed to cite any proof for your claim; I literally read the law, and quoted here for all to see, it says nothing close to what you are claiming. The Secretary of State can go in and declare any organization or group a terrorist organization, there's very few limits on it and that's why you cited the law in general instead of any legal precedent in this regard; you can only make claims with the former because the latter shows without question. Ironically, since this conversation began we've literally had a bill introduced before Congress declaring Russia a state sponsor of terror, and sanctioning individual journalists; not one of these legal roadblocks you cite have come up at all.

Now you're saying that we should be applying sanctions because they spied on us or sold military equipment decades ago. As Husky noted, lot of countries do the latter and we don't care, and everyone spies on everyone and no one cares.

You're being flagrantly and willfully obtuse at this point with a blatant strawman. We're talking about Israel specifically, and if the best you can do is "well X does it too" that really confirms what I said about you only being able to engage in obstructionist arguments. For one, it wasn't decades ago; it has continued to this day and shows up now with Israel increasing ties with China under the guise of the Belt and Road initiative. Further, as noted in the past links I've provided, Israel has went much further, more consistent and more damaging in its efforts than anyone else. The concept of proportionality exists and in that lense what I'm suggesting is perfectly just; the degree of their actions justifies a much, much higher response. If you feel you must respond to everything the same regardless of depth or scale, there are easier ways to admit you don't understand how realpolitik works.

I am aware, as you keep saying, that it's possible to just constantly pursue a series of political actions with the net effect of basically "screw Israel" using various means that are not inconsistent with how we've acted in the past. However, those means, morally dubious and otherwise, had a clear principled goal, whereas the only apparent goal of the things you keep demanding is "screw Israel" with no real higher cause or ideals in focus, you just want to hurt Israel for the sake of hurting Israel.

I think it's increasingly telling you're only capable of strawman arguments, which really says it all. Israel deserves to be punished for undermining U.S. national security via its direct actions, and for its crimes against the Palestinians. You want to criticize China for what happens in Xinjiang? Then start with showing moral consistency by attacking what happens every day for the last several decades in Palestine. The goal of U.S. foreign policy in this framework would be to sufficiently chastise Israel into stopping its actions-be it spying or ties with China that are detrimental to the United States-while also seeking to establish a lasting fair peace in the region while morally decoupling the U.S. from Tel Aviv so as to engender better relations between the Muslim World and us.

That's another goalpost shift. Originally, you claim we should declare mossad a terrorist group because as result of their action, Osama was allegedly motived to attack us. He didn't actually say that, now it's just our "ties" to Israel in general that are the issue.

No, there's been no goalpost shift, there's plenty to justify declaring Mossad a terrorist organization (and sending all of its members to war crimes tribunals too, I might add) and that which I've already cited. I cited the bit about OBL in the context of why support for Israel undermines U.S. security, you've just invented another strawman here by conflating the two things.

It is politically impossible to sanction an ally because terrorists demanded it.

Good thing I never said that, and said we should do so because of their direct actions against us. With the amount of strawman arguments you're wracking up here, it's pretty obvious I'm over the target and you don't have much left in terms of ammunition to throw at me.

You have provided no reason to disband AIPIC or the ADL whatsoever, aside from "they maybe spied on some people 30 years ago" and "JEEEEWWWWS" (the latter is unspoken, of course), which obviously not a valid reason to try and destroy the organization now.

Except for the fact it's an unregistered lobbying organization by U.S. law, its former leadership publicly admits as such and its actions show it, and the best you can amount at this point is strawman and personal attacks lol. Really, for someone apparently so concerned with the letter of the law as you have been for most of this argument, it amazes me how suddenly that concern goes out the window when it comes to organizations violating said law.

Pointing out that you seem to be wanting to pursue your vendetta against jews via any means, legal and otherwise (normally otherwise, in fact) would actually seem to strengthen my arguments rather than weaken them. Perhaps save the "you are already debunked" Kenshiro stuff for when you've really got a compelling case to be made?

An interesting take, betrayed by the fact you've not completely thrown out any objective or even moral argument for Israel in favor of direct personal attacks. You have yet to provide any actual argument that doesn't consist of anything more than obstructionism, strawman and now, as the matter of last resort, personal attacks. I have dissected every single objective argument you've tried and you haven't made a moral defense of Israel at all because you know, whether you admit it or not, there's none to be had and so that's why you've went straight to personal attacks and attempting to gas light with the "compelling case" bit.

You're not cowing me and you're not tricking me either, but you are amusing me, however, because it's all so tiresome.

Those are clearly just you throwing out the first link google gives you, and unfortunately it doesn't actually support your case.

The first one doesn't actually say anything about the alleged legal status of "unregistered foreign lobbyist", and I'd argue it helps me, because it repeatedly states the term is "foreign agent", not "foreign lobbyist" as you've insisted. Which is a nitpick perhaps, but if you're constantly insisting the jews are evading US law and should be made to account for it, it would help if you could correctly identify the legal issue in question.

The second one is just a bunch emotive rambling that fails to actually make any kind of point, at least no one in line with what you claim, it supports me quite well:

Yes, yes, claiming this seems to be your preferred debate tactic at this point but I think at this point we've established you don't have a firm grasp of what the law is either by choice or genuine lack of understanding. That's why you attach the personal attack bits because you're attempting a tar and feather gambit here, because rather than engage the argument-like former senior members of AIPAC saying it qualifies for needing to register and explaining why-you'd rather just attach loaded terms and such to cast the argument in a dark light and hope that's enough to either cow me into submission. Sorry, not buying it and the fact you didn't actually engage it alone is telling.

An American organization, advocating for Americans, separate from any foreign control, is by definition not a foreign agent and does not need to register as one. The closest this rambling piece of crap comes to point is this part:

No, you're just engaging in another obvious strawman, and taking it out of context to boot. The authors, who were senior membership at the time, state this was branding specifically done to give a legal façade; it's nothing different than the mafia running illegal businesses out of a butcher shop or, if you prefer a more politically relevant example, how CPUSA was just a front group for the CCCP. Just because they clam it is something, and self admit it was just fakery, does not mean it is so.

If AIPAC was in fact getting marching orders from Israel, then it would be a foreign agent and would have to register, but at no point in this article does the writer actually provide a shred of evidence that it does any such thing, he just assets it does and we're supposed to take his word for it, because....reasons.

Beyond the fact it's the testimony of senior members of the organization, and thus legally admissible testimony? But sure, if you want other examples I'm game.

Yes, you do, that's how being an employ of a foreign agent works. If you worked for, say, the Bahamas tourism agency, and the agency shut down and you no long worked for them, you don't just automatically become an agent of the Bahamas by default, you'd have to reestablish a relationship with the government of the Bahamas in some other capacity in order to keep working for them as an agent.

As I've said before, that's either laughably naive or you're being willfully obtuse. Given the framing and how you've acted so far in this post, it's the latter. For someone so immersed in the law as you present, it's very funny you don't seem to understand you don't get to de-register as an agent under the law; you're kept register precisely in case of "off the books work" and because of the possibility of future conflicts of interests. Again, it's weird how you suddenly "forget" things when convenient.

Ok, well for one I actually haven't said anything about Chinese influence, but if I did, I would note that the issue is not that foreign governments wield influence in the US, the issue is what they use it for, and that anti-Israel posters like you have not done a good job of establishing that Israeli influence is uniquely negative or destructive.

How weird you cite what Husky said about other nations as an attack on me, but then suddenly it's just so bizarre I called you out for it too. As for my case, I've made it decisively, that's why you stopped engaging with it halfway through this post and started with the personal attacks; you have nothing of substance left to offer and must instead gas light like you do here.

Secondly, even if you feel that there is no reason for any American to support Israel, that's not really your call to make, people have the right to hold whatever beliefs they want, and to band together with like minded people to rally political support for that belief. You can, and have been, arguing for your own contrary opinion here in this thread, however you seem to be doing a bad job of it, because you can't actually support most of your main claims ("AIPAC is a foreign agent but hasn't registered as one", "we should retaliate against anyone that spies on us", etc).

Nope, I have every right to do that, to advocate for laws to do that and will continue to do so gladly. I have also proven my case, that's why you have to do strawman and gaslighting in abundance here. I'm not fooled and you're not impressing me at all with this substance free argument you have. Israel is an apartheid, criminal state that deserves to be sanctioned for its human rights abuses alone, but its uniquely destructive, aggressive and endangering actions with China threaten American national security and global standing, which alone would justify what I'm proposing but when taken into consideration with everything I said before about their awful, criminal actions just adds more fuel to the fire on this.
 

TheRejectionist

TheRejectionist
Frankly, Israel's military actions (not it's existance) have affected and probably will affect negatively five countries I care about, it's indirect monetary and socio-cultural influences by proxies should be curtailed. Sanctions do no good because time and time again the only who suffer are the working class (Israeli and Arab in this case).

I still have lots admiration for Israelis, that however doesn't entail me to shrug off their bullcrap or many controversial stuff they do, did or will do.

As an example :

Ever wondered why they are THE ONLY DEMOCRACY IN THE LEVANT? If you count Jordan as one as well as Lebanon.
 
Last edited:

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
Good thing there is nothing whatsoever morally dubious about cutting ties with Israel and it is a perfect example of realpolitik in action. Our support for Israel and its crimes-and they are indeed crimes-in Palestine is what is consistently cited by Muslims as a reason for their hatred and dislike of the United States. It's a major reason why nations like Iran are engaged in conflict with us and why numerous terrorist groups target us. Cutting off Israel would serve to split us from them and their actions, enabling us to achieve better relations-with associated improvements in national security and economics.

Israel does absolutely nothing for the U.S. and that's why you can only defend it in generalities or in obstructionist, technicality arguments. There are less than 10 million Israelis but over 80 million Iranians alone. Basic math spells it out quite well.

Arguing that Iran, a nation where the US was involved with a coup against it's leadership, has passed economically devastating sanctions against them, backed a rival nation's war on Iran despite the regular use of chemical weapons and other inhumane actions, and so much more, is aligned against us solely because of our alliance with Israel and would totally cool with us if not for that element is....that's simply absurd.

Additionally, even if that were true, as I said before, cutting ties with an ally in order to appease terrorists is politically impossible for any government, they'd be thrown out of office immediately if they were seen as capitulating like that.

No goalposts have been shifted, I talked about sanctions at large and declaring Mossad a terrorist organization from my very first post.

As for the legality of it, you claimed it but categorically failed to cite any proof for your claim; I literally read the law, and quoted here for all to see, it says nothing close to what you are claiming. The Secretary of State can go in and declare any organization or group a terrorist organization, there's very few limits on it and that's why you cited the law in general instead of any legal precedent in this regard; you can only make claims with the former because the latter shows without question. Ironically, since this conversation began we've literally had a bill introduced before Congress declaring Russia a state sponsor of terror, and sanctioning individual journalists; not one of these legal roadblocks you cite have come up at all.

The law said exactly what I was claiming:
(a) Designation
(1) In general

The Secretary is authorized to designate an organization as a foreign terrorist organization in accordance with this subsection if the Secretary finds that-

(A) the organization is a foreign organization;

(B) the organization engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 1182(a)(3)(B) of this title or terrorism (as defined in section 2656f(d)(2) of title 22), or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism) 1; and

(C) the terrorist activity or terrorism of the organization threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States.

The secretary of state cannot, in fact, declare any organization he dislikes to be a terrorist group, and there are very clear limits on what he can do.

You're being flagrantly and willfully obtuse at this point with a blatant strawman. We're talking about Israel specifically, and if the best you can do is "well X does it too" that really confirms what I said about you only being able to engage in obstructionist arguments. For one, it wasn't decades ago; it has continued to this day and shows up now with Israel increasing ties with China under the guise of the Belt and Road initiative. Further, as noted in the past links I've provided, Israel has went much further, more consistent and more damaging in its efforts than anyone else. The concept of proportionality exists and in that lense what I'm suggesting is perfectly just; the degree of their actions justifies a much, much higher response. If you feel you must respond to everything the same regardless of depth or scale, there are easier ways to admit you don't understand how realpolitik works.

I think it's increasingly telling you're only capable of strawman arguments, which really says it all. Israel deserves to be punished for undermining U.S. national security via its direct actions, and for its crimes against the Palestinians. You want to criticize China for what happens in Xinjiang? Then start with showing moral consistency by attacking what happens every day for the last several decades in Palestine. The goal of U.S. foreign policy in this framework would be to sufficiently chastise Israel into stopping its actions-be it spying or ties with China that are detrimental to the United States-while also seeking to establish a lasting fair peace in the region while morally decoupling the U.S. from Tel Aviv so as to engender better relations between the Muslim World and us.

Realpolitik isn't just a magic word you can wave to justify anything you want, it actually has a clear meaning that is against what you are claiming. Realpolitik is about acting only for cold blooded, purely pragmatic reasons, rather than moral or ideological concerns. "They deserve to be punished for their crimes" is a moral concern, that is not realpolitik.

The closet you come to realpolitik is saying we should cut ties with Israel in order to build better ties with the rest of the muslim world, however you haven't really established that it's an either or situation, in fact under Trump we made considerable diplomatic progress on both fronts at the same time.

No, there's been no goalpost shift, there's plenty to justify declaring Mossad a terrorist organization (and sending all of its members to war crimes tribunals too, I might add) and that which I've already cited. I cited the bit about OBL in the context of why support for Israel undermines U.S. security, you've just invented another strawman here by conflating the two things.

We cannot send mossad agents to war crime trials.
1. Mossad agents are, as it happens, Israeli citizens and not Americans, we have no jurisdiction over them.
2. The ICC, the international body that usually has jurisdiction over such matters, has no authority here as Israeli is not a signatory of the ICC.
3. War crimes require a state of war, which does not exist between Israel and most of it's enemies.
4. War crimes charge also require the commission of actual war crimes, which mossad does not do. Assassinating people is, generally speaking, not a war crime.

I have to say it's also very amusing to see you here, acting aghast that Israel would run around assassinating people and taking offense to that, and then also trying to wrap yourself in the flag and talk about how our associating with them damages America's standing in the world. Because I don't think people are nearly as mad at us for our vague link to Israeli assassination programs as they are at us for our own, much more widespread and collateral damage prone assassination program. At the Israelis mostly just shoot people with bullets and not anti-tank missiles with a kill radius several meters across.

Except for the fact it's an unregistered lobbying organization by U.S. law, its former leadership publicly admits as such and its actions show it, and the best you can amount at this point is strawman and personal attacks lol. Really, for someone apparently so concerned with the letter of the law as you have been for most of this argument, it amazes me how suddenly that concern goes out the window when it comes to organizations violating said law.

You've repeatedly demonstrated a monomaniacal obsession with attacking Israel, regardless of the legality of the course of action you demand. It's not a personal attack to suggest you have a different set of motives than what you claim.

As for AIPAC, I don't care what some former leader said (which he classified as a loophole. Loopholes are, by definition, in full compliance with the letter of the law. AIPAC cannot be a foreign agent per your own source), I care about the actual established legal facts, and you have not be able to actually cite any actual facts to support your position.

Yes, yes, claiming this seems to be your preferred debate tactic at this point but I think at this point we've established you don't have a firm grasp of what the law is either by choice or genuine lack of understanding. That's why you attach the personal attack bits because you're attempting a tar and feather gambit here, because rather than engage the argument-like former senior members of AIPAC saying it qualifies for needing to register and explaining why-you'd rather just attach loaded terms and such to cast the argument in a dark light and hope that's enough to either cow me into submission. Sorry, not buying it and the fact you didn't actually engage it alone is telling.

I don't care what some former senior members says, I care what the actual law and facts say, because we're a nation of laws and not a nation of "some dude says".

No, you're just engaging in another obvious strawman, and taking it out of context to boot. The authors, who were senior membership at the time, state this was branding specifically done to give a legal façade; it's nothing different than the mafia running illegal businesses out of a butcher shop or, if you prefer a more politically relevant example, how CPUSA was just a front group for the CCCP. Just because they clam it is something, and self admit it was just fakery, does not mean it is so.

A pity the former senior members don't have any evidence beyond "trust me bro" to go on, and that the article you are waving around explicitly said AIPAC broke from Israel and advocated different things, which means they don't act on the orders Israel and are not a foreign agent.

Beyond the fact it's the testimony of senior members of the organization, and thus legally admissible testimony? But sure, if you want other examples I'm game.

That in no way whatsoever establishes that AIPAC takes orders from the Israeli government. Are you even reading your own sources?

Also, a quote in a newspaper is not legally admissible testimony. You have a constitutional right to confront your accusers, and so things like that newspaper quote cannot be admitted, because you cannot cross examine an article. It could only be admitted if your brought in the guy quoted to testify and he stood by it, which he might not, because you're allowed to just make stuff up for a newspaper article but not on the stand (or at least, you face much higher changes of a perjury charge than a libel conviction).

As I've said before, that's either laughably naive or you're being willfully obtuse. Given the framing and how you've acted so far in this post, it's the latter. For someone so immersed in the law as you present, it's very funny you don't seem to understand you don't get to de-register as an agent under the law; you're kept register precisely in case of "off the books work" and because of the possibility of future conflicts of interests. Again, it's weird how you suddenly "forget" things when convenient.

After your previous legal errors I don't have any reason to believe that this time you totally know what you're talking about.

Nope, I have every right to do that, to advocate for laws to do that and will continue to do so gladly. I have also proven my case, that's why you have to do strawman and gaslighting in abundance here. I'm not fooled and you're not impressing me at all with this substance free argument you have. Israel is an apartheid, criminal state that deserves to be sanctioned for its human rights abuses alone, but its uniquely destructive, aggressive and endangering actions with China threaten American national security and global standing, which alone would justify what I'm proposing but when taken into consideration with everything I said before about their awful, criminal actions just adds more fuel to the fire on this.

I think you've got this backwards, gaslighting is when I try to convince you that you're crazy, not when you try to convince me that you're crazy, that's just called "being a crazy person on the internet".
 
Last edited:

Kram

Member
Arguing that Iran, a nation where the US was involved with a coup against it's leadership, has passed economically devastating sanctions against them, backed a rival nation's war on Iran despite the regular use of chemical weapons and other inhumane actions, and so much more, is aligned against us solely because of our alliance with Israel and would totally cool with us if not for that element is....that's simply absurd.

Additionally, even if that were true, as I said before, cutting ties with an ally in order to appease terrorists is politically impossible for any government, they'd be thrown out of office immediately if they were seen as capitulating like that.



The law said exactly what I was claiming:


The secretary of state cannot, in fact, declare any organization he dislikes to be a terrorist group, and there are very clear limits on what he can do.



Realpolitik isn't just a magic word you can wave to justify anything you want, it actually has a clear meaning that is against what you are claiming. Realpolitik is about acting only for cold blooded, purely pragmatic reasons, rather than moral or ideological concerns. "They deserve to be punished for their crimes" is a moral concern, that is not realpolitik.

The closet you come to realpolitik is saying we should cut ties with Israel in order to build better ties with the rest of the muslim world, however you haven't really established that it's an either or situation, in fact under Trump we made considerable diplomatic progress on both fronts at the same time.



We cannot send mossad agents to war crime trials.
1. Mossad agents are, as it happens, Israeli citizens and not Americans, we have no jurisdiction over them.
2. The ICC, the international body that usually has jurisdiction over such matters, has no authority here as Israeli is not a signatory of the ICC.
3. War crimes require a state of war, which does not exist between Israel and most of it's enemies.
4. War crimes charge also require the commission of actual war crimes, which mossad does not do. Assassinating people is, generally speaking, not a war crime.

I have to say it's also very amusing to see you here, acting aghast that Israel would run around assassinating people and taking offense to that, and then also trying to wrap yourself in the flag and talk about how our associating with them damages America's standing in the world. Because I don't think people are nearly as mad at us for our vague link to Israeli assassination programs as they are at us for our own, much more widespread and collateral damage prone assassination program. At the Israelis mostly just shoot people with bullets and not anti-tank missiles with a kill radius several meters across.



You've repeatedly demonstrated a monomaniacal obsession with attacking Israel, regardless of the legality of the course of action you demand. It's not a personal attack to suggest you have a different set of motives than what you claim.

As for AIPAC, I don't care what some former leader said (which he classified as a loophole. Loopholes are, by definition, in full compliance with the letter of the law. AIPAC cannot be a foreign agent per your own source), I care about the actual established legal facts, and you have not be able to actually cite any actual facts to support your position.



I don't care what some former senior members says, I care what the actual law and facts say, because we're a nation of laws and not a nation of "some dude says".



A pity the former senior members don't have any evidence beyond "trust me bro" to go on, and that the article you are waving around explicitly said AIPAC broke from Israel and advocated different things, which means they don't act on the orders Israel and are not a foreign agent.



That in no way whatsoever establishes that AIPAC takes orders from the Israeli government. Are you even reading your own sources?

Also, a quote in a newspaper is not legally admissible testimony. You have a constitutional right to confront your accusers, and so things like that newspaper quote cannot be admitted, because you cannot cross examine an article. It could only be admitted if your brought in the guy quoted to testify and he stood by it, which he might not, because you're allowed to just make stuff up for a newspaper article but not on the stand (or at least, you face much higher changes of a perjury charge than a libel conviction).



After your previous legal errors I don't have any reason to believe that this time you totally know what you're talking about.



I think you've got this backwards, gaslighting is when I try to convince you that you're crazy, not when you try to convince me that you're crazy, that's just called "being a crazy person on the internet".
I'm curious why you think we cannot align ourselves with terrorists when we routinely do so all the time. Plenty of the actions Israel has taken against Palestinians, particularly it's well-documented policy of collective punishment and targeting of civilian infrastructure like hospitals and schools could easily be construed as terrorism.

Especially considering terrorism is a largely subjective and meaningless term simply used as a bludgeon by those in charge. And the Isrselis are in charge, both in Israel and America.

Also, it's worth giving a disproportionate amount of attention to Israel considering the disproportionate influence Israel has over the US. And I say this as someone who's White and Jewish.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top