Joe Biden : "I'm a Zionist"

[Oliver]

I didn't find a thread about Joe Biden's stance on foreign policies,
so I start a new one:

In an Interview with "Shalom-TV", he said the following things:

"The difference between now and before 9/11: many Americans can taste what it must feel like for every Israeli mother and father when they send their kid out to school with their lunch to put them on a bus, on a bicycle or to walk; and they pray to God that cell phone doesn't ring."

"Imagine our circumstance in the world were there no Israel. How many battleships would there be? How many troops would be stationed?"

"The second part is: people should understand by now that Israel is the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East."

"I am a Zionist," stated Senator Biden. "You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist."

Source: http://shalomtv.org/news_internal/news_21.htm




Now even if I can understand people who think the US is run by
the Zionists - on which I don't agree to avoid stupid remarks:

Do people in here think that such biased comments about foreign
politics are rather damaging for his campaign - or even dangerous
for Middle-Eastern politics?

[JoeEllison]

What an idiot. Is Biden serious?

[KoihimeNakamura]

He is entitled to his opinion. Does mean I don't ever want him making miltiary decisions, though.

[JoeEllison]

He is entitled to his opinion. Does mean I don't ever want him making miltiary decisions, though.

Yeah... but maybe he should consider what consequences his opinion will have when it is voiced. Wow. That one interview is probably dumber than a whole book of dumb things Bush has said.

[Puppycow]

It would be wrong to say that Zionists control US foreign policy, but entirely correct to observe that most US politicians do in fact pander to AIPAC. I don't think Biden is unusual in this, although he does have a particularly abject fawning (there's probably a better adjective, I'm thinking of Uriah Heep) way of kowtowing.

[Oliver]

Yeah... but maybe he should consider what consequences his opinion will have when it is voiced. Wow. That one interview is probably dumber than a whole book of dumb things Bush has said.


I agree that those are dangerous remarks. But what's
even more eerie is that he pretty much exposes his
own bias - which does spread even more skepticism
regarding the Middle-Eastern issue. Maybe he did so
to get support. Maybe it's rather damaging for his
campaign, I don't know for sure...

[shemp]

He has as much chance of getting elected as I do.

Dick.

[Oliver]

He has as much chance of getting elected as I do.

Dick.


I for one welcome my Shemp overlord. :D :p
But kidding aside: What do you think? Wise step or not?

[shemp]

I for one welcome my Shemp overlord. :D :p
But kidding aside: What do you think? Wise step or not?

Very Wise. (http://www.wisesnacks.com/products_potato_traditional_all.html)

[Oliver]

Very Wise. (http://www.wisesnacks.com/products_potato_traditional_all.html)


I guess I understand what you meant. But
at least their flavor is more tasteful ... :">

[HereticHulk]

Now even if I can understand people who think the US is run by
the Zionists -

Yeah, I don't think the US is run by Zionists, I know it!
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--lieberman-iran0926sep26,0,6941186.story

Rubber stamp time again!

Do people in here think that such biased comments about foreign
politics are rather damaging for his campaign - or even dangerous
for Middle-Eastern politics?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq9Dmoiwxo

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/09/03/israel_control_of_the_mass_media_aamp_th

..and the first one to say anti-semitic is way off base!

[hgc]

To any posters in this thread so far: your definition of "Zionist," please?

[KoihimeNakamura]

HereticHulk:

"and the 9/11 cover up." I was thinking twoofer.

[WildCat]

To any posters in this thread so far: your definition of "Zionist," please?
I always took it to mean you support Israel's right to exist. And Webster agrees with me (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/zionist). So I can only assume that those critical of Biden in this thread wish to see Israel cease to exist, and agree with Ahmadinejad on this issue.

[egslim]

I always took it to mean you support Israel's right to exist. And Webster agrees with me (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/zionist).
Wikipedia defines Zionism as "an international political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

Which leaves two questions:
1) What status do non-Jewish people have in that land, according to Zionism? Since Jewish people are mentioned specifically, and I'm opposed to religious discrimination.
2) What are the geographical boundaries of this "Land of Israel", according to Zionism? According to Wikipedia "The Tanakh contains several descriptions of the borders of the land. These descriptions encompass a region that extends from the "River of Egypt" to the Euphrates."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel.

Assuming all who consider themselves Zionists actually agree on those two issues.

[WildCat]

Wikipedia defines Zionism as "an international political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

Which leaves two questions:
1) What status do non-Jewish people have in that land, according to Zionism? Since Jewish people are mentioned specifically, and I'm opposed to religious discrimination.
You'll find that there are over 1,000,000 Arab muslims living in Israel. And they vote, own property, and are in the Knesset. Compare/contrast to any majority-muslim country you wish.

2) What are the geographical boundaries of this "Land of Israel", according to Zionism?

According to Wikipedia "The Tanakh contains several descriptions of the borders of the land. These descriptions encompass a region that extends from the "River of Egypt" to the Euphrates."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel.
You should be aware that any asshat can edit wikipedia. If Israel intended to expand to the Nile they did a piss-poor job of it when the gave back the Sinai and removed the settlements from Gaza. And if you have any evidence at all that Israel wants to invade Jordan and Syria and Iraq and take the land for greater Israel present it.

[WildCat]

1) What status do non-Jewish people have in that land, according to Zionism? Since Jewish people are mentioned specifically, and I'm opposed to religious discrimination.
To revisit this point, are you then against the creation of a Palestinian state, since it will be unlikely to protect the rights of non-muslims?

[davefoc]

1. Was it a stupid thing for a second tier candidate to say looking to move up?

2. Was it a stupid thing for a senator to say who realizes it's very unlikely he will get the Democratic nomination for president but still wants to say things that improve his chances of gaining reelection?

3. Was that statement by a high ranking US official in the US interest?

My answers:
1. He's desperate now and taking some chances is probably a good strategy So maybe it wasn't a completely stupid blunder but it probably was more likely to harm than benefit his chances of gaining the Democratic nomination.

2. My guess is that saying stuff like this is probably in net beneficial to one's chances of reelection in most US jurisdictions. It resonates with two groups, Jews that identify strongly with Israel and tend to favor most of its current policies and fundamentalist Christians many of whom seem to favor Israel almost as much as they oppose gay marriage. And saying things like this is going to be a very small issue for most of the rest of the population who might be somewhat put off by it.

3. I don't think it is. But I am in the group that thinks the founding of Israel was a bad idea and that the current US policies toward Israel are bad for Israel, bad for the US, bad for the middle east, bad for Jews and bad for the world in general. So I think saying stuff like this is a bad thing to do. I don't think people like wildcat agree with me on any of this and so they might tend to see saying stuff like this, even where it is ambiguous and might be harmful to some US interests is in net a good thing.

[JoeEllison]

There's an inherent racism/religious bigotry to the concept of Zionism that has always bothered me. Plus, there's something about that sort of nationalism and "cultural identity" stuff that I have never understood, and probably never will.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

You'll find that there are over 1,000,000 Arab muslims living in Israel. And they vote, own property, and are in the Knesset. Compare/contrast to any majority-muslim country you wish.

Ok let's compare it to Iran. According to the CIA World Fact book there are over 1,000,000 non Shi'a and non Sunni people living in Iran.

LLH

[WildCat]

Ok let's compare it to Iran.
OK, let's do that (http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/irn-summary-eng)!

Discriminatory laws and practices continued to be the source of social and political unrest and of human rights violations. People continued to be denied state employment because of their religious affiliation and political opinions under gozinesh, or “selection” provisions which serve to prohibit individuals from working for state bodies. Analogous laws applied to professional bodies such as the Bar Association or trades unions.

In January, gozinesh criteria were deployed by the Guardians’ Council, which reviews laws and policies to ensure that they uphold Islamic tenets and the Constitution, in order to disqualify around 3,500 prospective candidates from standing in the February parliamentary elections. The exclusion of around 80 incumbent parliamentarians attracted domestic and international condemnation.

The gozinesh provided the legal basis for discriminatory laws and practice. Religious and ethnic groups which were not officially recognized – such as the Bahai’s, Ahl-e Haq, Mandaeans (Sabaeans) and Evangelical Christians – were automatically subject to gozinesh provisions and faced discrimination in a range of areas, including access to education.

[Puppycow]

I always took it to mean you support Israel's right to exist. And Webster agrees with me (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/zionist). So I can only assume that those critical of Biden in this thread wish to see Israel cease to exist, and agree with Ahmadinejad on this issue.

Poison the well much?

The short answer is: No. You don't have to be a Zionist to believe in Israel's right to exist.

When you condense it down to a bumper sticker like that, it sounds like of course, how could a reasonable person possibly not support that? But what does it really mean? In this case doesn't supporting one nation's "right to exist" imply supporting one religion's "god-given-right" to a certain land, upon which others had been living for a long time? The Wikipedia article on Zionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism) says that 700,000 arabs were displaced from their homes.

So you are saying that if God says the land belongs to the Jews, then they have the right to ethnically cleanse the land of Palestinians and import co-religionists from anywhere on earth, and make settlements on the West Bank and unilaterally take control of Jerusalem?
Is Zionism not faith-based? As an atheist, I have a hard time accepting that God gave one people the right to a certain land. My understanding is that not too many Jews lived in what is today Israel prior to 1948, and that since then Israel has been encouraging Jews from all over the world to emigrate to Israel but not to allow displaced arabs to return to their homes.

(OTOH, considering the holocaust I find it difficult to tell Jews that they don't need their own state. I'd like to think that they could all come and safely live in the US but I realize that even in the US, anti-semitism exists. As an athiest I have no use for "holy lands" or silly religious taboos, but I recognize that religion is essentially baked into the bread. So what can we do. With religion (=ancient superstitions) as the basis for inclusion/exclusion in nationhood, is it any wonder that there is no peace?)

Now I have to look for the real definition...

Here's one (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html)
Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term "Zionism" was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.

[WildCat]

Poison the well much?

The short answer is: No. You don't have to be a Zionist to believe in Israel's right to exist.
Yes, you do. At it's lowest common denominator, Zionism is a movement to give Jews their own state, due to the problems they encountered in "intellectual Europe" and elsewhere.

In this case doesn't supporting one nation's "right to exist" imply supporting one religion's "god-given-right" to a certain land, upon which others had been living for a long time?
Last I checked, the state of Israel was created by the UN, not a god of some sort. But I'll concede the point if you think the UN is a god.

The Wikipedia article on Zionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism) says that 700,000 arabs were displaced from their homes.
Forced out, or they left rather than live with the sons of dogs and pigs?

So you are saying that if God says the land belongs to the Jews,
Let's be clear: It was the UN that created Israel.

then they have the right to ethnically cleanse the land of Palestinians
No, they don't and they didn't. That's why there's over 1 million Arab muslims living as Israeli citizens today. If that's "erthnic cleansing" they did a poor job of it.

and import co-religionists from anywhere on earth,
Every country has the right to set immigration policy as they wish. Did you know that if you have a grandparent from Ireland you can become an Irish citizen just by spending 2 weeks in Ireland? I have a friend who did just that. I guess since the Irish are discriminating by ethnicity, you will shortly be railing agains the evil government of Ireland?

and make settlements on the West Bank and unilaterally take control of Jerusalem?
Wait, how did Israel get control of the West Bank again?

Is Zionism not faith-based? As an atheist, I have a hard time accepting that God gave one people the right to a certain land.
Again, it was the UN, not god.

My understanding is that no too many Jews lived in what is today Israel prior to 1948, and that since then Israel has been encouraging Jews from all over the world to emigrate to Israel but not to allow displaced arabs to return to their homes.
That's right, it was a refuge. You are aware that the wholesale slaughter of Jews was not confined to WWII Germany, aren't you? There were some horrific developments elsewhere - such as Morocco, Libya, Egypt, and Iraq to name a few.

(OTOH, considering the holocaust I find it difficult to tell Jews that they don't need their own state. I'd like to think that they could all come and safely live in the US but I realize that even in the US, anti-semitism exists.
Likewise, the Palestinians could go to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt... :rolleyes:

As an athiest I have no use for "holy lands" or silly religious taboos, but I recognize that religion is essentially baked into the bread. So what can we do. With religion (=ancient superstitions) as the basis for inclusion/exclusion in nationhood, is it any wonder that there is no peace?)
So I'll ask you the same question I asked above: Are you against the creation of a Palestinian state that discriminates on the basis of religion, as it no doubt will?

Now I have to look for the real definition...

Here's one (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html)
And that supports you how? The state was created, it now exists.

[egslim]

You'll find that there are over 1,000,000 Arab muslims living in Israel.
Israel is clearly defined as a specific nation-state. Zionism is an ideology, so the two can not be equated. Nation-states are often guided by practical considerations, as opposed to ideological ones.

On the other hand - correct me if I'm wrong, I believe Israel has never refused access to Jewish immigrants, but Palestinians aren't allowed to immigrate. I have no issue with a country refusing immigrants, but this would be religious discrimination.

You should be aware that any asshat can edit wikipedia.
Irrelevant, unless you disagree with the definition as stated.

If Israel intended to expand to the Nile they did a piss-poor job of it when the gave back the Sinai and removed the settlements from Gaza.
I think the Israeli electorate consists of a variety of opinions concerning the future of Israel. I expect some would be content with the boudaries of modern Israel minus Gaza, the West Bank and Golan. On the other hand there are also settlers who are obviously intent on obtaining additional territory, probably based on religious beliefs.

For example, if we define the "Land of Israel" to include the Golan heights, Israelis who oppose the existance of settlements in Golan are no Zionists. An argument in favour of this definition is the very existance of those settlers, because why else would they settle there unless they believed it was part of the promised land?

[Pardalis]

So a senator who probably won't get elected to the White House said he's a Zionist, and the head of state of Iran says "Death to Israel", but it's the senator who is a danger to the Middle East?

[JoeEllison]

SO a senator who probably won't get to the White House said he' a Zionist, but the head of state of Iran says "Death to Israel", but it's the senator who is a danger to the Middle East?

Ahhh... that's a rather common logical fallacy you've got there. Did you get in on sale? It is so last season... :D

[Pardalis]

What logical fallacy?

How can a senator's ideas be a danger to the Middle East?

[JoeEllison]

What logical fallacy?

How can a senator's ideas be a danger to the Middle East?

The fallacy is in pretending that Biden can't ALSO be a danger to the Middle East.

As far as your second question... it seems so obvious that I have a hard time believing that you're seriously asking.

[Pardalis]

The fallacy is in pretending that Biden can't ALSO be a danger to the Middle East.

You haven't established that he was.

[WildCat]

On the other hand - correct me if I'm wrong, I believe Israel has never refused access to Jewish immigrants, but Palestinians aren't allowed to immigrate. I have no issue with a country refusing immigrants, but this would be religious discrimination.
See my Irish example above. Is it OK for a country to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity?

Irrelevant, unless you disagree with the definition as stated.
I do. That's a atretch of the definition only radicals would use.


I think the Israeli electorate consists of a variety of opinions concerning the future of Israel. I expect some would be content with the boudaries of modern Israel minus Gaza, the West Bank and Golan. On the other hand there are also settlers who are obviously intent on obtaining additional territory, probably based on religious beliefs.
Of course there are extremists, but you can't use them as the basis for your definition of the boundaries of Israel. That would be like saying that America is a land for white people only, because some racist group in Utah says so.

For example, if we define the "Land of Israel" to include the Golan heights, Israelis who oppose the existance of settlements in Golan are no Zionists. An argument in favour of this definition is the very existance of those settlers, because why else would they settle there unless they believed it was part of the promised land?
There are 20,000 settlers in Golan out of 6,400,000 Israelis. And a far more important reason not to ever give Golan back to Syria is that it is high ground from which nearly the entire country could be targeted by artillery based in the Golan Heights. I think Israel should annex the Golan heights, for purely strategic reasons. Giving it back to a country which refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, and who is still fighting a proxy war through Hezbollah in Lebanon, would be irrational.

And you missed this part:
To revisit this point, are you then against the creation of a Palestinian state, since it will be unlikely to protect the rights of non-muslims?

[egslim]

To revisit this point, are you then against the creation of a Palestinian state, since it will be unlikely to protect the rights of non-muslims?
My ideal solution is a unified Israeli and Palestinian state, with equal rights for everyone and a constitution protecting them, and a government consisting of both Jewish and Muslim politicians.

If Zionism advocates religious discrimination in favour of Jews and Israeli policy is based on this, then I oppose Zionism and Israeli policy, it does not make me support dissolution of the entire Israeli state.

Similarly, my support for the creation of a Palestinian state depends on whether I expect it to help solve the conflict.

[WildCat]

My ideal solution is a unified Israeli and Palestinian state, with equal rights for everyone and a constitution protecting them, and a government consisting of both Jewish and Muslim politicians.

If Zionism advocates religious discrimination in favour of Jews and Israeli policy is based on this, then I oppose Zionism and Israeli policy, it does not make me support dissolution of the entire Israeli state.

Similarly, my support for the creation of a Palestinian state depends on whether I expect it to help solve the conflict.
This wasn't a difficult question. You felt no need for qualifiers when you stated "I'm opposed to religious discrimination" wrt Israel.

As far as a unified Israeli-Palestinian state, forget it. The Palestinians have not shown they are willing to live peacefully with Israel, in fact they openly call for its destruction. It will have to be a 2-state solution, and my question still stands: Do you support the creation of a Palestinian state that discriminates on religion?

[egslim]

See my Irish example above. Is it OK for a country to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity?
I consider your example a matter of prior nationality, not ethnicity.

I do. That's a atretch of the definition only radicals would use.
Which is my point. Depending on how we define Zionism, or more specifically how we define the "Land of Israel", "Zionists" refers to a huge, very moderate group or a much smaller number of radical religious.

If we define the "Land of Israel" as modern Israel minus the Golan, West Bank and Gaza, then this definition of Zionist includes probably 95% of the Western world, most of the non-Western and non-Muslim world (assuming they even care) and I even expect a significant number of Muslims.
Personally I find it pointless to assign a label to such an incredibly wide-ranging group.

But if we define "Land of Israel" to include more areas the number of people who fall under the definition of Zionist reduces and radicalises.

(Note I use "Land of Israel" to indicate the land Zionist ideology advocates Israel is entitled to, not the actual Israeli borders.)

[JoeEllison]

You haven't established that he was.You don't think that making certain statements can and will act as provocation? Right-wing idiots in THIS country want to bomb every country on earth for provocative statements... so why wouldn't their spiritual brothers in the Middle East react in the same way?

[Pardalis]

Why don't you start again without the attitude?

[egslim]

This wasn't a difficult question.
And I answered it. "My support for the creation of a Palestinian state depends on whether I expect it to help solve the conflict."
Whether or not I support the creation of a Palestinian state is not conditional on its discriminatory policy, beyond the effect that policy will have on solving the conflict.

However, after that state is created I will oppose its religious discrimination.

You felt no need for qualifiers when you stated "I'm opposed to religious discrimination" wrt Israel.
None were needed then.

Do you support the creation of a Palestinian state that discriminates on religion?
I will only support the creation of such a state if it is defined in such a way that it can be a truly autonomous nation-state, instead of a state in name only. The latter would do nothing to solve the conflict.

[JoeEllison]

Why don't you start again without the attitude?

Why don't you start again without the attitude?

[Pardalis]

Why don't you start again without the attitude?

OK, back to square one.

How are his statements a threat to the Middle East?

[Oliver]

You don't think that making certain statements can and will act as provocation? Right-wing idiots in THIS country want to bomb every country on earth for provocative statements... so why wouldn't their spiritual brothers in the Middle East react in the same way?


Let's not forget that Senator Biden indeed had and has influence
regarding Middle-East politics. But to be fair, he just recently voted
"Nay (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349)" concerning the Lieberman&Kyl amendment (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=lieberman+kyl+amendment+&btnG=Search) which "expresses the
sense of the Senate regarding Iran (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349)."



Biden is also long-time member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_Committee_on_Foreign_Relations) and has gained considerable expertise in foreign policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy), national security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security), and arms control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_control).

2 United States Senator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#United_States_Senator)
2.1 110th Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#110th_Congress)
2.2 Judiciary Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#Judiciary_Committee)
2.3 Foreign Relations Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#Foreign_Relations_Committee)
2.3.1 The Biden-Gelb Plan for Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#The_Biden-Gelb_Plan_for_Iraq)
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#United_States_Senator

[jsiv]

Yeah well, I'm TWO zionists.

[marksman]

I consider your example a matter of prior nationality, not ethnicity.
What's the salient difference? Because Irish people had territory, their discrimination is permissible nationalism, but because the Jewish people lost their territory 2,000 years ago, their immigration policy constitutes ethnic discrimination?

Seems like it should be both or neither. If a future hypothetical Kurdistan had a law granting citizenship to any ethnic Kurd (let's assume a genetic test on mitochondrial DNA could and would be used to establish such heritage) who lived in Kurdistan for two weeks, would that be more like Zionist discrimination or Irish nationalism?

[Pardalis]

I still don't see how his statements in the interview are more or less threatening to the peace in the middle East than any that I've seen.

[dudalb]

You don't think that making certain statements can and will act as provocation? Right-wing idiots in THIS country want to bomb every country on earth for provocative statements... so why wouldn't their spiritual brothers in the Middle East react in the same way?

So Americans who support Israel's right to exist should shut up in order to avoid offending militant Islamists?
Frankly,Joe, you seem to want to blame everybody in the world except Islamic Fundamentalists of the state the MidEast is in today.
And don't talk about attitude since you insult and belittle everybody who does not share your left wing viewpoint.

[Oliver]

I still don't see how his statements in the interview are more or less threatening to the peace in the middle East than any that I've seen.


Those remarks can be misused for propaganda on the other side
of the Isle. It could be dangerous in terms of diplomacy - such
like peace-processes and "junk" like that. And it could influence
his campaign.

[Pardalis]

Those remarks can be misused for propaganda on the other side of the Isle. It could be dangerous in terms of diplomacy - such like peace-processes and "junk" like that. And it could influence his campaign.

But are his statements threatening by themselves?

[Oliver]

But are his statements threatening by themselves?


Good question, Goury. I was wondering about this as well:

Do people in here think that such biased comments about foreign
politics are rather damaging for his campaign - or even dangerous
for Middle-Eastern politics?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3006239&postcount=1

[HereticHulk]

So a senator who probably won't get elected to the White House said he's a Zionist, and the head of state of Iran says "Death to Israel", but it's the senator who is a danger to the Middle East?

This is pure propaganda! Lies!

"Death to Israel" was a quote that Ahmadinejad borrowed for his speech at a conference in Tehran entitled "The World without Zionism". The original quote was from a speech given years ago from Imam Khomeini. If you look that infamous quote in context he is referring to the collapse of the American Government and Zionist Regime, not their countries and people.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12763.htm

Both Israel and America have made the same claims about collapse of the Islamic leadership in Iran many times!

[Bud Fox]

This is pure propaganda! Lies!

"Death to Israel" was a quote that Ahmadinejad borrowed for his speech at a conference in Tehran entitled "The World without Zionism". The original quote was from a speech given years ago from Imam Khomeini. If you look that infamous quote in context he is referring to the collapse of the American Government and Zionist Regime, not their countries and people.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12763.htm

Both Israel and America have made the same claims about collapse of the Islamic leadership in Iran many times!

What exactly is the "Zionist Regime"?

When did Israel demand the collapse of Iran's mullocracy?

Information Clearing house isn't exactly a neutral site---it's mostly left-wing propaganda. The author attempts to describe Iran's objective as merely anti-Zionist. Interesting that a group of Islamic theocrats have such a moral objecton to a non-theocratic Jewish state. Completely inconsistent and hypocritical, but interesting.

Promoting the collapse of the "Zionist Regime", presumably means eliminating Israel as a Jewish state. This won't happen short of its genocidal destruction. Israel isn't about to gently allow itself to disappear from existence. No matter how poetic some of the translations, the meaning is the same from the point of view of any pragmatist. The elimination of the "Zionist Regime", " Wiping the Zionist Occupiers of Jerusalem from the pages of time"-----means the same damned thing as "wiping Israel off the map". No one with half a brain is fooled.

[FireGarden]

Promoting the collapse of the "Zionist Regime", presumably means eliminating Israel as a Jewish state. This won't happen short of its genocidal destruction. Israel isn't about to gently allow itself to disappear from existence. No matter how poetic some of the translations, the meaning is the same from the point of view of any pragmatist. The elimination of the "Zionist Regime", " Wiping the Zionist Occupiers of Jerusalem from the pages of time"-----means the same damned thing as "wiping Israel off the map". No one with half a brain is fooled.

Use whichever translation.
The meaning is clear from the context.

The USSR didn't look like it was going to wipe itself from the pages of time, but then it did. Consider Saddam, who talked so arrogantly you'd think he was immortal... Brought low by the people who made him powerful.

The moral of the story?
Don't ever think that the powerful will be in power for ever. Change happens.

[dudalb]

FireGarden never deals with idea that the collpase of the Israeli state will result in the "Ethnic Cleansing" of the Jews from what is now Israel. He just dodges the issue.
I think he is one of these people who denies he is a Anti Semite,but advocates a policy that will almost certainly lead to genocide.

[Pardalis]

For anyone keeping track of the subject of this thread, how are Biden's statements in the OP "threatening"?

[davefoc]

FireGarden never deals with idea that the collpase of the Israeli state will result in the "Ethnic Cleansing" of the Jews from what is now Israel. He just dodges the issue.
I think he is one of these people who denies he is a Anti Semite,but advocates a policy that will almost certainly lead to genocide.

Could you be more specific of the policies that FireGarden advocates that will almost certainly lead to genocide? Perhaps you could just link to some FireGarden posts where he advocates policies that will lead to genocide?

[davefoc]

For anyone keeping track of the subject of this thread, how are Biden's statements in the OP "threatening"?

I didn't think that making the remark showed good judgment or was in the American interest but I don't think it was particularly threatening.

Except that it reasonably will be construed to be evidence that a Biden administration would continue along the lines of the most militant Israeli supporters in the US. It also might be interpreted to suggest that Biden favored the continuing territorial expansion of Israel via settlements and military force. My suspicion is that a Biden administration would be more diplomatic and less militant than the Bush administration has been with regards to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. But his statement here counters that suspicion and in the minds of the Palestinian side in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute it would certainly reduce his credibility and make it less likely that he could successfully lead an effort to end the conflict.

[dudalb]

Could you be more specific of the policies that FireGarden advocates that will almost certainly lead to genocide? Perhaps you could just link to some FireGarden posts where he advocates policies that will lead to genocide?

He advocates a "One State" policy,and IMHO that would amount to genocide,considering the statements of the more militent Palestinians on the issue.
I am in favor of a Two State solution. Nor am I a blind supporter of Every thing ISrael does. But the existence of Israel is not on the table,and they are not about to peacefully vote themselves out of existence.

[Darth Rotor]

For anyone keeping track of the subject of this thread, how are Biden's statements in the OP "threatening"?
His remarks were dangerous to his chances for a presidential nomination, and threatening his chances of being VP as well. He also played into WN and Troofer hands, much that he cares, since I will guess he considers that faction marginalized already.

In America, you are free to be a Zionist, or not, a Marxist, or not, a Catholic, or not, a Bhuddist, or not, and so on. His declarations are a danger to nobody. Oliver's choice to see a threat in such an utterance is strikingly like that which he decries, the alleged fantasy of the perception a terrorist threat.

My irony meter barely survived that one.

To be crystal clear, Oliver, and in answer to your OP's question:

Do people in here think that such biased comments about foreign
politics are rather damaging for his campaign - or even dangerous
for Middle-Eastern politics?
1. Yes
2. No

DR

[LordoftheLeftHand]

OK, let's do that (http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/irn-summary-eng)!

Wow if you replace the "irn" in the url you linked with "isr" you find a page with a report about Israeli soldiers using a Arab child as a human shield.

What can't we all agree that these people are ruthless, absolutely ruthless; on both sides!

What is it about humanity that makes us put our Orwellian "nationalisms" above reality?

LLH

[WildCat]

Wow if you replace the "irn" in the url you linked with "isr" you find a page with a report about Israeli soldiers using a Arab child as a human shield.

What can't we all agree that these people are ruthless, absolutely ruthless; on both sides!

What is it about humanity that makes us put our Orwellian "nationalisms" above reality?

LLH
And what the hell does that have to do with religious discrimination? You're moving the goal posts.

[HereticHulk]

What exactly is the "Zionist Regime"?

When did Israel demand the collapse of Iran's mullocracy?

Information Clearing house isn't exactly a neutral site---it's mostly left-wing propaganda. The author attempts to describe Iran's objective as merely anti-Zionist. Interesting that a group of Islamic theocrats have such a moral objecton to a non-theocratic Jewish state. Completely inconsistent and hypocritical, but interesting.

Promoting the collapse of the "Zionist Regime", presumably means eliminating Israel as a Jewish state. This won't happen short of its genocidal destruction. Israel isn't about to gently allow itself to disappear from existence. No matter how poetic some of the translations, the meaning is the same from the point of view of any pragmatist. The elimination of the "Zionist Regime", " Wiping the Zionist Occupiers of Jerusalem from the pages of time"-----means the same damned thing as "wiping Israel off the map". No one with half a brain is fooled.

The point is, is that Israel can defend itself.

Zionist regime is what is running Israel right now! They also are running our media, and influencing our foreign policy.

What is threatening about what Holy Joe said? Cuz he swore allegiance the USA, not Israel. You can see where his true interests lie.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Christian Zionists believe they can bring about the Second Coming by influencing critical current events.

"They believe that the Christ will not descend to Earth unless Greater Israel is achieved and all Jews in the world gather in it. They think they should work to pave the way for that to happen," he said.

I think there is a conflict of interest here that is very threatening to the entire world!

[KoihimeNakamura]

Prove they are running our media, and maybe, just maybe, I'll take you seriously.

[The Fool]

See my Irish example above. Is it OK for a country to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity?

No...to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity is racism. Its really quite simple, it only gets complex when you wish to condemn racism generally yet forgive it in one particular nation. Your Irish example is irrelevant as it says that if you have an ancestor who was an IRISH CITIZEN you have certain rights. Not if your ancestor was of a particular ethnicity.



anyway...back to why racist policies in Israel are ok........

[FireGarden]

FireGarden never deals with idea that the collpase of the Israeli state will result in the "Ethnic Cleansing" of the Jews from what is now Israel. He just dodges the issue.
I think he is one of these people who denies he is a Anti Semite,but advocates a policy that will almost certainly lead to genocide.

[...] He advocates a "One State" policy,and IMHO that would amount to genocide,considering the statements of the more militent Palestinians on the issue.
I am in favor of a Two State solution.

A two-state solution which is always on the horizon, perhaps?

Nor am I a blind supporter of Every thing ISrael does. But the existence of Israel is not on the table,and they are not about to peacefully vote themselves out of existence.

Some are willing to consider the re-birth of Israel, and I think the movement is growing.

Daniel Gavron:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=370659&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

While his own personal history certainly makes for textbook Zionist reading, something has happened to Daniel Gavron, as reflected in the heretical conclusion of his most recent book. The time has come to dissolve the Jewish state and to establish a single Israeli-Palestinian one.

[...] "Having reached the conclusion that the territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River must be shared, but cannot be sensibly partitioned," he writes in his book, "we are left with only one alternative: Israeli-Palestinian coexistence in one nation."

The only solution, to his mind, that could preserve the Jewish state - partition into two states, Israel and Palestine - is no longer tenable. The massive settlement construction in the West Bank has sealed its fate. If Israeli Jews now wish to secure their long-term future in the region, he explains, they must agree to abdicate Jewish sovereignty and move swiftly, while the balance of power still tilts in their favor, to a multiethnic democracy.

Ilan Pappe and Uri Avnery discuss the two and one-state solutions.
http://toibillboard.info/Transcript_eng.htm

And Avraham Burg, former Knesset member and former chairman of the Jewish Agency, sees Zionism as having failed because Israel is oppressive -- which Zionism was never supposed to be:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,1042071,00.html

The Zionist revolution has always rested on two pillars: a just path and an ethical leadership. Neither of these is operative any longer. The Israeli nation today rests on a scaffolding of corruption, and on foundations of oppression and injustice. As such, the end of the Zionist enterprise is already on our doorstep. There is a real chance that ours will be the last Zionist generation. There may yet be a Jewish state here, but it will be a different sort, strange and ugly.

[...] Yes, we have revived the Hebrew language, created a marvellous theatre and a strong national currency. Our Jewish minds are as sharp as ever. We are traded on the Nasdaq. But is this why we created a state? The Jewish people did not survive for two millennia in order to pioneer new weaponry, computer security programs or anti-missile missiles. We were supposed to be a light unto the nations. In this we have failed.

[...] A state lacking justice cannot survive. More and more Israelis are coming to understand this as they ask their children where they expect to live in 25 years. Children who are honest admit, to their parents' shock, that they do not know. The countdown to the end of Israeli society has begun.

[...] Here is what the prime minister should say to the people: the time for illusions is over. The time for decisions has arrived. We love the entire land of our forefathers and in some other time we would have wanted to live here alone. But that will not happen. The Arabs, too, have dreams and needs.

Between the Jordan and the Mediterranean there is no longer a clear Jewish majority. And so, fellow citizens, it is not possible to keep the whole thing without paying a price. We cannot keep a Palestinian majority under an Israeli boot and at the same time think ourselves the only democracy in the Middle East. There cannot be democracy without equal rights for all who live here, Arab as well as Jew. We cannot keep the territories and preserve a Jewish majority in the world's only Jewish state - not by means that are humane and moral and Jewish.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

And what the hell does that have to do with religious discrimination? You're moving the goal posts.

I didn't realize there was a goal. What is your goal?

LLH

[RandFan]

They also are running our media, and influencing our foreign policy. Damn Jews, who do they think they are running our media? Ion was right, they do show their agenda. Thanks Heretic. You know, I read all about this in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion).

[Puppycow]

This is pure propaganda! Lies!

"Death to Israel" was a quote that Ahmadinejad borrowed for his speech at a conference in Tehran entitled "The World without Zionism". The original quote was from a speech given years ago from Imam Khomeini. If you look that infamous quote in context he is referring to the collapse of the American Government and Zionist Regime, not their countries and people.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12763.htm

Both Israel and America have made the same claims about collapse of the Islamic leadership in Iran many times!

If someone says "Death to America" and I'm an American, I'm well within my rights to assume that he is my mortal enemy. At political rallies in Iran, it is common to chant "Death to Israel" and "Death to America." Death is not the same thing as regime change, and even if it is, then certainly we are at least equally justified in wanting regime change in Iran.

[Darth Rotor]

If someone says "Death to America" and I'm an American, I'm well within my rights to assume that he is my mortal enemy. At political rallies in Iran, it is common to chant "Death to Israel" and "Death to America."
Just invite them over for a ham sandwich, that'll get things moving in the right direction. ;)

DR

[Thunder]

There is nothing wrong with Israel favoring Jews when it comes to immigration policies. But when it comes to citizens of Israel, no democracy should have the right to discriminate in any way between one religion or another.

[webfusion]

There is nothing wrong with Israel favoring Jews when it comes to immigration policies. But when it comes to citizens of Israel, no democracy should have the right to discriminate in any way between one religion or another.

:PALESTINE:

As we envision it coming into being, what would you say about the New Palestine State of Gaza/West Bank being off-limits to jews? If the laws of this New Palestine are similar to those of Jordan, it would be a capital crime (punishable by death) to sell land to a jew. In general, how would the jews that choose to remain in New Palestine (in Hebron, for instance) be treated? Would they have the right to vote? To serve in the New Palestine parliament?

Those are questions that nobody is asking, but they are questions that need to be raised, especially when the subject of Israel relinquishing the West Bank is being discussed.
We saw what happened in Gaza, of flourishing and comfortable communities being destroyed, and if the creation of New Palestine in the West Bank forces the jews to "get out" then that is a huge problem.

[WildCat]

I didn't realize there was a goal. What is your goal?

LLH
To try to keep an Oliver thread on topic. A fool's errand to be sure.

[WildCat]

For anyone keeping track of the subject of this thread, how are Biden's statements in the OP "threatening"?
Because he's a Zionist, therefore he supports an Israel that goes from the Nile to the Euphrates! Connect the dots Pardalis!

[davefoc]

Because he's a Zionist, therefore he supports an Israel that goes from the Nile to the Euphrates! Connect the dots Pardalis!

IMHO, WildCat, an unfortunate remark. Attempting to make the argument of one you disagree with as extreme as possible and then sarcastically ridiculing that position might have been slightly humorous for the first few thousand times it was done on this forum but now that it is routine fare I think any humor value has long since dissipated and all that is left is the intellectual dishonesty.

[Cain]

Water is wet.