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:

Quote:

"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]

Originally Posted by Tokorona

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]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

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]

Originally Posted by shemp

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

Dick.

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

[shemp]

Originally Posted by Oliver

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

Very Wise.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by shemp

Very Wise.

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

[HereticHulk]

Originally Posted by Oliver

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/wi...,6941186.story

Rubber stamp time again!

Quote:

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-b..._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]

Originally Posted by hgc

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. 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]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I always took it to mean you support Israel's right to exist. And Webster agrees with me.

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]

Originally Posted by egslim

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by egslim

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]

Originally Posted by WildCat

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]

Originally Posted by LordoftheLeftHand

Ok let's compare it to Iran.

OK, let's do that!

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I always took it to mean you support Israel's right to exist. And Webster agrees with me. 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 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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

The Wikipedia article on 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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

and make settlements on the West Bank and unilaterally take control of Jerusalem?

Wait, how did Israel get control of the West Bank again?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

(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...

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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

Here's one

And that supports you how? The state was created, it now exists.

[egslim]

Originally Posted by WildCat

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.

Quote:

You should be aware that any asshat can edit wikipedia.

Irrelevant, unless you disagree with the definition as stated.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

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...

[Pardalis]

What logical fallacy?

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

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

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]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

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]

Originally Posted by egslim

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?

Quote:

Irrelevant, unless you disagree with the definition as stated.

I do. That's a atretch of the definition only radicals would use.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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:

Originally Posted by WildCat

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]

Originally Posted by WildCat

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]

Originally Posted by egslim

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]

Originally Posted by WildCat

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

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]

Originally Posted by WildCat

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.

Quote:

You felt no need for qualifiers when you stated "I'm opposed to religious discrimination" wrt Israel.

None were needed then.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Why don't you start again without the attitude?

Why don't you start again without the attitude?

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

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]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

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" concerning the Lieberman&Kyl amendment which "expresses the
sense of the Senate regarding Iran."

Quote:

Biden is also long-time member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and has gained considerable expertise in foreign policy, national security, and arms control.

• 2 United States Senator
  • 2.1 110th Congress
  • 2.2 Judiciary Committee
  • 2.3 Foreign Relations Committee
    • 2.3.1 The Biden-Gelb Plan for Iraq

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bid...States_Senator

[jsiv]

Yeah well, I'm TWO zionists.