“One of the things I’ve noticed is the Israel lobby – the treatment of Israel as the 51st state, sort of a swing state.”
Posted by Karol at 10:39 AM
Kerry’s Stepson Agrees: The problem is the J-E-W-S
Pretty unbelievable. At some point American Jews are probably going to notice that, while there is a lot of overt anti-semitism in more insular parts of the Heartland, the political left is filled with the not-so-stealth British version of polite…
Thanks, Rob Reiner!
On November 2, roughly 8 of every 10 American Jews will cast a vote for John F Kerry and his polished, continental wife, Teresa. Enjoy, putzes. **** h/t Ace, who observes, "At some point American Jews are probably going to notice that, while there…
Most Jews in this country are probably going to cast their vote for John Kerry. The big question is…why? Alarming News: “One of the things I’ve noticed is the Israel lobby – the treatment of Israel as the 51st state,…
Kerry should not be president. It would be harmful for Israel
Has this story been picked up outside Page 6 ?
Kerry should not be president becuase it would be harmful for WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
From the mouth of a spoiled little rich kid…one wonders where he came with those ideas???
You guys are just criticizing him because it was a cosmically dumb statement politically, right? You’re not debating the truth of it, are you? I honestly don’t know, so please don’t thrash me for asking.
von bek are you suggesting that what chris said is john kerry’s policy making kerry a bad choice for the u.s.? or is your “was this picked up outside page six?” unrelated to your belief that kerry would be bad for the u.s.
because i’ll tell you that chris heinz’s political views are most likely shaped by his late Republican father.
I’d hate to admit it but Dawn does come up with pretty good “Aw snap” comebacks.
Except that Sen. Heinz would not believe the conspiracy nonsense his son is spouting. It sounds a lot more like Theresa.
Actually, this story was also picked up by Newsmax and Drudge. If you read the article, Chris Heinz also calls President Bush a coke-head.
Wait. That’s conspiracy stuff?
Seriously folks, I’d love a long comment explaining what the big deal about this is. Maybe I don’t know all the secret code-words, but it doesn’t even strike me as that controversial a statement. But I could believe that it is if somebody just explained it to me…
Kerry is no Buchanan. His stepson’s remark and cynical reasoning is probably not in agreement with Kerry. Best way to predict John Kerry is to analyze what he says not remarks by his step son.
But, John Kerry says he will not do what Bush did when making foreign policy. He would not have a go alone program, he would use our allies as did his father when his father stopped Iraq from taking over Kuwait.
Well, that was a different ball game. Oil for the Europeans as well as the US would be controlled by Iraq. Europe had a stake in blocking Iraq’s invasion. Now it’s just he opposite. France and Russia were owed big bucks by Iraq who they lent money to. Both countries were in bed with Hussein after we halted his Kuwait grab.
What is now the situation compares to the pre WW 2 war in Europe in the 30’s when Hitler was in the process of re arming for the takeover of the world. George Bush is no Franklin Roosevelt. But both presidents were and are up against a Europe which was in the appeasment mode. England had Neville Chamberlain who represented the appeasers. France had Daladier another who did not want to ruffle Hitler’s feathers. We had Roosevelt who saw the danger of Hitler.
Roosevelt had no easy time in attempting to convince the American public of the imminent danger of Hitler. Roosevelt was opposed by presdent Kennedy’s father as well as America’s darling Lindbergh Other less known politicians and industrialists also were concerned with Roosevelt’s sword jangling. America was in an idolationist mode. Two oceans seperated us from Europe and Asia.
Today we may compare Islam and its threat to western civilization to Hitler’s desire to take over the world. President Bush cannot come out and openly say what I am writing. But, President Bush knows and sees the writing on the wall. The so called friends of Kerry are the same kind that backed Neville Chamberlain and his peace in his time.
Kerry is simply misguided. He hasn’t a clue to the European psyche. He does not realize that they are as frightened at the prospect of ruffling Arab feathers as were the Europeans and isolationists were worried about making Hitler angry. Both Lindbergh and old Joe Kennedy warned against going against Hitler. They said he couldn’t be beaten. They only came on when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939. France and England had a treaty with the Poles and finally realized that if they didn’t take a stand Hitler would over run them too.
Poland remembers, that’s why they are an active member of the coalition today.
John Kerry, and the Democratic Party in general, are very nearly apoplectic on the subject of “Bush’s failures of diplomacy,” meaning that other governments don’t like us any more. But they’re very selective about which governments. It doesn’t matter that there are many countries with us in Iraq; the fact that France, Germany, and the UN don’t like our Iraq involvement is enough to call it a “failure.” Kerry has said specifically that he means, as a first priority, to mend fences with the countries the US has offended. That can only mean France and Germany, because they’re the only ones outside the Arab countries who have said anything irrevocable, and the Arab countries don’t matter much in this case.
So Kerry has to make nice with France and Germany.
Both France and Germany are in the process of being nearly overrun with Islamic immigrants — Turks in Germany, many groups in France. They show this by supporting the “Palestinian” cause against Israel, and get very vehement about it. France, in particular, is very pro-Palestinian, and a high French official has been heard to diss Israel as “…that shitty little country.”
Iraq will, at least at first, be pretty much out of Kerry’s hands. But many of us in the right blog-hemisphere have noted that there’s one thing Kerry could give the French and Germans that (they say) would turn them up sweet, and it would appeal to the UN, too: stop supporting Israel and switch support to the Palestinians. That would bring the US in line with European policy, which John Kerry says specifically is a main goal.
Of course that would mean the beginning of the end for Israel, and Kerry and his campaign team have publicly poo-poohed the idea. It may be true that that isn’t his intent (I think it is, but I’m partisan.) The important thing here is that young Mr. Heinz is not a sophisticated and experienced political professional, able to keep things to himself with a straight face. If he’s repeating what he’s heard ’round the campaign offices and in the candidate’s private chats — and why else would he say anything? — it makes the case that Kerry will bail on Israel that much more likely.
Sorry to be so verbose, but it is a little complicated.
I suspect Dawn has a point that his father (a RINO) did a lot to shape his son’s thinking.
For the record, I think we have to be very careful about labels of being anti-Semetic. I think those charges have a lot less staying power now then they did earlier this year due to the reaction of the Gibson film.
When the ADL for example targets people as anti-Semites, a lot of goyim now hear “Wolf Wolf Wolf” once again. It is too bad as there are lots of anti-Semetic incidents in the world, from college campuses to Europe, and these occurances are not being followed by the goyim of this great Republic, including me, as well as they should be. We are so accustomed to hearing the ADL cry wolf that we ignore the cry, even if the wolves are at the door. I hear Foxman rant about anti-Semtism, and based on the Gibson film, I may well think, here he goes again with more of his baloney.
My question about Page 6 was simply that. I do not consider Page 6 a reliable news source. The fact that Newsmax and Drudge have picked up on it has done nothing to add to its validity. While I like Newsmax (and tolerate Drudge), they are conservative, often partisan, sites. With less than 48 hours to go before an election, they do not strike me as fair and balanced. Not that anybody else does either.
Like Andrew. I don’t understand what the uproar is about. He is talking about the “Isreali Lobby” after all. You know, the group that lobbies for Isreal. Isn’t it almost expected that they treat Isreal as a 51st state? Pointing out that American should be Pro-America before anything else, is a disease?
I also agree with Andrew that it is a poltically dumb statement because it is politically smart to pander to the Isreali lobby.
Ok, for those that don’t get it, here’s a crash course in subtle anti-Semitism. If you look at hatred of Jews over thousands of years, it tends to stem from some awesome idea that Jews control everything and therefore are evil. We own the banks. The US government is our puppet. Anything you don’t get in life, whether a job, a house, a million dollars, can be traced back to Jews controlling everything and keep y’all down. The hysteria exists in many quarters and this is just one more example of that. Chris Heinz is saying that America gives Israel, (its 51st state dontya know) special treatment because of that powerful Israeli lobby. It just breeds hatred and unnecessary resentment. In particular because of our current struggles with Islamofascism, you’d think he’d know better than to say that.
Democrats seem to get more and more anti-Israel every day — and are really starting to cross the line into full-blown anti-Semitism. It’s truly frightening.
Subtle differences between types of America support for Israel.
1. Pro-Isreal, treat Israeli interest as important as American interest and treat Isreal as a 51st state.
2. Pro-Israel, treat Isreal as a close friend and ally.
Let’s start a poll. Which one are you?
” Chris Heinz is saying that America gives Israel, (its 51st state dontya know) special treatment because of that powerful Israeli lobby.”
That isn’t what he said. He said The Israeli lobby treats Isreal as a 51st state.
Now, the truth is the Iraeli Lobby is not all powerful and does not control American Policy, is this good or bad? I guess that would depend on how you answered my poll question.
He may very well be anti-semetic because it must be foreseen that saying something like that would be labeled anti-Israel and therefore anti-semetic. But he might not have been thinking about what everyone will think and just spoke the truth about elements of the Israeli lobby.
Paul, see the dash in that sentence? He didn’t say ‘the Israeli lobby treats Israel…’ The dash acts like a comma in this sentence. Reread it.
First of all… it’s pretty obvious that the issue of the state of Israel is beyond most concerns about ‘anti-semetism’, at least for most people. The state of Israel takes some pretty hardline and controversial stances in it’s foreign and domestic policy, and a lot of people take issue with that. To do so is not to express anti-semitism, and I think we can all agree with that.
So when someone makes a remark about Isreal receiving special treatment, you can’t just throw it into the bin of anti-semitism. I suppose one of the biggest justifications for making that distinctions is that the groups who vehemently lobby for include a whole bunch of evangelical Christians. There are probably more American evanglicals committed to the state of Israel for adventist reasons, than there are American Jews committed to the state of Israel for identity or solidarity reasons.
Further, to think that under the Bush administration, who tried its damnededest to sell itself to evangelicals, the nation’s support of the state of Israel may be excessive is not exactly a provokative statement. A particularly strong committment to Israel is good politics for whoever wants the support of evangelicals; it certainly is not a “conspiracy”.
So I’m still not really sure how this statement is either anti-semetic or “conspiracy”-laden. It’s a statement about America’s support for the state of Israel, which is more because of history, evangelical Christians, and pragmatic Middle Eastern policy than it is about Jews or Judaism.
If you have a counter-argument, please supply it, because (as noted) I still haven’t picked up on the non-partisan significance here.
It’s about power and influence, and Heinz’s implication that Israel has a lot of it in American government. Any other group would see this as some kind of compliment, maybe. For Jews, and for Israel, it’s all part of the criticism they have always lived with.
Let my people GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ypu must protect from the Jew claw.
And when you see em comming, grab em by the horns.
France and Britain did appease Hitler in the 1930s. However what Americans seem to love to deliberately forget or know nothing about, is that Appeasement was not a simple issue. It was undertaken for several reasons.
1. Many of Hitler’s earlier demands were fair and reasonable, the rhineland for example in 1936. The 1938 Anschluss was contrary to Versailles and the invasion was unacceptable however if Wilsons principle of national self-determination had been applied to the Central Powers of WW1 after the end of that conflict Germany and Austria WOULD have been one political and national entity.
2. Britain and France were not anywhere near capable of fighting a major war against Germany in 1938. Britian had only just started re-arming and French doctrine was still fixed in 1918 terminology and they relied on the fortifications of the Maginot line. In addition there was no way to get troops to Czechoslovakia in 1938 to assist them. Switzerland, Italy and German fortifications such as the Siegfried Line were in the way and None of the Eastern European nations would allow Russian troops to cross their land to defend the Czechs. IN ADDITION AMERICA REFUSED TO HELP!!!!! Lets not forget that when attacks of European appeasement are made by a man whose grandfather prescott was a known appeaser as was Joseph P Kennedy.
Appeasement was in this context a combination of pragmatism, waiting until we could fight and aceding to reasonable German demands.
“Both France and Germany are in the process of being nearly overrun with Islamic immigrants — Turks in Germany, many groups in France.” THIS IS COMPLETE AND UTTER CRAP!!!!!!!!!!! I live in Grenoble in the French alps. My mothers brothers family live south of Limoges, west of Clermont Ferrand, roughly south central France. There is no massive overunning of islamic immigrants in either area and have seen nothing in French press either. What Grenoble and the Lyon area does have is a huge American population working for Motorola. Mostly from Texas it seems. Majority are bloody GOP and love Bush but we all get on very well regardless.
Many of my best friends at uni are German and they disagree as well. Stop reading the right wing press Rick Locke. France does however seem much more anti-semitic then it used to, that much is true.
“Young-wh-liberal” seems to have 3 messages:
1) French and British appeasement of Hitler in the years before WW2 was *not* craven or ill-conceived, but was actually a sound exercise of ‘real-politik’, since at that time they lacked the military power to take on Germany;
2) A major reason for this extremely clever policy of appeasement was because those very un-astute Americans…how did he put it? Oh yes: “…REFUSED TO HELP!!”
3) In both south-central France and his home in the Alps there isn’t any “massive overunning of islamic immigrants in either area.” Further, he hasn’t seen anything in the French press about this. Ergo, it’s not happening;
Clearly Young Liberal is a first-class analyst of history. I gather we are to infer that the apparent support of Islamic terrorists by France and Germany is merely tactical, designed to buy time while they gear up their respective nations for battle. Ah, most reassuring.
As to his observation (complaint?) that America refused to jump into Europe in 1936-39: In 2003 we took up the fight against a Hitler-wanna-be, and the French were *incensed*. Apparently your indignation at American inaction is…highly selective, at best.
Finally, it’s reassuring to read his comment that France doesn’t have any significant problems with Islamic immigrants. He knows this because (wait for it…) there aren’t any Muslims in the Alps, nor in an area that would correspond to Missouri here. Given such incisive reasoning, the U.S. State Department would like to offer you a position as a senior analyst.
M’sieur, one can only hope you are right in your world-view.
I’m not siding with YWL, so don’t try to lump us together, but I do have a few things to say about your reply to him.
1) Saddam was a lot of things, but he was no Hitler-wannabe. The guy barely had the support of his own people, especially after failing to acquire Kuwait in ‘91. At that time, you could probably have likened him to some aggressive nationalist, and (as a matter of fact) France and Germany were quite happy that he was confronted. But in 2003, the situation was far different by all accounts. You can’t connect France and Germany’s lack of support for us then with 1930’s Europe. There’s plenty of other criticisms to fall back on though, so I’m not sure why you tried to use this one.
2) I’m not sure where France and Germany are apparently supporting Islamic terrorists. They were admirable allies in the War on Terror until Bush went off on this Iraq thing. And while some connect the Iraq war to the War on Terror (and perhaps it is), France and Germany are not alone in not doing so. Half the American public, and good breadth of the world’s population doesn’t connect them anymore either. Does that mean we all “apparently” support Islamic terrorists, or were you referring to something else? If you were, I apologize.
3) YWL’s source for estimating Islamic immigration to Frane is constituted by personal experience and French news. What is your contrary estimate based on? You conveniently forgot his appeal to French news when you criticized him, but you didn’t offer the alternative source that you yourself are relying on. I’m not criticizing your point here, because I thought Islamic immigration to Europe was rising too, but your refutation of YWL was in poor taste. You at least could have given some justification rather than just insulting him–maybe then he’d have been able to learn or something.
But the Israeli lobby is very influential in determining U.S. policy towards Israel and the rest of the Middle East. The Israeli lobby does attempt to manipulate U.S. policy so that it benefit the hardliners in Israel rather than the American people. It is a legitimate issue to discuss the Israeli lobby in an American policital campaign.
It is also not the least bit anti-semitic to discuss it. If Americans begin to resent the Israeli lobby, I would consider that a good thing. Americans should become more resentful about the billions of dollars of their tax money that goes to Israel year after year. Americans should resent the fact that our support of Israel has helped to alienate the U.S. from the Arab and Islamic world and made the world a more dangerous place for us. The Israeli lobby is a danger to America and Americans should know it.
However, it is unlikely that Kerry will treat Israel any differently than Bush. Kerry and the Democratic leadership is in bed with the Israeli lobby and will gladly give Sharon everything he wants.
YWL said Hitlers early “demands” were fair and reasonable.
With that level of intelectual scrutinizing no wonder the left can with a clear conscious vote Kerry Edwards.
I’m sure Ossama is just misunderstood by the “bloody GOP Texan Bush lovers”
Well I do consider myself pretty sharp when it comes to history, and I hate to say this, but there was one man who proved wise in appeasing Hitler. Yep, Stalin. I do not see Munich as just appeasment; I think England and France were pretty much giving Hitler a blank check to go after the Soviets in return for Czech. Stalin then agrees to divide Poland with Hitler in August 1939 and turns the tables on the West. Stalin’s actions expanded the Soviet empire in Europe, which would come into play when Hitler betaryed Stalin and launched Barbarosa. Considering how close Hitler came to Moscow, Stalin’s appeasement of Hitler in 1939 worked brilliantly for his own aims despite the suffering it brought to millions.
Yep thats about right.
SF. My post about French and British appeasement in the 1930s was literally about that. I made no links to France and Germany today. They do not appease terrorists nor do they support them. In Germany they frequently arrest and put on trial Al Quaida members. The only reason they are rarely convicted is that the prosecution usually refuses to divulge its evidence resulting in a fair and legal acquittal. France and Germany voted for 1441 but felt as did the MAJORITY of the world that the US and UK had not presented enough evidence to justify an invasion. German troops are in Afghanistan lest you forgot or chose to.
Saddam was nothing like Hitler and attempts to protray him as such in order to scare voters into supporting invasions is as irresponsible as it is historically and factually inaccurate. Hitler had the support of large swathes of the German people and his country was industrially powerful and had the best military in the world at the time. He had also made very clear his aims vis a vis Eastern Europe and Jews. Saddam invaded Kuwait yes and attacked Iran supported by the US. Treated his population no worse than your average dictator for the time.
I did not say there were no muslims in Grenoble or Limoges there are. I said that there is no overrunning of France by muslims. Learn to read!!!
As for your “1st class analyst of history” i recently submitted an essay on British and French appeasement in the late 1930s. It received a mark of 69% which over here is 1 mark off a first in degree terms. At Brookes anything over 80% can be published and i know NO ONE who has got above 70 on a history essay at Brookes. A-Level essay paper on Nazi Germany was awarded 100%. Know anyone who has managed that??? Again i don’t.
Here is a list of Hitler’s early demands. Please tell me using historical knowledge what is unreasonable.
1. Re-occuaption of the Rhineland in 1936.
2. Either General European disarmament or a degree of German parity. Stresa 1935.
3. Peaceful Anschluss given that the majority of Germans and Austrians wanted it anyway and Wilson promulgated the principle of national self determination.
I do not view the Sudetenland crisis and demands as reasonable and the same goes for Bohemia Moravia in 1939, the cessation of Memel by Lithuania in 1939 and the invasion of Poland.
I agree with what you say – makes sense to me.
Looking for some buy propecia?