> Lots to argue with here. First of all I don't think Israel > is a religious state. It is more of a secular democracy > than any other country in the Middle East.
Then why are hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in refuge camps and not allowed to return to their homes? > I also don't think global terrorism is an invention of the "Jewish Lobby" > in the US. AIPAC do not represent the complete Israeli > perspective but also they are not the biggest stumbling block > to peace between Israel and Palestinians; and to suggest that > AIPAC "runs the show" of US foreign policy is paranoid > nonsense. Graham. I and critics of AIPAC say 'influence', but you say 'runs the show', which suggests complete control. Not to pick on you, but I must point out that nuances such as this are tools of the trade. Take the term 'neocon' as a corollary. For a long time, especially in the days leading up the invasion, this term referred to a specific group of people, heavily 'soldiers of Israel', who forged and signed the PNAC Statement of Principles, which provided the philosophy used to launch that invasion. Since then some of the key names have dispersed, with the implication being there is no such thing as a 'neocon'. That's not true. What really happened is that the deck was shuffled, but the philosophy is unchanged. On AIPAC, if you're interested, one way to cross-check the degree of this organization's influence is to look and see if you can find some senators or congress people who oppose this organization. Did you hear any mention of AIPAC's influence in the Democratic/Republican "debates"? How about the "news"? Now you could say it's because this influence doesn't exist, but if you take the time to search on "aipac influence", you'll see a very different picture. Two extremes even, but if we can agree the truth is somewhere in the middle, even that should be quite alarming - and newsworthy. Yet there is nothing. No debate and hardly a mention. That alone says something, right? Let me say this, because I don't think I've had a chance to: I can live side-by-side with *anyone*. My problem, our problem, is authority taken/purchased/stolen by ANY interest group. I trust only democracy, because I sincerely believe that the will of the 'average' person is more likely to be correct then the will of ANY ruler. This not only becomes more true over time, but in the age of wmd's the margin for error is too narrow to trust anyone but ourselves. We all readily acknowledge that power corrupts, but we're loathe to admit it's actually happening. We can't however dismiss the evidence: that they've launched a terrible war. We're up to the part now where we realize we can't win conventionally, so why are we still trusting those with the power not to turn to bigger weapons? Thank you for your interest. It seems that most people have been worn down, steamrolled, and don't want to talk about it anymore. Peaceful people are complacent by nature, but there are times when we have to do what we have to do, and now is one such. For starters we must come to terms with (1) the depth of AIPAC's (and friends) influence and commitment, and (2) the price that we are paying as a consequence. Bill > The degree to which AIPAC influences American foreign policy > and our information supply is described in detail by > Mearsheimer and Walt in a paper called "The Israel Lobby and > U.S. Foreign Policy" > http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011 _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
