No. of Recommendations: 2
That is a definite plus for Chuck Hagel as SecDef.

Where does the Jewish community stand on Hagel as Defense Secretary? All over the map.

Leading the detractors is, of course, Abraham Foxman of the Anti Defamation League whose remark that Hagel’s comments on the pro-Israel lobby “border on anti-Semitism” triggered the entire debate. The American Jewish Committee’s David Harris weighed in on the same side with an anecdote reminding the public of Hagel’s refusal to sign a letter condemning anti Semitism in Russia. Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations expressed “concern” over the possibility that Hagel will take over as defense secretary, although he did add that such a nomination will be something “we will work with.”

The Israel Project’s new president and CEO Josh Block has also been active in circulating material highlighting opposition to Hagel due to his record on Israel.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has not made any public statement regarding its views on Hagel although it is widely believed that the pro-Israel lobby would not be at ease with a defense secretary who has openly criticized it.

Among the few Jewish groups standing up for Hagel are the dovish lobby J Street as well as Americans for Peace Now. The National Jewish Democratic Council did not express any view on the issue.

http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/168710/chuck-hagel...

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 46
Where does the Jewish community stand on Hagel as Defense Secretary?

Who cares?

I mean why does the opinion of the Jewish-American community matter any more or less than, say, the Russian-American community, with regard to the selection if a U.S. Secretary of Defense?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
xL I mean why does the opinion of the Jewish-American community matter any more or less than, say, the Russian-American community, with regard to the selection if a U.S. Secretary of Defense?

One would think he is being nominated for Secretary of Defense of Israel. (Which is about right when it comes to the Israel lobby.)

NOAH POLLAK, Emergency Committee for Israel: There is an incredible level of concern about the kind of secretary of defense he would be, based on his foreign policy views and his foreign policy record, and the things he's said over the past dozen years of his political career.

RAY SUAREZ: Noah Pollak is executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, which produced the TV ad.

Under federal law, the committee doesn't have to disclose the sources of its funding, but it's one of several pro-Israel groups opposing Hagel.

NOAH POLLAK: You take an issue like Iran, which is the -- probably the single greatest national security threat and problem that we will have to deal with in the coming few years, and Chuck Hagel has already come out and said that he's against -- he thinks military strikes are not a viable option. He's even come out against sanctions. And you have to wonder, what kind of advice would he give to the president?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june13/hagel_01-...

Doesn't want to start a war with Iran either. I'm liking this guy better and better.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's one of the biggest reasons i've written in favor of Hagel for years here.

Sadly, those that manipulate American Foreign Policy to their own ends will be very organized in nailing Hagel. Now they've gotten the LGBT community into it.

The Leftist Online Community here still can't figure out what to do about it, I guess they're waiting for marching orders.

IN the end, Israeli manipulation of American politics, American politicans and foreign policy will slowly weaken.

Can't wait. Less Americans will die. Billions of dollars will be saved

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Rec for Felix's post.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Jedi The Leftist Online Community here still can't figure out what to do about it, I guess they're waiting for marching orders.

You can't conceive of leftists who don't fit your ridiculous stereotype.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yes I can.

Have had plenty of convos with Liberals here, capable of thinking for themselves. Have challenged my own ideology in the process as they have done theirs. Scroll thru today's posts. Most of them are loser yuppies whining about rich white people in some form or another, or conceited Liberals refusing to admit that 2% out of a person's take home pay hurts. Didn't see much of Hagel.

It's the mob I speak of. The drones. They usually don't comment until the Leftist Mullahs tell them to.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oh Peter, know any Conservatives here who loudly write of their mistaken support for NeoConservatism, who bluntly write against such blindly Israeli centric American policies, mostly against everything that current Conservatives believe?

Lemme know if anyone comes to mind ok?

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Lemme know if anyone comes to mind ok?

JediG


Yes, Jedi. I know you have your head screwed on straight in this area.

I like many things you have to say, but I generally skip your posts because I don't like wading through the never ending disdain.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Cool. Subjective viewing is helpful. Glad you happened to stumble onto me on this thread though.

JediG

PS: It's not disdain. It's laughter. Look, for some people it's knock-knock jokes, for others it's Paris burning on New Year's. To each his own right?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And Sir Peter...

Lemme know if you recognize anyone here, who even a decade ago in the good ol days was steadfastly against WTO, NAFTA, and Normalized Trade with China, for fear it would decimate America's manufacturing middle class, which would in turn be a key part in crushing the fine nuclear American family that provided economic and cultural stability.

If you remember that guy, please note he was all alone on that one...against both Cons AND Libs.

Decide who was right.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
against both Cons AND Libs.

Decide who was right.

JediG



I don't have to decide. Back in the early nineties, my Green Party friends and I were wearing T-shirts which read:

Not
Another
F'in
Trade
Agreement

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Cheers.

It's too bad we 3rd party minded people can't ever put our frigging differences aside and rally around someone.

If a Pepsi can ran against Repubs and Dems, I'd vote for it.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Jedi It's too bad we 3rd party minded people can't ever put our frigging differences aside and rally around someone.

It's the election laws which are designed to marginalize third parties.

How to end the duopoly:

1) Anyone who can get one percent of the registered voters to sign up on a state-run web site can be on the primary ballot. NO PARTY NOMINATIONS.

2) Anyone who gets 10% or more of the vote in the primary is on the general election ballot REGARDLESS OF PARTY.

3) General election winners must receive 50% of the votes plus one, either through an instant-runoff process or through an actual runoff.


Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
All good ideas but look at all the infighting in 3rd parties.

Also, are we willing to put aside differences? Are we willing to say "screw the issues. It's 1st about beating the major parties"?

Would you vote for Pat Buchanan?

Ross Perot?

I'd vote for Nader or Kucinich in a heartbeat. I don't need to be with them on "issues". I want them to get 5%, 10%, 20% of the vote so the party can get fed funds and eventually challenge the establishment.

also research the Commission on Presidential Debates peter. That's the corrupt body of the duopoly you speak of.

Night!

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I mean why does the opinion of the Jewish-American community matter any more or less than, say, the Russian-American community, with regard to the selection if a U.S. Secretary of Defense?"

Very good line of thinking.

I wonder if anyone said this when everyone was talking how Republicans "alienated Hispanics" via immigration policy stances.

Did anyone on the left say "why should we care what Hispanic-Americans think"?



Probably not.

Cause in Lefty ville....the joooos are persona non grata, unless they are the self hating kind.

Just as well.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
NOAH POLLAK: You take an issue like Iran, which is the -- probably the single greatest national security threat and problem that we will have to deal with in the coming few years

Either extremely ignorant or extremely treasonous. Iran isn't in the top 3 threats the US is facing or will face in the next few years.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 20
"I mean why does the opinion of the Jewish-American community matter any more or less than, say, the Russian-American community, with regard to the selection if a U.S. Secretary of Defense?"

Very good line of thinking.

I wonder if anyone said this when everyone was talking how Republicans "alienated Hispanics" via immigration policy stances.

Did anyone on the left say "why should we care what Hispanic-Americans think"?

Probably not.


Definitely not. Hispanics make up about 20% of the U.S. population, even higher in some formerly "red" states, which is why they're formerly "red."


Cause in Lefty ville....the joooos are persona non grata, unless they are the self hating kind.

That's not why. Jewish Americans have been among some the most prominent leaders of "Leftyville" in the U.S. and elsewhere. And 70% of American Jewish voters voted for Obama. But you're not only wrongheaded. Calling Jews "joooos" and "self-hating" because they disagree with your politics is ugly, antisemitic even. I'm surprised your hateful post has stood this long.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
NOAH POLLAK: You take an issue like Iran, which is the -- probably the single greatest national security threat and problem that we will have to deal with in the coming few years

tgr Either extremely ignorant or extremely treasonous. Iran isn't in the top 3 threats the US is facing or will face in the next few years.

It makes much more sense if you translate it:

You take an issue like Iran, which is the -- probably the single greatest national security threat and problem that ISRAEL will have to deal with in the coming few years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Pollak

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Jedi Did anyone on the left say "why should we care what Hispanic-Americans think"?

So this is actually a good question. But let's be more specific.

Did anyone on the left say "What do Hispanic-Americans think about immigration policy?"

Definitely. For example:

http://www.alternet.org/story/155896/obama's_bold_immigration_executive_order_--_what_does_this_mean_for_the_election


But how about this:

Did anyone on the left say "What do Hispanic-Americans think about a possible Secretary of Defense?"

No....

Because the Defense Secretary defends the entire nation, not this or that ethnic group. It is simply inappropriate to give any ethnic group undo influence on this appointment.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Jedi Would you vote for Pat Buchanan?

Ross Perot?

I'd vote for Nader or Kucinich in a heartbeat.


I voted for Nader in 2000 but I did so knowing that (back then) Virginia was a red state. My vote was not going to change the result. If I had lived in Florida I would have voted for Gore.

But 100,000 Nader voters in Florida didn't make this analysis so instead of Gore they got Bush (and permanently alienated persons I knew in VA from ever supporting the Green Party). This travesty happens because we do not require the winner to get a majority (not a plurality) of the vote in the US.


also research the Commission on Presidential Debates peter. That's the corrupt body of the duopoly you speak of.

I am well aware. The CPD represents the corporations in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Deba...

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
It makes much more sense if you translate it:

You take an issue like Iran, which is the -- probably the single greatest national security threat and problem that ISRAEL will have to deal with in the coming few years.


The U.S.'s and Israel's national security interests aren't the same, but they are similar. And it is definitely in the U.S. national interest that Israel survive and thrive. But that does not mean that the Israel lobby in the U.S. should have veto power, or even much say, over cabinet positions.

And Chuck Hagel is in no way "anti-Israel." He's just not sufficiently pro-Israel to satisfy the Israeli right and their U.S. lobbyists. It's not even clear to me why it matters to them that the SecDef be ardently pro-Israel. SecState, I get, but SecDef?

I'd argue that the views of the Israeli right and their American lobbyists do not represent Israel's best interests. They represent their own narrow interests. The worst thing for the U.S. and Israel is to subordinate their mutual national security interestes to the specific political interests of Netanyahu and AIPAC.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
xL I'd argue that the views of the Israeli right and their American lobbyists do not represent Israel's best interests. They represent their own narrow interests. The worst thing for the U.S. and Israel is to subordinate their mutual national security interestes to the specific political interests of Netanyahu and AIPAC.

I agree. It would seem that the bellicosity emanating from Netanyahu and AIPAC do not even represent the views of a majority of Israelis.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/poll-majority-...

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I agree. It would seem that the bellicosity emanating from Netanyahu and AIPAC do not even represent the views of a majority of Israelis.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/poll-majority-......


Not only does Netanyahu not represent a majority of Israelis, he barely represents a majority of Likud voters.

I have no idea who AIPAC actually represents.

http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2011/08/09/does-aipa...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Where does the Jewish community stand on Hagel as Defense Secretary?


this question shows a willful ignorance......

ask the Arab American community instead......they are behind closed doors more worried than Jewish Americans....at least the leaders in the community are.....the rank and file believe that Muslims at any cost need nukes.....

Then ask the EU....since they are within range for any Iranian 'problems'.......ask the Saudis for a good time.....

Iran has to be stopped. D'uh!!

Dave
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-name-former-senator-hagel-defens...

Cheney....the Dick......hates Hagel......

I support Hagel automatically.....

Dave
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
According to the special IRS release of AIPAC’s 2009 Schedule B [.pdf] there were only two $5,000-plus donors. Donor number one gave $48,842,187. Donor number two chipped in $13,503,472. This means small donors contributed only $2,261,755 for total year 2009 public support of $64,607,414. The IRS confirms that there is no additional 2009 spreadsheet attachment of $5,000-plus donors as in 2006. AIPAC is now telling the IRS that it has only two meaningful donors.
http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2011/08/09/does-aipa....

Wow! TWO ANONYMOUS DONORS funding an organization that is substantially influencing American foreign policy.

Anyone here comfortable with that?

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Doesn't matter if someone is comfortable or not because they gotta make up 20% of the population to be considered.

If they make up 20%, their opinion on immigration is a real concern.

But if not, their opinion on SecDef means as much as anyone else's.

LOL

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Doesn't matter if someone is comfortable or not because they gotta make up 20% of the population to be considered.

No one said that. You're making stuff up again.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Where did I say that someone said that?

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement