Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!

[michaelintp]

thank you Curtis. I have a question though, if the planet does become uninhabitable wouldn't that be the same as destroyed?

I think that is the Curtis bizarre sense of humor ...   

[michaelintp]

Yeah. Sure sounds like those folks over there have a lot to contend with.
Why does that matter to us, again?
And by "us" I mean Americans.

The United States is a longstanding strong ally of Israel based on shared democratic values and strategic interests including the rejection of terrorism and violence. The United States has a great interest in the stability of the Middle East, a region that is afflicted by extremists who violently oppose the U.S., Israel and democracy, rogue states with large military arsenals which include non-conventional weaponry, and other authoritarian regimes. Bolstering and supporting peace, stability and democracy in the region through relations with Israel is in America’s strategic interest. Indeed, public opinion polls have consistently demonstrated that Americans of all backgrounds support strong U.S.-Israeli relations and view Israel as a key ally of the United States.

The hatred of the United States and the West by Islamic extremist terrorists such as Osama bin Laden has little to do with U.S. policy towards Israel and the Palestinians. Indeed, were there no Israeli-Palestinian conflict or were the U.S. to sever its ties with Israel, their key “grievances” against the U.S. and the West would remain.

These extremists are ideologically opposed to everything the U.S. and the West holds dear: democracy, modernism, freedom, globalism and diversity. In Al-Qaeda’s public pronouncements the U.S. is blamed for its presence on Muslim soil (the war in Iraq, stationing U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan), and for its support of “moderate Arab regimes” such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and others that they consider corrupt and anti-Muslim. Bin Laden and his supporters recognize that the U.S. and its allies in the region (including Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt) stand in the way of his ultimate goal: the establishment of a theocratic, unified Muslim state spanning the region. Until the U.S. launched military action against Al Qaeda following the 9/11 attacks, bin Laden said hardly a word about the Palestinians or Israel. His attempt to champion the Palestinian cause was clearly calculated to woo support from the “Arab street,” and has no effect on his goals and plans for future terrorist attacks.

In short, Israel is on the front lines of a global struggle that affects all of us.  Like it or not, that's reality.

[Redjack]

Michael. Israel is not, by any definition,  a democratic country. It is an ethnic enclave whose raison d'etre is to promote and keep safe a single ethnic group. Part of the reason for the Israeli hard liners grudging acceptance of the various peace plans in recent years is that somebody over there did the math and realized they were being out bred by their Palestinian cousins. Eventually, regardless of intent, Israel would have become Palestine by default within one, perhaps two generations. IF it was a democracy. A true democracy would, faced with that prospect, simply find the means to indoctrinate the coming generations into the appropriate mindset i.e. to think of all Israelis as the same, regardless of ethnicity. But that is less preferable to an ethnocentric state than the two-state solution they've been traditionally against.

By contrast, the principle the US is founded on, E PLURIBUS UNUM (from many, one), is totally antithetical to that of Israel as it is meant to SPECIFICALLY do away with such ethnic cocooning. Ours is a tribe of the mind. Theirs is the old fashioned tribe of the blood. Ours is better.

It's not a democracy. No more than South Africa was a democracy before aparthied went away. To claim it is, is spin.

The US HAS been a long time ally of Israel and, for our pains, Israeli spies have stolen our secrets, sold our tech to our enemies, entered into open trade with countries against which we have embargoes and, on at least one occasion, attacked American military personnel. Some ally.

All of their actions are taken under the heading of what's good for the Israeli state. Which is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. They have a tough road and they have a specific goal in mind for themselves that has a lot of blocks in the way. Israel does what every nation should do: protects its own interests to the exclusion of concern for the interests of other nations.

All I have ever advocated is that the US act the same way and only do what is actually good for us rather than what gets the pockets of our politicians fat.

But I'm funny that way.


Osama bin Laden may desire a global caliphate but he's never going to get it and not because of anything Israel does or doesn't do.

As the US is learning in Iraq and as we already learned in Vietnam, it is impossible in modern times for a foreign power, however large and powerful, to control for any real length of time, a seperate coutnry that doesn't wish to be controlled.

Bin Laden is dangerous because he is insane. He and his followers will wreak havoc on various nations forever because their ultimate goal can never be realized. Our siding with Israel, hell, Israel's continued existence, matters not at all in that paradigm. Whether they stay or go, the world is not going to accept the yoke of Islamic law.

Israel has, literally, nothing to do with that.

[michaelintp]

Israel certainly is a democracy.  Every adult Israeli citizen is entitled to vote, and their votes count.  There is no "ethnicity" requirement for an Israeli Jew or Israeli Arab to vote in an Israeli election.

Also, the majority of Israelis did support a two-state solution, as did the Israeli government under Prime Minister Barak, supported by President Clinton.  But unfortunately to make peace (as with other things) it takes two to tango.  In 2000 the Palestinian Leadership rejected peace and instead opted for Intifada -- effectively giving the finger to all those Israelis who wanted peace. [They gave a lot more than just the "finger" actually ... as the myriad suicide bombings, missile and rocket attacks, and the like have so gruesomely demonstrated].

Israel has long been an ally of the United States ... both during the Cold War and Now.  In some ways the considerations may have been different during the Cold War, but in some ways the considerations are very similar. 

As to spies in the U.S. ... unfortunately there are spies from several allied countries in the U.S (who from time to time get caught) and there are spies for the U.S. in several allied countries (who from time to time get caught).  As a man who understands realpolitik, I'm sure you acknowledge this.  There is no special reason to point the finger at Israel.

We fundamentally disagree as to the role Israel plays in the struggle against Radical Islam.  Many view Israel as the canary in the coal mine.  Others view it as one of the front lines of defense.  If Israel were to fall ... and don't be so naive as to suggest that it could not ... that would be a major victory to the Islamists that would have Regional and Global repercussions.

My final query is ... I wonder to what extend Barak Obama really more closely shares your sentiments, or mine?

[Redjack]

If Israel vanished tomorrow, nothing would change vis a vis Bin Laden's gang. He is insane and so are his people.

Your description of the Israeli participation in the peace process is predictably one-sided (therefore untrue even though everything you said is a fact. If you only tell half, you're not telling. A half truth is just a lie in better clothes.) just as your description of Israeli social dynamics is predictably rosy but, again, far short of the facts.

Personally, I don't care what Mr. Obama's opinion of Israel, the PA or Hamas is. They are irrelevant to every aspect of my life outside this conversation and the money their ridiculous squabble costs my country every year. I hope our future President is as ruthless an advocate of American interests as Israel has been of its.

That doesn't include rubber stamping the desires of any nation, Israel included.

[michaelintp]

Getting back to the original topic of this thread ...

Doesn't anyone else not believe Barak Obama when he says he was unaware of his church's pro-Hamas publication in the Pastor's Page (calling it a "fresh view") and the publication of the rant of the anti-Israel fanatic who claimed that Israel was creating a bomb to kill Arabs and Blacks (which, I'm sure, would cause some dismay among those Jews who immigrated to Israel from the surrounding Arab countries and Ethiopia  ).

I mean, what are we going to learn next?  That the Rev. Jeremiah Wright endorsed and published in his Pastor's Page an article proclaiming: "To add gentile blood to their Passover matzos, the Zionists are abducting and slitting the throats of Arab children" ...   

When these matters were published (um ... the "Hamas" endorsement and the "Black Bomb" rant, not my imaginary "Passover matzo" statement) Barak Obama was already running for President.  It was just that, at that time of those publications in the Church Bulletin, nobody was making a stink about the Church's positions and the Pastor's statements.  Still, does anyone in their right mind really believe that, for over the past 20 years, Barak Obama has not been aware of the position of his Pastor, his Spiritual Mentor [or is it now "Former Paster" and "Former Spiritual Mentor"] on issues surrounding Israel?  That while running for office someone on his staff, or some friends in the Church, were not informing him of what was going on?  That he would be so out of the loop as to matters as controversial as the two I've cited here?  Frankly, I find this to be beyond belief.

Isn't it more likely that, in his heart of hearts, either Barak Obama didn't care ... or to some degree sympathized with the views of his Pastor? (As Ralph Nader claims)

I know you're being humorous here Mike but your getting dangerously close to "slippery slope" territory here. Speech against Israel doesn't equal Blood Libel.

As usual, context is everything.

If the main thrust of Rev. Wright's sermons in 20 years of preaching were the Middle East and its environs in the present day, he'd of bored his congregation out the door ages ago.

I'm fairly certain Wright's views on Israel and its policies didn't come up all that often. If you don't speak on what is actually relevent to your congregation you won't have one for long. On close inspection of those infamous Youtube segments you'll note that most of the congregation is just politely sitting and listening with no particular interest.

Wright spoke out in opposition to what he saw as a wave of hypocrisy coming from 9/11. As a practical matter it probaby doesn't come up all that often. And again, as  has been noted repeatedly, this guy wasn't going to be advising Obama on foreign policy so the idea that Obama's staff needed to vet Obama's Pastor's personal politics is bizarre.

Especially in light of the fact that in any honest discussion of the matter many of Wright's views are not uncommon in the Black Community and should come as a shock to no-one. 
   

But Vic, the church went way beyond "speech against Israel" fer goodness sake.  It approvingly published a rant in the Pastor's Corner by a nutjob who claims that Israel was developing a "Ethnic Bomb" to kill only Blacks and Arabs.  Nevermind that such a bomb would kill a significant segment of the Israeli Jewish Population (who are either Black or from Arab countries).  Oh brother ...!!!  While I was kidding, such a charge does indeed come perilously close to the blood libel, in that it is an absolutely insane allegation fueled by absolute bigotry.

I'm sure you are right that most of the Pastor's speeches and written work did not pertain to Israel and the Middle East, but it is also fair to say (from what I've heard) that he was not inactive in that arena either.  Barak Obama is a savvy guy.  Anyone who had taken Political Science I would realize that the (radical) views of a man a candidate characterizes as his "spiritual mentor" would eventually be raised and become the subject of public scrutiny.  By both the candidate's opponents and by those who are just trying to get a real picture of who the candidate really is.

The fact that some of the extremist views expressed by Wright might indeed be shared by some segment of the Black Community suggests to me only one thing ... that better communication is needed, to foster mutual understanding.

[Sam Wilson]

mike, what up man.  email me sometime.  (sorry to interrupt the debate)

[Lion]

*sits in recliner*

*eats popcorn*

[Curtis Metcalf]

thank you Curtis. I have a question though, if the planet does become uninhabitable wouldn't that be the same as destroyed?

I think that is the Curtis bizarre sense of humor ...   

Bizarre, Michael? Well, maybe a little... 

karaszero, you're welcome. To answer your question, yes, that would be the same. Bu what I said was "uninhabitable for homo sapiens and many other species. Others (species) would fill the void." In other words, we can probably kill ourselves if we continue to work at it, but I believe life on the planet would continue. It is an experiment that I would just as soon forgo.

[karaszero]

The incendiary rationale which condemns jeremiah wright/obama as anti-semitic,unpatriotic, and morally corrupt, ironically lacks the ability to see any fault with Israel ( I know this isn't a news flash ) Earlier in this thread it was pointed out that Israel had different business interests with the Apartied South African Govt: arms sales was mentioned but we didn't include the diamond trade so I was wondering? a people who are known the world over as being Gods chosen people should ALWAYS carry themselves in a way that is deserving of that honor shouldn't they? Their actions/behavior should ALWAYS inspire others to show resilience to adversity, have a moral compass that is above suspicion and make the whole world stand up and applaud them shouldn't such a people have all of these things and more? shouldn't they? I remember in college having a debate of the accuracy of reports that the jews owned at least 5% of the slave ships during chattel slavery. For me if this is true, then what does that say about a people who profitted from the suffering of men/women/children.

[Wise Son]

I'm not saying what Colin Powell did was right. I'm saying that I wouldn't want to judge him.

Oh go on, he didn't just follow Bush, he also told bare-faced lies to the UN in order to drum up support for the war, I think we can all judge him at least for that, even if it's just to decide whether he's a coward or a liar.

[michaelintp]

The incendiary rationale which condemns Jeremiah wright/obama as anti-semitic,unpatriotic, and morally corrupt, ironically lacks the ability to see any fault with Israel ( I know this isn't a news flash ) Earlier in this thread it was pointed out that Israel had different business interests with the Apartied South African Govt: arms sales was mentioned but we didn't include the diamond trade so I was wondering? a people who are known the world over as being Gods chosen people should ALWAYS carry themselves in a way that is deserving of that honor shouldn't they? Their actions/behavior should ALWAYS inspire others to show resilience to adversity, have a moral compass that is above suspicion and make the whole world stand up and applaud them shouldn't such a people have all of these things and more? shouldn't they? I remember in college having a debate of the accuracy of reports that the jews owned at least 5% of the slave ships during chattel slavery. For me if this is true, then what does that say about a people who profitted from the suffering of men/women/children.

Already addressed the South Africa thing in my long post above.  Going to your other point: Five percent participation in the slave trade (even if true) taints "a People" -- c'mon.  By the same token, by that line of reasoning, all Africans are responsible for the slave trade (since many of the slaves, perhaps most, were sold by other Africans).  So what does that say about "a People" who would do such a thing.  Or you might as well taint all Muslims, since some part of the slave trade, what percent I'm not sure but in Africa it would have to be higher than 5%, was a Muslim business. What does that say about "a People" that would do such a thing? Let me make myself clear.  I'm not advocating this kind of generalization.  The truth is that in the 17th 18th and 19th Centuries, most Jews, Muslims, Africans, were just poor folk just trying to make ends meet.  So really ... what is this stuff?  How is it in any way relevant to today? 

Fast forwarding to the present.  Yep.  I have no love for Jew-haters in 2008.  Nor for those who support the suicide bombings and the like by fanatics dedicated to an tyrannical hateful genocidal agenda.  And yes, I've no love for those who knowingly disseminate propaganda in the United States to support this hateful agenda.

My purpose for starting this thread was to express my outrage that Pastor Wright would, in effect, endorse the Hamas leadership as expressing a "fresh view."  I provided you with all kinds of quotes that accurately convey what that "fresh view" really is.  Then it came to my attention that the good Reverend also disseminated crap about the Zionists making an "ethnic bomb" to kill Blacks and Arabs.  This too is outrageous.

My basic point, vis a vis Obama, is that his Pastor's statements, and Obama's less time timely denunciations, may have an adverse impact on the percentage of the American Jewish support that he'll get in the general election.  And this is from a segment of the population, mostly liberal and Democratic, that would normally be one of his strongest bases of support.  Just an observation.

[Redjack]

You may be right. It is entirely possible that many Jewish Americans will decide not to vote for Obama based upon the actions or perceived actions of his former pastor. That' their right and it's fine. People vote or don't vote for all sorts of reasons.

But, as I said earlier, that group will not be 100% of the Jewish American population and, even if it were, there aren't enough jews in the US for their votes to sway things one way or the other. What is it, like 2% scattered throughout the union and across both parties? (less because we're only counting adults and only adults who vote and only voting adults who think Wright matters. That number is too low for anyone to care about.)

Politics is math. It's either the math of money or the math of human numbers. In both instances, Obama is proof against pretty much every special interest in the country. The majority of democrats want him. He's raising crazy amounts of money via the web and, so far he hasn't fallen into any of the traps the media wants him to.

I'm guessing the man we're discussing is the next president of the US.

[Wise Son]

Mike, I do think that Pastor Wright may well be guilty of mistaking Hamas for the Palestinian people. From what I've seen of reports coming from Palestine, the Palestinians are no fans of Israel, but don't have the same kind of fundamentalist, anti-semitic bloodlust that comes through in Hamas's speeches (let alone their actions, but the terrorism vs. ANC-style militancy debate has already been entered into here, and it's not my main point). I can see that Wright's intention may have been to give voice to the Palestinian people, in a way that they don't often have an opportunity for, and Hamas are, after all, the democratically-elected representatives of the Palestinians.

However, as we've talked about before, the election of Hamas wasn't so much an endorsement of their extremism by the Palestinians, but a rejection of previous corrupt Palestinian authorities, and gratitude at the benevolent work Hamas does within Palestine. I don't think that most Palestinian civilians want to push Israel into the sea, they just want their everyday lives to get better.

Wright's giving a platform to these people does strike me as bad judgement, but not so much of anti-semitism. Knowing what we do of the man, it seems more likely that this is a good-intentioned, but poorly informed act. Wright should have sought out someone who was more interested in putting across the views of ordinary Palestinians (who no one has any real quarrel with), but seems to have ended up giving it to people more interested in their own agendas. As you've said yourself, there is a need for people to be more informed on what's going on in the area if they're going to debate it, and there's a lot of stuff that is quite hard to follow if you've only just been given the typically shallow explanations offered by the media.

From what has been said of Wright beyond the current media storm, which really does seem to be trying to box him into their narrative of 'Obama's preacher is a bigot, maybe he is too', he actually seems the kind of man to respond well to approaches from thoughtful members of the Jewish community (like your good self), who want to genuinely increase understanding of the whole issue, rather than necessarily boosting the interests of one party.

Anyway, that's just a thought.

[karaszero]

The relevance is that YOU don't know Wright from a can of PAINT! yet you have the audacity to compare him to Farrakhan what gives you the privaledge of defining who that man is while at the same time minimalize the wrong behavior/actions/contributions Israel has made towards sufferering in this world. You then bring up jesse jacksons Hymietown remark that was made HOW long ago? and now you question the relevance of inserting old news/information into this discussion? If you want to judge people then prepare to be judged and don't start tossing around the word anti-semitic at the drop of a hat. If the greed Israel showed in owning 5% of slave ships is true, then likewise it was greed that Israel showed in dealing arms to S. Africa, as far as the diamond let me be correct here Blood Diamond trade would you consider that Good or Bad judgement or the cost of doing business? Chattel slavery didn't benefit ANY AFRICAN if they weren't taken initially then they sure as hell left eventually so whoever sold out their countrymen didn't have anyplace to hide they only postponed the inevitable. Slavery only benefitted white skinned people. Finally mike, my grandmother/her mother/siblings had to flee S. Carolina as a child because the Klan lynched her father in the street hung him up like he was a damn pinata! His crime? he was thought to be an uppity N***a because he said a white man was wrong?! If I put everything in Black and White (no pun) like you, then I would despise anyone with white skin for that direct assault on my family. Get off your high horse mike