• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Gaza Israel bombings

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

This.

Christian Zionists, who support Israel unequivocally on the basis of religious programing.

I have a question specifically for any Americans here, i dont know anything about american politics or politco's, bar a few famous one's, my question is the description above, does it fit many people in power.

Do neocon's have a big influence in america's relationship with israel, i mean how powerful are they really ?.
 
manxman said:
This.

Christian Zionists, who support Israel unequivocally on the basis of religious programing.

I have a question specifically for any Americans here, I dont know anything about american politics or politco's, bar a few famous one's, my question is the description above, does it fit many people in power.

Do neocon's have a big influence in America's relationship with Israel, I mean how powerful are they really ?.
Click to expand...

Interesting question. I have to confess to being ignorant on the subject of 'Christian Zionists'. What is the 'programming'? Does this have to do with the beliefs around the 'end of days'?

What those in power really believe in their heart-of-hearts and what they do to advance their power are two very different things. Its very possible that if Israel is tied up with Fundamentalist Christian beliefs, then that would be added ballast to the pro-Israel lobby in the US.

I also am not certain how powerful the 'neocon's' currently are. They are out of power to the extent that they do not control the Senate nor the office of President. Do the neocon's control the Tea Partiers? I don't know. These labels are complicated.

I do believe that a powerful surge of US public opinion against going into Syria was cause for pull-back. I believe the polls showed 60% to 80% of those polled, across party lines, were not in favor of invading Syria. I would suppose that neocon logic would have been to invade - so maybe they have influence via think-tanks.

P.S. Auto-correct is proving the most time-consuming labor-saving devise ever devised! :mad: Off-topic but really! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I encourage all to listen to that Red Ice radio interview posted above. The most vile and hateful stuff imaginable, couched in coy yet very direct language. Pure hate, beyond its outlandish disregard of facts. Beyond the pale. Absolutely vile. Anyone who would "like" the post in which the link is embedded needs to be ashamed. Talk of conspiracy, "infiltration" of "kazars" (has different spellings), but repugnant, repulsive stuff.

It goes by different collections and compilations, but reminded me of The International Jew articles published by the so-called Dearborn Independent back starting in 1920. Guess who participated in the publication of those?!

As for the attack on the Liberty, it's definitive that the attack was indeed an attack due to mis-identification. The most recent documents show this. An horrific tragedy indeed. I won't go into detail here, but a person has to be willing to look at the details, the real hour by hour unfolding of that and not just repeat accusations in place of really getting the truth. The poster bringing it up should also learn more about the Six Day War which was hot and happening, and, for instance, not pity Syria! By the way, Egypt had moved thousands of troops into Sinai and expelled the UN. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan got their clocks cleaned bigtime and deservedly so.

I realize the Liberty was brought up in another recently begun thread on this topic, which I'm avoiding so I don't receive accusations. I hope I won't be criticized for violating some sort of thread protocol. If so, my abject apologies and I can bring it into that thread if that's more acceptable.

Again, that Red Ice interview is way over the line, but hey, if it gets you excited, by all means do "like" it.
 
Just heard Secretary Kerry being interviewed on BBC America News. Kerry is touching all bases - in sum he made it clear that Palestinians' right to free exit and entry, as well as safety in their own enclave, has to be secured. If the Palestinians divest of arms and missiles, then 'both parties' (Israelis and Palestinians) need to respect the two state solution. My impression of his statement was that he was particularly stressing that Palestinian grievances need to be addressed and - without ever saying 'Israel' - I believe he was saying that Israel needs to respect the Palestinian right to self-governance and a state.

I was heartened hearing him. Of course, this public statement of appeal to Israel (and Palestinians) does not mean that it will happen. What is also clear from other reports I saw this evening was that this most recent war has radicalized even more Palestinians. Some who had not supported Hamas, now do. So the cause-and-effect grinds on.
 
Amid international outrage, Israel has withdrawn from Gaza for a 72 hour ceasefire, but....

... methinks Israel is totally insane. The US needs to stop funding this state. Now.

Gaza War Strains Relations Between U.S. and Israel
LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/w...0140805&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=54852892&_r=0

Text: "WASHINGTON — When the State Department condemned Israel’s strike on a United Nations school in Gaza on Sunday, saying it was “appalled” by this “disgraceful” act, it gave full vent to what has been weeks of mounting American anger toward the Israeli government.

The blunt, unsparing language — among the toughest diplomats recall ever being aimed at Israel — lays bare a frustrating reality for the Obama administration: the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has largely dismissed diplomatic efforts by the United States to end the violence in Gaza, leaving American officials to seethe on the sidelines about what they regard as disrespectful treatment.

Even as Israel agreed to a new cease-fire with Hamas, raising hopes for an end to four weeks of bloodshed, [Israel's] relationship with the United States has been bruised by repeated clashes, from the withering Israeli criticism of Secretary of State John Kerry’s peacemaking efforts to Mr. Netanyahu’s dressing down of the American ambassador to Israel.

“This is the most sustained period of antagonism in the relationship,” said Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel who now teaches at Princeton. “I don’t know how the relationship recovers as long as you have this president and this prime minister.” "


Please note the first paragraph where it is noted that what Kerry said was "gave full vent to what has been weeks of mounting American anger toward the Israeli government." Yet this paragraph states the direct opposite - the article is schizophrenic - reflecting the opposing actions and rhetoric of the US.

The article itself seems to be trying to satisfy two masters -

Text: "With public opinion in both Israel and the United States solidly behind the Israeli military’s campaign against Hamas, no outcry from Israel’s Arab neighbors, and unstinting support for Israel on Capitol Hill, President Obama has had few obvious levers to force Mr. Netanyahu to stop pounding targets in Gaza until he was ready to do it.

On Monday, the Israeli prime minister signaled that moment had come. Amid signs it was prepared to wind down the conflict unilaterally, Israel announced it would accept a 72-hour cease-fire, effective Tuesday, and send a delegation to Cairo to negotiate for a lasting end to the violence.

Even as the White House harshly criticized the Israeli strike on the school, the Pentagon confirmed that last Friday it had resupplied the Israeli military with ammunition under a longstanding military aid agreement. Mr. Obama swiftly signed a bill Monday giving Israel $225 million in emergency aid for its Iron Dome antimissile system.

For all its outrage over civilian casualties, the United States steadfastly backs Israel’s right to defend itself and shares Israel’s view that Hamas is a terrorist organization. In a world of bitter enmities, the Israeli-American dispute is more akin to a family quarrel.

[..]

Disputes between the United States and Israel are hardly new. President Ronald Reagan sold Awacs surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia over Israel’s fierce objections. George H.W. Bush held up loan guarantees because of Israeli settlement construction. Bill Clinton fumed after his first Oval Office encounter with a newly elected Israeli prime minister, Mr. Netanyahu.

[...]

While tensions between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu only occasionally spill into the open, Mr. Kerry became the subject of very public and vitriolic — albeit anonymous — criticism from Israeli officials for his efforts two weeks ago to negotiate a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. His proposal, the officials said, was tilted in favor of Hamas and did not do enough to protect Israel’s security.

Mr. Kerry, American officials responded, based his efforts on an Egyptian cease-fire proposal that had already been accepted by the Israelis. He submitted his ideas to the Israelis, anticipating that they would have concerns. Whatever the precise circumstances, Mr. Kerry found himself excoriated across the political spectrum in Israel.

At the White House, officials were incensed by what they saw as shabby treatment of Mr. Kerry, a loyal friend of Israel. In addition to the cease-fire and the peace talks, they noted, Mr. Kerry went to bat for Israel with the Federal Aviation Administration after it imposed a ban on commercial flights to Tel Aviv following a rocket attack near Ben-Gurion International Airport.

Susan E. Rice, the national security adviser, voiced her anger to her Israeli counterpart, while Mr. Obama held a tense telephone call with Mr. Netanyahu last week, during which he demanded that Israel agree to a cease-fire.

“I cannot for the life of me understand why the Israelis would do this to Kerry,” said a senior administration official, who was not authorized to comment publicly on the matter and spoke on condition of anonymity. “If it was designed to pressure us, I don’t know to what end.”

Adding to the tensions was a report in the German magazine Der Spiegel that Israel wiretapped Mr. Kerry’s telephone during his peace negotiations. A State Department spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, declined to comment but said Mr. Kerry took pains to protect his communications.

[...]

Mr. Netanyahu, however, has shown little evidence of wavering. American officials said that after the previous cease-fire fell apart on Friday, Mr. Netanyahu scolded the American ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, saying the United States should not “ever second-guess him again” on how to deal with Hamas."






 
Tyger said:
Just heard Secretary Kerry being interviewed on BBC America News. Kerry is touching all bases - in sum he made it clear that Palestinians' right to free exit and entry, as well as safety in their own enclave, has to be secured. If the Palestinians divest of arms and missiles, then 'both parties' (Israelis and Palestinians) need to respect the two state solution. My impression of his statement was that he was particularly stressing that Palestinian grievances need to be addressed and - without ever saying 'Israel' - I believe he was saying that Israel needs to respect the Palestinian right to self-governance and a state.

I was heartened hearing him. Of course, this public statement of appeal to Israel (and Palestinians) does not mean that it will happen. What is also clear from other reports I saw this evening was that this most recent war has radicalized even more Palestinians. Some who had not supported Hamas, now do. So the cause-and-effect grinds on.
Click to expand...
Why should 'Palestinians divest arms and missiles' ?And the occupier keeps his nuclear arsenal ?
After this mass killing in Gaza , is there ANY reason NOT to fight with all means against the murderers ?
 
kanakaris said:
Why should 'Palestinians divest arms and missiles' ?And the occupier keeps his nuclear arsenal ?

After this mass killing in Gaza , is there ANY reason NOT to fight with all means against the murderers ?
Click to expand...

Well, yes, but what Kerry was doing - as they all do - was having an interview but sending a message regarding terms. My sense was he was trying to assure the Palestinians that terms will ensure their safety and self-determination. This is my impression - not a fact. You'd have to listen to the interview to judge for yourself.

Problem is - Israel cannot be trusted. Israel would claim the reverse, of course. They're both right - both have reason to distrust.

Fact is - Israel intends to overtake all the land: they've said so - the West Bank and Gaza. Fact is - the Palestinians have never agreed to have Israel exists on their land - they do want their land back and Israel not to be there. Bottom line - this 'experiment' the UN set in motion is not working - in spades. The US endlessly repeating that Israel has a 'right to exist' - because the UN said it could exist ignoring that the resident population did not agree - ignores the fact that Israel was an ill-concieved and poorly executed idea.

The solution? I'm not sure there is a solution in the current paradigm. Israel may have lost the 'right to exist' as it's own state given it's aggressive and violent stance. Palestinians may have also been aggressive but they are oppressed. They are fighting this suicide resistance because they are trying to get the world's attention. In this war there have been 1,800 Palestinian deaths and 76 Israeli deaths - is this equal? Yet Israel will say their deaths are unacceptable. Are the Palestinian deaths? The ratio is excessively out of balance.

The warring cannot continue if there is no money, no ammunition, no guns. As I have said, the US - along with the UN - has it in their power to end this. Israel withdrew for 72 hours because of international condemnation. Israel has used up it's chips. No one is willing to be brow-beaten into silence with accusations of anti-semitism. This is not a religious issue. It is a political issue that is making the world dangerous.
 
Last edited:
stonehart said:
Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
Click to expand...

THANK YOU for posting this, Stonehart. I agree with this man 100%. His anger is righteous anger. This needs to be heard.

Please note something he said: the arrival of 1.6 million Russian Jews (between 1989 and 2006). LINK: 1990s Post-Soviet aliyah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I've heard this hinted at before - that the influx of the Soviet Russians created something new in Israel politics - an extreme right wing. This is a complicated situation.
 
Last edited:
I came across this 'explanation' of the Gaza situation. It's facile and superficial that panders to the myth - not worth a full quote, except this -

The Israel Gaza Conflict Explained
LINK: The Israel Gaza Conflict Explained

TEXT: "Finally, a simple example of the Israel Gaza conflict explained. Dennis Prager claims, “The Middle East conflict may be the hardest to solve, but it is the easiest to explain.” Prager, a professor at Columbia University’s Middle East Institute, gives an outline to understanding the problem in the region:

Israel wants the right to exist as a Jewish state and wants to live in peace. Israel also recognizes that Palestinians have the right to live in peace. The problem is, Prager argues, that many Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims do not recognize the existence of the Jewish State of Israel.

In 1947, The UN made a partition that created an Arab and Jewish State. Israel accepted the partition, but not one Arab or Muslim country did. On May 14, 1948, the Jewish state was created. The next day, on May 15, all of Israel’s neighboring Arab states attacked Israel. Israel, a country the size of New Jersey, prevailed."

Full stop - right there - with the bolded text. Israel's 'right to exist' is the result of a UN resolution that ran rough shod over the will of the residents of the area. How can this formation be considered 'legitimate'?

However, it is there - and it is for the UN (and the US) to fix it. UN troops need to go in. The UN needs to finish what it started or rearrange it. JMO.
 
Last edited:
Tyger said:
THANK YOU for posting this, Stonehart. I agree with this man 100%. His anger is righteous anger. This needs to be heard.

Please note something he said: the arrival of 1.6 million Russian Jews (between 1989 and 2006). LINK: 1990s Post-Soviet aliyah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I've heard this hinted at before - that the influx of the Soviet Russians created something new in Israel politics - an extreme right wing. This is a complicated situation.
Click to expand...

 
The Mongolian role in shaping today's Islam is something I have previously read in snippets, but the post by Bananas is enlightening. It would seem the Middle East has for millennia been a kind of focal point for disputes between tribes and nations.

Consider the most politically stable nations on earth: they tend to be those whose long history is one of emigration vs immigration. I suspect the opposite is a least partially the case. Ethical considerations aside, today's global society is fast making the insular nation state untenable. So perhaps the concept of wars of attrition between nations-- followed by some degree of resolution--has been outmoded by ongoing and never ending global crime in a context without universally applicable law and enforcement. I.E., we have traded the deaths of hundreds of thousands in historically "good wars" (what a despicable but poignant term) with solitary acts of terror and the continual eruption of brush fires for which no one claims to have struck the first match. The nightmare is, of course, advances in weaponry that make it possible for one sufficiently immoral person to carry enough destruction in a back pack to kill hundreds of thousands.

If my last post sounded bombastic, this is my reasoning.

BTW--Did anyone sense a kind of attitudinal sea change in Israeli politics with the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin?
 
boomerang said:
BTW--Did anyone sense a kind of attitudinal sea change in Israeli politics with the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin?
Click to expand...

Rabin was the one who would have made peace.

Here is the hour-long interview of Bruce Riedel by Charlie Rose, aired last Friday. It begins talking about Afghanistan (and Pakistan) because Reidel has just written a book on that country - but they swerve into discussing the Middle East -

Charlie Rose | charlierose.com
 
Last edited:
The role the Mongols played in world history cannot be overstated. These people killed upwards of 50 million people with... SWORDS. The logistics of the executions, while utterly horrifying, is simply fascinating. Baghdad, for example, had anywhere from 300k to a million people living there+the suburbs, that's a ridiculous amount of people for the time, and they just marched the people in lines to Mongol soldiers waiting with swords. Try to imagine that, for *days* the army did nothing but execute civilians, around the clock.

Here's a Wikipedia article about it. Siege of Baghdad (1258) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The accounts of the first Muslim envoys sent to China are unreal as well. They talk about the raods turning unpassable due to all the rotting bodies on the road to Chengdu. This is fro Wikipedia: "In 1279, the Mongols sacked Chengdu and over a million of its inhabitants were estimated by author Charles Horner to have been killed"

I highly suggest everyone interested to read the "Secret History of the Mongols" as well as other sources to get the full picture.
 
Tyger said:
Amid international outrage, Israel has withdrawn from Gaza for a 72 hour ceasefire, but....

... methinks Israel is totally insane. The US needs to stop funding this state. Now.

Gaza War Strains Relations Between U.S. and Israel
LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/w...0140805&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=54852892&_r=0

Text: "WASHINGTON — When the State Department condemned Israel’s strike on a United Nations school in Gaza on Sunday, saying it was “appalled” by this “disgraceful” act, it gave full vent to what has been weeks of mounting American anger toward the Israeli government.

The blunt, unsparing language — among the toughest diplomats recall ever being aimed at Israel — lays bare a frustrating reality for the Obama administration: the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has largely dismissed diplomatic efforts by the United States to end the violence in Gaza, leaving American officials to seethe on the sidelines about what they regard as disrespectful treatment.

Even as Israel agreed to a new cease-fire with Hamas, raising hopes for an end to four weeks of bloodshed, [Israel's] relationship with the United States has been bruised by repeated clashes, from the withering Israeli criticism of Secretary of State John Kerry’s peacemaking efforts to Mr. Netanyahu’s dressing down of the American ambassador to Israel.

“This is the most sustained period of antagonism in the relationship,” said Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel who now teaches at Princeton. “I don’t know how the relationship recovers as long as you have this president and this prime minister.” "


Please note the first paragraph where it is noted that what Kerry said was "gave full vent to what has been weeks of mounting American anger toward the Israeli government." Yet this paragraph states the direct opposite - the article is schizophrenic - reflecting the opposing actions and rhetoric of the US.

The article itself seems to be trying to satisfy two masters -

Text: "With public opinion in both Israel and the United States solidly behind the Israeli military’s campaign against Hamas, no outcry from Israel’s Arab neighbors, and unstinting support for Israel on Capitol Hill, President Obama has had few obvious levers to force Mr. Netanyahu to stop pounding targets in Gaza until he was ready to do it.

On Monday, the Israeli prime minister signaled that moment had come. Amid signs it was prepared to wind down the conflict unilaterally, Israel announced it would accept a 72-hour cease-fire, effective Tuesday, and send a delegation to Cairo to negotiate for a lasting end to the violence.

Even as the White House harshly criticized the Israeli strike on the school, the Pentagon confirmed that last Friday it had resupplied the Israeli military with ammunition under a longstanding military aid agreement. Mr. Obama swiftly signed a bill Monday giving Israel $225 million in emergency aid for its Iron Dome antimissile system.

For all its outrage over civilian casualties, the United States steadfastly backs Israel’s right to defend itself and shares Israel’s view that Hamas is a terrorist organization. In a world of bitter enmities, the Israeli-American dispute is more akin to a family quarrel.

[..]

Disputes between the United States and Israel are hardly new. President Ronald Reagan sold Awacs surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia over Israel’s fierce objections. George H.W. Bush held up loan guarantees because of Israeli settlement construction. Bill Clinton fumed after his first Oval Office encounter with a newly elected Israeli prime minister, Mr. Netanyahu.

[...]

While tensions between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu only occasionally spill into the open, Mr. Kerry became the subject of very public and vitriolic — albeit anonymous — criticism from Israeli officials for his efforts two weeks ago to negotiate a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. His proposal, the officials said, was tilted in favor of Hamas and did not do enough to protect Israel’s security.

Mr. Kerry, American officials responded, based his efforts on an Egyptian cease-fire proposal that had already been accepted by the Israelis. He submitted his ideas to the Israelis, anticipating that they would have concerns. Whatever the precise circumstances, Mr. Kerry found himself excoriated across the political spectrum in Israel.

At the White House, officials were incensed by what they saw as shabby treatment of Mr. Kerry, a loyal friend of Israel. In addition to the cease-fire and the peace talks, they noted, Mr. Kerry went to bat for Israel with the Federal Aviation Administration after it imposed a ban on commercial flights to Tel Aviv following a rocket attack near Ben-Gurion International Airport.

Susan E. Rice, the national security adviser, voiced her anger to her Israeli counterpart, while Mr. Obama held a tense telephone call with Mr. Netanyahu last week, during which he demanded that Israel agree to a cease-fire.

“I cannot for the life of me understand why the Israelis would do this to Kerry,” said a senior administration official, who was not authorized to comment publicly on the matter and spoke on condition of anonymity. “If it was designed to pressure us, I don’t know to what end.”

Adding to the tensions was a report in the German magazine Der Spiegel that Israel wiretapped Mr. Kerry’s telephone during his peace negotiations. A State Department spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, declined to comment but said Mr. Kerry took pains to protect his communications.

[...]

Mr. Netanyahu, however, has shown little evidence of wavering. American officials said that after the previous cease-fire fell apart on Friday, Mr. Netanyahu scolded the American ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, saying the United States should not “ever second-guess him again” on how to deal with Hamas."
Click to expand...
The interview with Norman Finkelstein is interesting. It starts at about August 5 @ 1130:
Democracy Now!
Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel is Coming to an End
Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel is Coming to an End: Norman G. Finkelstein: 9781935928775: Books - Amazon.ca
 
Back
Top