Following the latest string of revelations about Chuck Hagel’s defamatory comments about Israel and its supporters, a lot of attention has been focused on whether New York Senator Chuck Schumer would change his position on President Obama’s nominee to be secretary of defense. But any hopes that Schumer would prioritize the principles that he has always claimed he was elected to the Senate to defend over political expediency have now been dashed. At a New York City event this morning reported by Politico’s Maggie Haberman, Schumer doubled down on his support for Hagel claiming the former senator cried when discussing his slurs about the “Jewish lobby.”
The account of Schumer’s fateful meeting with the nominee was fascinating but more important than that was his decision to repeat the claim that “not a major Jewish organization” was against Hagel and to assert that the issue driving opposition to him was anger about his opposition to the war in Iraq. Both claims are not only false but are a transparent attempt to deflect attention from the real issue in the debate over Hagel: the president’s choice of an incompetent nominee who is also a well known antagonist of Israel with a record of opposition to getting tough on Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah.
Schumer’s discussion of Hagel’s tears when he explained to him that his crack about the “Jewish lobby” was rooted in prejudice may be a truthful but the idea, as the New Yorker put it, that “I’m sure you didn’t mean it” is patently disingenuous. When Hagel used that term in 2006 (at his confirmation hearing he said it was the only time he said it “on the record”) or made other disturbing comments about the Israeli Foreign Ministry controlling the U.S. State Department or that Israel was on its way to being an “apartheid state,” he knew exactly what he was saying. Far from a misunderstanding, there is a clear pattern in Hagel’s record and it speaks to his contempt for the U.S.-Israel alliance and its supporters. Indeed, the context of the “Jewish lobby” remark showed that he considered it a point of honor to stand up to Israel’s supporters.
The notion that Hagel’s contrite interview with Schumer or any of his other fumbling attempts to walk back a long record of antagonism should outweigh a record replete with votes and statements demonstrating his desire to stand apart from the bipartisan pro-Israel consensus is absurd.
Just as dishonest though is Schumer’s claim that “no major Jewish organization” opposes Hagel. Just this past weekend, the American Jewish Committee — a large liberal-leaning group that more or less defines the term — demanded that the Senate not vote before it further reviewed Hagel’s record in the wake of recent revelations of more prejudicial statements by the nominee.
In the weeks prior to Hagel’s disastrous confirmation hearing, Schumer had attempted to use the strategic silence of many Jewish groups on Hagel as cover for his own decision to go along with the president on the nomination. But after the AJC statement and Anti-Defamation League leader Abe Foxman’s questions about Hagel’s statements, that line of defense no longer works. For Schumer to go on pretending that Jewish groups are neutral about Hagel can only be characterized as blatantly dishonest.
But it is not any more dishonest than Schumer’s attempt to claim that the motive behind the opposition to Hagel is “neocon” anger about his critique of the war in Iraq. Senator John McCain may still hold a grudge about Hagel’s foolish opposition to the Iraq surge (and contrary to Schumer’s comments, Hagel — who voted in favor of the war — was wrong about the surge) but that is not an issue that interests anyone else who cares about this awful nomination.
Neoconservatives may have disagreed with Hagel about Iraq but if that were the only issue about his candidacy he would already be sitting in his office in the Pentagon. It is, as Schumer well knows, Hagel’s terrible record on Israel, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah that has scared many Americans about his fitness for office. Even more think his performance at his confirmation hearing when he was unable to demonstrate a grasp of the issues before the nation or defend his positions shows he’s just not up to the job.
When faced with a choice between doing the right thing about Hagel and demonstrating loyalty to President Obama, Schumer had done the latter. That is bad enough and a terrible commentary about the willingness of pro-Israel Democrats to put their party’s interests above principle. But for him to back up this decision with lies and distortions speaks volumes about his own character.
It was always the Lobby. All the more reason to ignore the opponents. Israel should be a relatively minor issue in US world strategy. And you can hold the incident up to show the Lobby is not omnipotent.
what makes you think Israel is not a 'relatively minor issue'? n nHow does Israel affect American foreign policy? n nHow would our foreign policy change without Israel? n nMore grovelling before our oil producings moslam masters? n nSell them more arms? More trade? WHAT? n nForbid freedom of expression, any criticism of islam and moslams? n nPay more ransom to Islamic states to keep them 'friendly'? n nAllow us to send our soldiers to die for them when they start slaughtering each other? n nTell us, Gumps, how would American foreign policy change for the better, if we dumped Israel?
Interesting the way morons the world over inflate Israel into a giant issue that affects everything. n nIf a Martian reading world newspapers were asked how big he thought Israel was, he would say 'It must cover at least half the globe, if not more.'
grumpalump never reply n n inflated by jewhatred n nanother form of antisemitism n nno huge outcry about Saudi/Arab influence n nILLEGAL undocumented influence n ninfluence of the gay, lesbiasn, transgender, transexual, lobby n nlolol n nonly da Jews
80 percent of the questions asked by the senators at the hearings were about Israel. Our ridiculous senators inflate Israel's importance!
fuque you moronic twat. Jews protest, it's "the Lobby"–Jew's don't protest, but GOP Senators do, "it's the Lobby". Israel is applauded. The Lobby is omnipotent. Hamas gets a major defender in the WH, ah, "the Lobby" is losing strength. With anti-Semites it's always the Lobby.
This a a big day for the Grumpy guy. Everyone's calling him a moron. n nHe's getting attention!
Grumps and Schumer: rat and Judenrat
Schumer's disgraceful shape-shifting is a frightening indication of the degree of fear that must now exist in a Democratic Party overwhelmed by a new Führerprinzip: Obama worship. n nGorillas in business suits have taken over the party quite. The Van Joneses and Valerie Jarretts of the party, not to mention the scoundrel at the top, must thoroughly enjoy the spectacle of a New York Jewish minstrel show. It reminds me a little of Khrushchev's "Confessions," in which he describes how Stalin enjoyed ordering his most senior lickspittles (for example, Nikita himself, Beria, et al.) to start dancing vigorous Cossack dances. The stooges would dance until they were at the brink of coronaries because Uncle Joe would not tell them to stop. He sometimes simply walked out of the room, the sadist, leaving them terrified of what to do.
Very well said. n
Yes indeed. Schumer is a lickspittle. In fact, he's a spittle vacuum. n nI hope he enjoyed the Coronation. I mean Inauguration.
The Nazis had the SA, the Sandinistas their turbas. For their part, the Democrats can turn out an ugly crowd of union goons and race-rioteers on a dime, as they did here in Wisconsin last year. n nSchumer knows very well that he's finished in New York if minorities are instructed to turn on him en bloc (who could threaten him with that . . . hmm?). There are not enough Jews in the five boroughs and on Long Island to re-elect him. (Why they would in the first place is, to be sure, as mysterious and incomprehensible as supersymmetric-string theory, but that's a tale for another day.) Personality cults always feature prominently goon squads and pants-peeing, nothin'-to-see-here-boss-but-us dancing chickens like Chuckie for the thugs to intimidate by simply hanging around. It's a matter of the proper division of labor, and no respectably functioning cult is possible without such cooperation n nIt's been abundantly clear since the Democratic primaries of 2008 that Obama desires nothing so much as all praise all the time no matter what imbecility he perpetrates, which is normally a tricky status quo to maintain, requiring dedicated self-abasement on the part of thousands as well as improbable events that one normally would not credit outside a volume of the looniest science fiction, believing them simply impossible, grotesqueries like, for instance, someone being awarded the Nobel Prize in advance!, for absolutely nothing in particular, surely one for the books if there is such a thing as one for the books. A person could get an unrealistic sense of his own capabilities if that sort of sycophancy goes uncorrected for too long, for most of his adult life, say. He might even begin to grow easily annoyed, irritated by opposition, and prone to issuing threats. Hmmm . . . .
The grumpy old moron's argument that "you can hold the incident up to show that theLobby is not omnipotent" presupposes that anti-Semites are amenable to empirical realities,and reason -not to mention common sense….The fact that Iran's nuclear program wasn't destroyed long ago,or even that Obama was re-elected is more than enough-to take two examples from the virtually infinite choices available," to prove",if such proof were possible, that the Lobby is not omnipotent.
if Hagel didn't realize that "Jewish Lobby" was an offensive phrase until Schumer told him so, he's simply not smart enough to be secretary of defense.
Hagel was waiting for someone to pass him a note. And then to correct him and explain that he had misread the note. He has no policy on containing his distaste for Jews, the Jewish lobby and the Jewish state.
Schumer made all of this happen.He should be the most pro-Israel senator. He threw Israel under the bus for his own opportunity.
Hegel and Schumer, the two up-Chuck artists. They deserve each other.
Schumer has always been a hatchet man without a moral compass, learning the trade well in the US Attorneys Office, and Jews are if necessary just another expendable commodity. Even Daniel Pipes who knew him at Harvard College said he always refused to take a position one way or the other during the student barn-burning days. But the real villain here are the major Jewish organizations (ZOA if "major" is the only exception) that have acted brilliantly the role of the bent-over ghetto Jew averting his eyes from the powers that be. And we all know that Schumer will always be an honored, super-applauded guest at any black-tie dinners organized by the ADL, AIPAC, AJC and Federations no matter how bad his record is on defending Israel.
The "Major Jewish Orgnaizations" are nothing more than tails on the kite of the coalition of scum, slime, filth, vermin and manure that is the Democ-rat Party. They are the lowest form of life in the USA today. Every reader ought to make this pledge where they are concerned: NOT ONE NICKEL!
C'mon, is there no one here who believes Schumer when he says Hagel was "almost in tears" when he informed his former Senate colleague that his crap about our Arabist State Department being in the service of Israel was both false and offensive? People are so cynical that they think Schumer would lie about that? n n
…he was laughing so hard, he started crying.
YES!!
You can't imagine Hagel "almost in tears" when Schumer broke it to him that there were nasty implications to the things he had said about the "Israel Lobby," as he did on various occasions, as when speaking at an Arab Lobby (no scare quotes) event? You think Schumer would lie about something so relevant to Hagel's suitability?
You think he wouldn't?
I am almost in tears over this nomination.
Let's face it, the only reason neocons and their supporters are so insistant that Hagel doesn't get the job is because he is unlikely to support an attack against Iran. n nAnd without an attack against Iran the Israelis will have difficulty in finding an excuse to attack Hamas and Hezbollah and occupy the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and south Lebanon up to the Litani River in order to prevent any retaliation against Israel for attacks against Iran. n nAnd without occupying the Gaza Strip, fully occupying the West Bank and south Lebanon there can be no Greater Israel. n nSure, Israel has occupied all of these places before and then withdrew – at least from the Gaza and Lebanon, but in both cases Israel had no choice; there was simply no way they could have consolidated their gains and hung on to their conquered territories. n nWar with Iran is Israel's only hope of realising their ultimate dream of a Greater Israel.
oh i see. Israel needs an Iranian war to attack Gaza and Hezbollah because, of course, the Jews love nothing more than thousands of rockets raining down on Israel so they can have the excuse, after ducking, of taking out the launchers. n nSo, boy wonder, let's see, what was impossible without major internaitonal instability and a war in the north will magically become doable because because because well because gosh darn it!! I'm an anti-Semite, I'm good enough and people like me! n nThink on this–pretend you have a brain–the ideal military operation from an Israeli viewpoint was the elimination of Imad Mughniyah. Maximum gain, minimum footprint. Israel fights wars of containment. The Greater Israel requiring Lebanon (or Gaza) has no roots in Jewish history or Israeli military doctrine or Israeli strategy. It's a hoary chestnut your equally clueless Arab friends and family recirculate endlessly in between wars of extermination that, so far, fizzle out in rout and retreat. n nThanks for sharing.
As I imply, Besht, war with Iran is the only way Israel can deal a pre-emptive blow to Hezbollah and Hamas using the pretext that they are preventing a retaliatory strike by Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel. n nIsrael and their enemies have rained thousands of rockets down on each other over the years and Israel has so far failed to create a Greater Israel. Only a war against Iran will provide Israel with a final opportunity to realise its dream.
Your horse's ass has more horse sense than you do. Now you come up with the brilliant idea that Israel wants to fight a three-front war. n nBecause three is easier than one! n nDummy up. The Hezzies are too dug in to be casually "pre-empted". If only. n nYou think war is magic? Zahal doesn't.
besht, one look at Lataan's web-site will show you exactly what he is — a howling Jew hater who thinks he's only anti-Israel or anti-Likud or whatever excuse he cares to give. Do not give this troll any encouragement; he is nothing but a waste of oxygen.
Insults like 'Jew-hater' and 'anti-Semite' exposes only your desperation to avoid the reality of what the right-wing Zionist extremists are trying to achieve. n nIt's not about 'Jew-hating' or 'anti-Semitism' and it's certainly not about me; it's about the dreams of Zionists who want to create a Greater Israel at the expence of the Palestinian and Arab peoples via a war against them and Iran.
OK. retard. maroon. Reality? If only. Your conception of what the "right-wing Zionist extremists" are trying to achieve are fart bubbles in the conceptual bathtub of your autistic delusion. n nIt is about you since the Zionists who want to swallow Gaza and Lebanon exist between your two ears and nowhere else. Wake up! Nobody wants to annex southern Lebanon and retaking Gaza is a minority taste unrelated to Biblical prophecy and oh so related to the Islamofasist mullahs hanging on there. n nEven so Bibi and Hamas are in continuous contact to straighten out a cease-fire both sides can live with for a whole host of reasons. n nBut that would be reality.
See what I mean? Why engage this oxygen thief, who thinks that neocons have teamed up with Zionists to plunge the world into a nuclear world war for the sake of mad Zionist expansionism? At best the guy lives in a very nasty dream world.
yeah. you are correct. you can talk to Biff the beagle all you want, explaining in detail why he shouldn't chew on the bedroom slippers, pointing to the slippers, then your feet, then the chew toy that's his to enjoy and he'll scratch his ears with his hind paw, shake his head, whine, then grab the slipper out of your hand with his teeth and curl up in the corner with it
You need to go back to school and study the end of the Ottoman empire and the vicious conduct of GB.. U might learn a LOT!
Watsa46, the demise of the Ottoman Empire in that part of the Midle East in October 1918 and the subsequent 'conduct' of the British has absolutely nothing to do with modern day Zionists wanting to annex large chunks of land which don't belong to them and wanting to create war in order to provide a casus belli for further territorial expansion. n nBesht, if nobody wants to annex the Gaza why were there settlers there? n nAnd Zionists since very early on have had an eye on the waters from the Litani River in south Lebanon, and Israel have tried unsuccesfully on several occasions to occupy south Lebanon with a view to diverting some of the Litani's waters. n nI should also mention the Golan Heights as having been part of the Zionist dream of a Greater Israel. n nYou're in denial, Besht. It is you that needs to wake up to reality.
Thick as a board. They aren't there now. Short answer: Nasser, the June War. Today? Gone. Left. Out the door. Past tense. Not a single Jew in Gaza. Because it was a security buffer not a front for the Greater Israe strategically. If Israel goes back it will be to eliminate a military threat. Of the two of us I went with the Zionists into Lebanon. Not one Jew I met in and out of Fatahland talked of colonizing/annexing/settling past the Good Fence. Here's the thing. PLO in Fatahland in the 70's, Syria on the Golan pre 1967, Hezzies now, Egypt from Gaza in 1967, Arabs psyche themselves up to attack Israel, attack Israel, and then are shocked shocked by the counterattack. Roll out the "Greater Israel" conspiracy when their wars fail as if they didn't start them in the first place. Stop trying to kill Israelis over the borders and they become secure for everybody.
U selected what reinforces ur BIASED opinion. The claim U make, denying the role of GB here and in many other areas of the ex British empire, shows that u still need to go back and read urself the history of the Ottoman empire followed by the history of the British empire. It is very difficult to become unbiased. U r clearly biased and U repeat what a lot of ignorant people spit on blogs. In the history of humanity, EVERYTHING is connected. That should be ur first lesson to learn.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the results of the First World War, although I can understand why someone with your opinions might want to, because they bear directly on who legally controls what territories. I emphasize legally because in the entire sorry history of the region since 1918, there have been only two internationally binding agreements on which all parties concerned signed off. Those would be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. n nResolution 242 simply says that all territorial disputes are to be resolved by negotiations rather than force of arms. n nThe treaty of Lausanne is more pertinent. That agreement, signed by the Republic of Turkey, legal successor to the Ottoman Empire, reinstated the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, signed by the Ottoman Sultan's representatives but which Ataturk had repudiated because, he claimed, Turkey had yielded too much of Anatolia to Greece. That led to further war and revision of Sèvres to placate the Turks but left unchanged those portions of the agreement pertaining to what was then known as Ottoman Southern Syria, which included the land now under dispute and then some. n nThe Treaty of Sèvres incorporated the language of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which anticipated the establishment of a "Jewish homeland in Palestine." What that might mean was left deliberately vague, and Balfour added the famous provision that the rights of non-Jewish Palestinians were not to be compromised. Again, what those "rights" were was deliberately left undefined. n nIn 1917 of course, Britain and Turkey were at war, so the question of the applicability of the Balfour Declaration was still in the balance and was to be decided by force of arms. The British offered numerous enticements to all subjects of the Sultan in Asia if they would revolt against Ottoman Empire. The only ones who actually took them up were the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula. Their then leader, Hussein, Sherif of Mecca, as anyone who has seen Lawrence of Arabia must know, launched the famous Revolt in the Desert that ended in Damascus and the rout of all Turkish forces outside of Anatolia. Furthermore, because of his cooperation and a memorandum of understanding known as the McMahon–Hussein Agreement, the British awarded Hussein with his own Hashemite Kingdom, which, alas, he was unable to hold onto against the Wahabist Saudis, but that is another story. It should be noted, however, that Saudi Arabia is an independent kingdom to the present day. n nThe important point is that he cooperated with the victors in a war and was rewarded. The Palestinian Arabs, on the other hand, who were also offered their freedom in exchange for cooperation with the Allies opted to remain loyal subjects of the Sultan, which they had been since 1516 (prior to that Palestine had been a province of Egypt). One feels sorry for them, but they made their bed and have been sleeping in it for nearly a century now. n nOf course that is not the end of the story. Thje question at once arose as to what to do with the Ottoman territories that had not revolted, which was most of them. Well, the answer was the Treaty of Lausanne, which ratified both the Treaty of Sèvres and various League of Nations conferences in converting Ottoman Southern Syria into so-called Mandates, with Palestine and Jordan going to the British, Syria and the Lebanon to the French. n nIt is pointless to complain about the interference of foreigners here where they don't belong. Turkey freely, some say disastrously, sided with the German and Austrian empires in 1914. n nTurkey did so out of a centuries long enmity towards Russia, a reason wholly neurotic that was not only opposed by most Turks until the fantastically crazy arrival in Constantinople of two German warships (the cruisers Breslau and Göben), hotly pursued by the Royal Navy, allies of the Russians. Wilhelm Souchon, who commanded the German cruisers, offered to reflag them as Turkish vessels and to use them to drive the Russians from the Black Sea, an empty gesture that nonetheless provoked a unexpected flareup of Turkish chauvinism, leading them, insanely, to declare war on Russia, Britain, and France. Churchill never forgave the Turks for their incredible foolishness. By blockading the Dardanelles, he opined, the Turks prolonged the war by at least two years and cost the Allies millions of dead and wounded. It also led to the ill-fated Gallipoli expedition to unblock the channel. n nThe point is, the Turks owed the British, the French, and the Russians a reckoning of stupendous magnitude. They were legally in charge of Palestine and only they could legally surrender it. They did so at Lausanne without looking back or shedding a tear. the Palestinians have had to suffer the consequences. They had their chance to benefit from Turkey's foolhardy gamble but chose not to take it. (cont. n
(cont.) nAt the conclusion of a successful war, the Romans would cry Vae victis! or "Woe to the vanquished!" (ironically, a maxim they first learned to appreciate when it was recited to them by the Celts after a war Rome lost in the 4th century B.C., for which they forfeited literally all the gold in the city). It's meaning is really very simple: If you get into a war, best not to lose it. Tempers will be running a bit high by then, and who can say what may follow. n nThe League of Nations, which emerged at Versailles from the victorious side of World War I, a conflict that cost at least nine-million lives and led to untold devastation, had, by the age-old laws of war, every right to dispose of conquered territory as they saw fit. The privileges and responsibilities of the League in turn devolved upon the United Nations during the next war, who saw fit to interpret the vague phrases of Balfour and Lausanne in a concrete partition of Palestine in 1948. All Arab parties concerned rejected that solution out of hand, so we still don't know what "a Jewish homeland in Palestine" means. The only legally binding agreement in existence plainly states that there must be one. For ought anybody knows, it might very well end up meaning a Jewish state in the entire British Mandate, the Greater Israel you are so incensed about. I for one am not advocating such an outcome, only pointing out that by all known precedent there's nothing illegal about it apriori, so there is also no basis for your hysteria over what land does or does not belong to whom.
Bravo.
I am neither Jewish nor Arab, so I tend to view a controversy very legalistically, i.e., who signed what and was he credentialed to do it. Accordingly, I am as unimpressed by Jewish claims rooted in Torah as I am Arab hot air that Jerusalem is an inalienable Muslim Waqf. n nIn my opinion, as a legal matter, the State of Israel's existence owes more to all the British Tommys and French Poilus who died in Flanders, where their bones are undoubtedly mingled with those of Otto von Bismarck's famous Pomeranian grenadier, than to the Holocaust, a crime of which Balfour could have known nothing in 1917. n nBalfour and the British government in general did understand and care deeply about how the Turks had betrayed Britain and France, who had saved Turkey's bacon from the Russian bear in 1854, during the Crimean War. There was absolutely no sane reason why Turkey should ally herself with Imperial Germany in 1914. As I mentioned above, until the arrival of the German cruisers that September, Ottoman Turkey was still a neutral nation and sentiment in the Turkish government was, on balance, against involvement on either side (a policy they did pursue in the Second World War). Sadly, yet all too typically for the Middle East, the Turks despised the Russians, with whom they had waged on again–off again war for two centuries—losing most of the time, mind you—more than they loved common sense. They hated the Russians so deeply in fact that they could not resist jumping into the fire with both feet when Capt. Souchon, to save his own skin (his ships were at the point of breaking down after a week of fighting and fleeing from Algiers to Istanbul and in no condition to sortie against the pursuing British), offered Turkey his shiny new heavy cruisers as instruments of revenge. n nMistakes simultaneously so colossal and rooted in so trivial an affair are not easy to point to in history. Joining the Central Powers cost Turkey its entire empire, which, I repeat, was more than fitting. Because the British were unable to resupply the Czarist armies, the Eastern Front descended into a stalemate instead of the serious liability that it should have been for Germany; the war dragged on years longer than it should have; and, as an added and completely unexpected bonus, the Russian government collapsed because of the war and the Bolsheviks came to power! Believe me, the Allies were not going to let the Turks keep a square inch of territory outside of Turkey itself. n nSo, as I see it, as far as the legality of the matter is concerned, it's still July, 1923, in Lausanne, Switzerland. The provisions of that agreement, never revoked in whole or in part in nearly 90 years, which anticipate "a Jewish homeland in Palestine," have yet to be implemented legally, though I can understand that many Israelis will disagree with me vehemently. n nThe world came close in November, 1947, with the approval by the UN of a plan to partition Palestine in 1948, a plan that specifically cited Lausanne as the source of its authority in the matter and could have yielded a second binding agreement had it been accepted (obviating any need for Resolution 242 in 1967); but which of course absolutely required acceptance by Arabs and Jews to have legal force, leaving us with the crummy armistices of 1948/1967, no peace treaty, and more or less continual conflict. All the non-binding resolutions authored by the General Assembly since then condemning Israel are legally less enforceable than a mechanic's lien, in my opinion.
You seem to be fixated on what you believe are the virtues of ‘legality’ ignoring entirely that laws are made and determined by those that wield the biggest stick. In other words, just because it’s ‘legal’, it doesn’t mean to say it’s moral. The Nuremburg Laws of 1935 are an extreme example of such laws.____Similarly, decisions made as a result of two World Wars – most of them hurriedly despite being in good faith – could not have possibly foreseen the problems that would result from such decisions decades later. History, of course, has played its part but it is the decisions that are made today based on needs, morality and the human rights of all concerned that will determine the history of the future – not the history of the past. __
"needs, morality, and human rights" are on the side of the Jews n-the indiginous surviving people of Israel, sometimes called 'Palestine' by Christians, n n and known as the UMMAH by moslems n nthe ONLY reason Israel is a problem is the koran and sharia, which teaches than any land that was ruled by moslams, is forever an indivisible part of the UMMHA, n nAnd, in fact, the primary agenda of islam, is JIHAD, the struggle to make islam supreme in the world. n nIslam is violently against Jews, and independent Jews free of sharia humiliation. And especially Jews in Israel whose existance demonstrates the utter failure of the ignorant, violent and primitive status of moslams. n nANY decision that does not conform with sharia, be it cartoons, lifestyle, 'infidel' religious symbols, all these and thousand other issues, seem to OFFEND the moslam n nAre we to bow to sharia so as not to offend this scourge? How much do you suggest we submit?
Very well presented information on the legal status of the region. Of course, the Muslim- Arab dispute with the Jewish state has no legal basis, but is a direct result of the ideology of Islam as it is codified in Koran, Hadith, Sira.
well there's that. the many tootsie-fruitsie flavors of Judeophobia. but absolutely Elders of Zion Central has adopted David Crosby's watchword as official doctrine "I will now proceed to entangle the entire area" — so what happened to Mafdal? they used to run with National Union but its successor migrated to Jewish Home? and joining Lapid for a run at Shas makes sense from their point of view? baffled. but one day Lebanon will be ours!
Lataan makes Grumpy look benign, and Cloture makes both of them look sane. nWell, we are about to celebrate our defeat of another evil Persian yemach shmo who was determined to exterminate us. May the One who delivered us from yemach shmo in those days at this season deliver us speedily and soon from today's yemach shemam, v'nomar amen.
amen
hilarious n nand amen
Amen. n n
Your a zombie-bereft of an inner consciousness.
Is that you, Brennan?
it's Achmed n n
Schumer seems to demonstrate that You cannot simultaneously be pro-Obama and pro-Israel. Pr. O. does not tolerate this. In some way, it appears that to be pro-IL at this level is to be anti-Obama.
Schumer and Dishonesty that’s ain’t new phenomenon when Jew deceives Jew. It’s biblical damn it. It is all over Hebrews. Senator Lindsey Graham lost his mind – he looks so desperate to please Tel Aviv – though his Term end in 2015 it’s too early to begin begging Israelis to redeem his legacy – he terrorized a fellow American and patriot as Chuck Hagel using Rusty Rhetoric to lure him to beg Israel to get confirmed – Lindsey Graham is an idiot he doesn’t realize that he’s drawing a precedent and Pseudo Bill here. Good American is dead American unless he bends over to Israel. If Israel clandestinely is the most hated nation on earth. That’s neither America’s problem nor Muslims’. It’s Israel’s. nYou must be kidding! Chuck Hagel has fans! They don’t like Israel. Who likes Israel unless someone dislikes himself? More Anti-Israel Statements From Hagel Emerge. QUIT POT. nThat’s right. U.S. State Department run by Israeli Foreign Ministry – Israel is An “Apartheid” State, Netanyahu A “Radical”… nHere you go my hero. You’re confirmed without begging Israel for forgiveness. You’re the third besides Obama & Kerry who got the Whitehouse twice and confirmed displeasing Israel. nMcCain is right. REPUBLICANS WILL REGRET THIS. Hagel ain’t neither appeasing nor apologizing to Zionists controlling within-the-beltway to get confirmed. Israelifirsters foolishly sporting Hagel christening is a game that keeps ‘em on headlines though deep-down they know that they are digging their own graves in the Donuthole. In order to let lummy Hagel go to Brussels and chair NATO summit this week. Hagel most get Flummox Warring Industries interested in his appointment to go and gonoph Louisiana’s David Vitter Dachshund as hostage to extort him to come outta hiding and vote IN-FAVOR on the rampage or get Obama use the Gorm vulgar substitute for (God) damn Executive Branch to VETO the filibuster and buy REAL Dante Alighieri hat for Antonin Scalia. nHere’s today’s Moaning Israeli hymn mantras to put Hegel’s votes to death. nu2721How Dare Ted Cruz? nu2721Jewish Groups Must End Silence on Hagel. nu2721Interest in Hagel Speeches Isn’t Racist. nu2721GOP Must Hang Tough on Hagel. nu2721Is a Hagel Filibuster Still Possible? nu2721New Hagel Story Could Alter the Equation. nu2721The Hagel-Cruz Bait and Switch. nu2721Iran Exposes Its Achilles’ Heel nu2721Schumer’s Dishonest Hagel Sob Story
u2721 u2721 n u2721 u2721 n u2721 u2721 n n u2721 u2721 n nu05d5u05d9u05d5u05e6u05d0 u05d0u05eau05d5 u05d4u05d7u05d5u05e6u05d4 u05d5u05d9u05d0u05deu05e8 u05d4u05d1u05d8 u05e0u05d0 u05d4u05e9u05deu05d9u05deu05d4 u05d5u05e1u05e4u05e8 u05d4u05dbu05d5u05dbu05d1u05d9u05dd u05d0u05dd u05eau05d5u05dbu05dc u05dcu05e1u05e4u05e8 u05d0u05eau05dd u05d5u05d9u05d0u05deu05e8 u05dcu05d5 u05dbu05d4 u05d9u05d4u05d9u05d4 u05d6u05e8u05e2u05da n n
u05e4u05d5u05dcu05d9u05d8u05d9u05e7u05d4 u05d4u05d9u05d0 u05dcu05d0 u05d0u05d9u05d3u05d9u05d0u05d5u05dcu05d5u05d2u05d9u05ea u05e1u05e4u05d5u05e8u05d8 nu05e4u05d5u05dcu05d9u05d8u05d9u05e7u05d0u05d9u05dd u05d9u05e9u05e8u05d0u05dcu05d9u05d9u05dd u05deu05d5u05e9u05d7u05eau05d9u05dd u05d4u05dd u05d9u05dbu05d5u05dcu05d9u05dd u05dcu05e9u05e8u05d5u05d3 u05dbu05dc u05e2u05d5u05d3 u05e8u05e7 u05dbu05d0u05e0u05d7u05e0u05d5 u05e9u05d5u05e0u05d0u05d9u05dd u05d0u05d7u05d3 u05d0u05ea u05d4u05e9u05e0u05d9 nu05eau05d5u05d3u05d4 nu05dcu05d1u05e8u05d9u05d0u05d5u05ea
so you seek a cure with Jew-hating politicians? n nor just got serendipitously apt with Babelfish translate? n nchoice b was "Kibbutz Ein Shemer located midway between Afula and Hadera is Israel's most productive source of potash precursors and in past years hosted a small plastic and rubber extrusion factory."
cloture, Islam is detrimental to your intellectual and moral health. Best to discard this vile ideology-as it can only lead to economic, military, social, and moral failure. See every Muslim majority land for proof of this paradigmatic truth.
How much do Bath Salts cost in Dubai?
heh
and Hagel will be confirmed and will serve and israel will not be harmed by this nearly as much as it was harmed by having a creepy thuggish swine serving as its Foreign Minister.
"having a creepy thuggish swine serving as its Foreign Minister" nThat's no way to talk about Shimon Peres. (2001-2002) nThen again it may be true of Tzipi Livni (2006-2009).
I've never much cared for Peres, but think "thuggish" would be a stretch for him. n nfits fine for Lieberman though. he's someone you expect to be described as n n " … a pimp. He never coulda outfought Santino. "
Can anyone believe these spineless rats such as schumer are serving in the senate? Brings to mind a quote by CHurchill: "In a democracy, the people get the leaders they deserve." Hardly a ringing endorsement for the intellectual quality of the US electorate, is it?