Anti-Semitism or legitimate criticism

Klinker said:

BCC said:
First of all 75% of money given to Israel must be spent here in the US. It is spent on military equipment providing jobs here in the US for thousands of workers.
Second, this is not a one way street. Israel is our only reliable ally in the Mid-East and provides it's share of assistance to us.
www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/other/AssetTest_Infographic.pdf

100% of the money saved could be spent here in the United States.
As for our "alliance" with Israel, it is clear to me what we do for them, what exactly they do for us is a bit more nebulous. 

You are suggesting Israel is not an ally of the US. Based on what?
There is no other nation in the Mid-East on whom we can count to remain friendly with us in the event the government is overthrown.

Your suggestion that Israel's contributions to the US are nebulous is nonsense. It means you haven't read the link or won't accept any kind of quid pro quo.. I suggest any fair minded person read it for them self and make up their own mind.

What you are suggesting without actually saying so, is that we
should throw Israel under the bus.

Singling out Israel?  Hmmmm

BCC said:
www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/other/AssetTest_Infographic.pdf

Klinker said:

BCC said:
First of all 75% of money given to Israel must be spent here in the US. It is spent on military equipment providing jobs here in the US for thousands of workers.
Second, this is not a one way street. Israel is our only reliable ally in the Mid-East and provides it's share of assistance to us.
www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/other/AssetTest_Infographic.pdf

100% of the money saved could be spent here in the United States.
As for our "alliance" with Israel, it is clear to me what we do for them, what exactly they do for us is a bit more nebulous. 

You are suggesting Israel is not an ally of the US. Based on what?
There is no other nation in the Mid-East on whom we can count to remain friendly with us in the event the government is overthrown.
Your suggestion that Israel's contributions to the US are nebulous is nonsense. It means you haven't read the link or won't accept any kind of quid pro quo.. I suggest any fair minded person read it for them self and make up their own mind.
What you are suggesting without actually saying so, is that we
should throw Israel under the bus.

Worth sharing.  Spanish city Cordoba has a senior official that wants to ban a Sephardic Music Festival because it would relate to their anti-Israel beliefs. 

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Spanish-politician-links-local-BDS-bid-to-Jewish-musical-festival-434255

BCC said:
www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/other/AssetTest_Infographic.pdf

Klinker said:

BCC said:
First of all 75% of money given to Israel must be spent here in the US. It is spent on military equipment providing jobs here in the US for thousands of workers.
Second, this is not a one way street. Israel is our only reliable ally in the Mid-East and provides it's share of assistance to us.
www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/other/AssetTest_Infographic.pdf

100% of the money saved could be spent here in the United States.
As for our "alliance" with Israel, it is clear to me what we do for them, what exactly they do for us is a bit more nebulous. 

You are suggesting Israel is not an ally of the US. Based on what?
There is no other nation in the Mid-East on whom we can count to remain friendly with us in the event the government is overthrown.
Your suggestion that Israel's contributions to the US are nebulous is nonsense. It means you haven't read the link or won't accept any kind of quid pro quo.. I suggest any fair minded person read it for them self and make up their own mind.
What you are suggesting without actually saying so, is that we
should throw Israel under the bus.

What I am saying is that, outside of cases of pure charity and humanitarian relief, foreign aid should be based on a cost benefit analysis.  To my mind, such an analysis would preclude further aid to the current government of Israel.  Should the Israelis elect a government more in line with our interests, I suppose we would have to reevaluate the situation.

As for your link, perhaps you would have a better perspective on the world if you expanded your reading to sources not directly tied to AIPAC.  

Thankfully you're not in charge of analyzing and creating cost benefit analysis reports for the Government  Thankful that US aid to Israel will increase.

Klinker said:

BCC said:
www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/other/AssetTest_Infographic.pdf

Klinker said:

BCC said:
First of all 75% of money given to Israel must be spent here in the US. It is spent on military equipment providing jobs here in the US for thousands of workers.
Second, this is not a one way street. Israel is our only reliable ally in the Mid-East and provides it's share of assistance to us.
www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/other/AssetTest_Infographic.pdf

100% of the money saved could be spent here in the United States.
As for our "alliance" with Israel, it is clear to me what we do for them, what exactly they do for us is a bit more nebulous. 

You are suggesting Israel is not an ally of the US. Based on what?
There is no other nation in the Mid-East on whom we can count to remain friendly with us in the event the government is overthrown.
Your suggestion that Israel's contributions to the US are nebulous is nonsense. It means you haven't read the link or won't accept any kind of quid pro quo.. I suggest any fair minded person read it for them self and make up their own mind.
What you are suggesting without actually saying so, is that we
should throw Israel under the bus.

What I am saying is that, outside of cases of pure charity and humanitarian relief, foreign aid should be based on a cost benefit analysis.  To my mind, such an analysis would preclude further aid to the current government of Israel.  Should the Israelis elect a government more in line with our interests, I suppose we would have to reevaluate the situation.

Klinker said:

As for your link, perhaps you would have a better perspective on the world if you expanded your reading to sources not directly tied to AIPAC.  

Below is a small sample of what you would have read, courtesy of AIPAC, outlining a small sample of quid pro quo if you had actually read the link.

'Israeli innovations in medical research, clinical applications, and medical
instrumentation have helped GE and other firms in this field become global leaders.

Israeli firms played a major role in the development of instant messaging, VOIP, encryption
technologies for online commerce, data-mining programs, and cyber- security products.

Israeli pioneering in water management,micro-irrigation, and high-tech agriculture, helps theUnited States and the developing world tackle the water and food
security challenges from rapid population growth and climate change.

A world leader in clean tech innovation, Israel’s breakthroughs in
solar energy, biofuels, and reverse osmosis  are marketed by U.S.
companies worldwide.

With scores of U.S. firms establishing R&D centers in Israel, innovation and R&D partnerships ensure
the competitiveness of important niche sectors of the U.S.economy.'

Would you like more?

When you want to learn about the effects of burning coal do you ask a coal lobbyist?

All your links prove is that you are completely unaquainted with the fundamentals of critical thinking.

That said, they do put your posts here in context  I now understand why you believe the things you believe.  

Klinker said:

That said, they do put your posts here in context  I now understand why you believe the things you believe.  

IOWs, other than insults you actually have no response. I have given you a small portion of the substantial reasons for our support of Israel and you have come back with nothing, nothing but an attack on the source, and no refutation of anything. Sorry, that's not 'critical thinking', it's BS covering the fact you have no answers.

I mean come on friend, lobbying has been a part of US culture for centuries.  AIPAC lobbies the Government with their rationale and point of view.  Is AIPAC issuing false statements?  If so, we'd all be grateful to know what those are since many of us support AIPAC.

Klinker said:

When you want to learn about the effects of burning coal do you ask a coal lobbyist?

All your links prove is that you are completely unaquainted with the fundamentals of critical thinking.

Klinker said:
All your links prove is that you are completely unaquainted with the fundamentals of critical thinking.

Or that you are still stuck in those high school fundamentals, where "critical thinking" equates to disbelieving a source because your teacher doesn't share the source's politics.

Many years ago a conservative relative  I had recently met, who had retired from a career of some kind in petrochemicals, sneered at my confident, 20 year-old assertion that the world was running out of fossil fuels and desperately needed to invest in renewables. 

He looked a little tired. "The world will never run out of fossil fuels," he said, and I marveled at his incredibly misguided certainty. Hadn't he read anything?

Now we know that the world is nowhere near running out of fossil fuels. Quite the reverse. Is it still true that we must for our own sakes invest in non-carbon emitting energy sources? Sure. But the economics of fossil fuel abundance don't make it likely, let alone easy.

Similarly, an arrangement between the Palestinians and Israel is no less necessary, from various perspectives, than it was 30 or 60 years ago. But it will have nothing to do with peace, or making Daesh go away. And Islamist politics won't make it easy. Maybe they won't even make it possible for the foreseeable future. 

BCC said:

Klinker said:

That said, they do put your posts here in context  I now understand why you believe the things you believe.  

IOWs, other than insults you actually have no response. I have given you a small portion of the substantial reasons for our support of Israel and you have come back with nothing, nothing but an attack on the source, and no refutation of anything. Sorry, that's not 'critical thinking', it's BS covering the fact you have no answers.

Again, I was trying to be subtle and I guess (again) I missed the mark.  What I was trying to convey is that there is no point in trying to have a discussion on any topic, be it tobacco, oil or Israel with someone who's primary source of information is paid industry lobbyists.

You say the things you do because you are uninformed.  That isn't an insult or a putdown, it is simply a statement of fact.

JCSO said:

Klinker said:
All your links prove is that you are completely unaquainted with the fundamentals of critical thinking.

Or that you are still stuck in those high school fundamentals, where "critical thinking" equates to disbelieving a source because your teacher doesn't share the source's politics.

Many years ago a conservative relative  I had recently met, who had retired from a career of some kind in petrochemicals, sneered at my confident, 20 year-old assertion that the world was running out of fossil fuels and desperately needed to invest in renewables. 

He looked a little tired. "The world will never run out of fossil fuels," he said, and I marveled at his incredibly misguided certainty. Hadn't he read anything?

Thank God we discovered an infinite, inexhaustible source of fossil fuels. Seriously, I am not quite sure what you are trying to say.  You were right and he was wrong.  

This post reminds me of those folks who don't understand the difference between weather and climate.

Klinker said:

BCC said:

Klinker said:

That said, they do put your posts here in context  I now understand why you believe the things you believe.  

IOWs, other than insults you actually have no response. I have given you a small portion of the substantial reasons for our support of Israel and you have come back with nothing, nothing but an attack on the source, and no refutation of anything. Sorry, that's not 'critical thinking', it's BS covering the fact you have no answers.

Again, I was trying to be subtle and I guess (again) I missed the mark.  What I was trying to convey is that there is no point in trying to have a discussion on any topic, be it tobacco, oil or Israel with someone who's primary source of information is paid industry lobbyists.

You say the things you do because you are uninformed.  That isn't an insult or a putdown, it is simply a statement of fact.

Statement of Fact

Since I have given you a link listing numerous ways in which Israel has been of value to us and the best you can do is adopt this smug attitude that that I am uninformed and you can't be bothered to refute anything on that list, then you're right, there is no point to this discussion.

BCC said:

Klinker said:

BCC said:

Klinker said:

That said, they do put your posts here in context  I now understand why you believe the things you believe.  

IOWs, other than insults you actually have no response. I have given you a small portion of the substantial reasons for our support of Israel and you have come back with nothing, nothing but an attack on the source, and no refutation of anything. Sorry, that's not 'critical thinking', it's BS covering the fact you have no answers.

Again, I was trying to be subtle and I guess (again) I missed the mark.  What I was trying to convey is that there is no point in trying to have a discussion on any topic, be it tobacco, oil or Israel with someone who's primary source of information is paid industry lobbyists.

You say the things you do because you are uninformed.  That isn't an insult or a putdown, it is simply a statement of fact.

Statement of Fact


Since I have given you a link listing numerous ways in which Israel has been of value to us and the best you can do is adopt this smug attitude that that I am uninformed and you can't be bothered to refute anything on that list, then you're right, there is no point to this discussion.

Indeed.  The nature of the link you provided precludes further discussion.  Good day.

ETA: And thank you for not calling me an anti-Semite

This deserves consideration here:

http://forward.com/news/national/326036/donald-trump-stumbles-in-pitch-to-republican-jews-with-stereotype-filled-sp/