Motion Passes to Get Tough on Israel
The motion “This House believes it’s time for the US administration to get tough on Israel” was carried in a resounding affirmative with 63% of the participants favouring it at the taping of an episode of the Doha Debates at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.
Arguing in favour of the motion was Michael Sheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit, who believes that America should completely withdraw from the conflict and cut all diplomatic and military ties with Israel. Furthermore, Sheuer declared that the US must eliminate a “pro-Israel fifth column of US citizens,” which corrupts America and its foreign policy.
His partner in the debate was Avraham Burg, former speaker of the Israeli Knesset, who advocated American intervention as historically beneficial to both Israel and the wider region. He also compared America to a “parent” who must say no to the Israeli “child.”
Georgetown student Michael Karno responded after the debate: “As a Jewish-American, this debate was refreshing, in showing the division within Israel on this topic,” especially between former Israeli politicians Burg and his opponent Dore Gold.
Gold, former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations and foreign policy adviser to Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon, advocated a renewed dialogue with the US, choosing to attack the four underlying assumptions of a strategy that pressures Israel.
First, he asserted, pressuring Israel will not actually reduce Islamic fundamentalist anger; second, Israel has initiated key events in the peace process without US intervention; third, pressure on Israel is fundamentally unfair since Israel has taken risks with its security in exchange for regional peace; and finally, a nuclear Iran is the true problem in the Middle East.
(WTF? Pressure on Israel is "unfair" Well, tough shit-ski I say. That's really just too damn bad now isn't it! Israel, get this straight, does not, I repeat, does not have the right to control America. And these constant "guilt trips" won't work any more, our ears are closed. Get ready for good ole Zionist Alan Dershowitz below, hold your nose!)
Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor and ardent defender of Israel, joined Gold in arguing against the motion. He repeatedly emphasised that the US needs to “get smart with Israel,” not tough, especially at a time when the new Obama administration is starting to engage with “enemies like Syria and Iran.” According to Dershowitz, this would be perceived as weakening Israel’s security and cause overconfident enemies to then attack.
(Hey Dershowitz, two words "Piss Off!!" If you love Israel so much MOVE THERE and stop polluting America with your Zionist drivel. Still this whole thing must have really pissed him off, only wish I could have seen it live and in person. Must be so difficult after having been a spoilt child for so long, always getting away with anything you wanted, and now you are being told "no" Well, get used to it.)
Dershowitz said: “Getting tough on Israel is more likely to produce bloodshed, than to produce peace.”
(Mi arse! Certainly not Israeli bloodshed, not with the 4th largest army in the world with nuclear weapons. What he REALLY means is more murdering of Palestinians and Arabs, the asshat.)
Gold later added: “Remember what American toughness means: getting tough with Israel and soft on Iran,”which was met with loud boos and hisses by the audience.
(ROTFLMAO!!!! Oh I wish I could have seen this LOL I would have paid good money, just for the memory.)
During the second half when the panelists answer questions from the audience, a Georgetown student from Canada asked the side arguing against the motion whether the US needed to appear tough on Israel in order to rescue its own reputation.
Dershowitz responded that the questioner “must be taking some awfully strong medicine” if the declining reputation of America is due to anything other than the presidency of George W Bush.
(Yeah, that's right "Alan" insult people now you ignoramus!)
The exchange led to the most heated moment of the debate, when Scheuer interjected, “Clearly, Mr Dershowitz, the war in Iraq is the responsibility of the American fifth column that supports Israel,” grouping his opponent with such disloyal elements.
Dershowitz’s indignant response swiftly followed: “That’s ridiculous! I opposed the war in Iraq … more Jews than any other group in America opposed the war in Iraq." “You’re a bigot,” Dershowitz, who often obliquely accuses debate opponents of anti-Semitism, shouted repeatedly over the fray.
(ROFLMAO, they're loosing American support and they are going mental over it, HALLEJULEAH finally people have had enough and all the phony shouts of "anti-semitism" won't work anymore. Game over, you loose.)
Dershowitz initially rejected the invitation because of the way the motion framed the issue, stating afterwards that the results did not surprise him. According to Dershowitz, not only was the audience “stacked,” but he also believed that whenever the topic includes the phrase “get tough,” the side supporting the motion “always wins.”
(Whinge, whinge, whinge. What a brilliant lawyer, does nothing but whine and complain when faced with the truth. Ah well,what is that old expression "truth hurts")
Assma al-Adawi, a Qatari student at Georgetown School of Foreign Service Qatar in her senior year, asserted that those in attendance had “stronger opinions” than the typical audience in Doha, adding “I’m surprised at the overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian sentiment.”
(Now if we could just see this take place in the House and Senate, perhaps we could improve the world and make it a safer place for the majority of people living in it and restore the good name of America worldwide. If America can extricate itself from the control of groups like AIPAC and the ADL, that would be a good start in taking back America from control by a foreign country!!)
read more about Alan Dershowitz and his quest to censor Israel critics HERE
