MASTER TEACHER?!?

I guess then that you are the MASTER-BAITOR.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

So, why is it OK to notice this sometimes and not others?

I dunno, Hal. Sounds like he difference between the two situations is one of perception right or wrong, of the policies. thereby, it's OK to notice it in onc place and not others.

How is that any less than fully addressing Alex's question?

My god. Look, if you want to argue that question, that's fine, but that IS NOT THE QUESTION ALEX ASKED.

If you reread the post, the issue is that we have two cases on the table. One in Israel and one in Cuba. The issues are almost identical in that the main impediment to altering foreign policy is a passionately vocal group. However, in one case you get called an anti-semite if you mention this fact and the other you don't. I don't think that there's any perception issue around whether our policies are the correct ones.

And really, there isn't any reason - EVER - to call someone an anti-semite, because they point out that the main impediment to changing foreign policy WRT Israel is "the influence of the American Jewish population" - regardless of what you think the foreign policy should be or where you think things should change.

This is almost surreal. No, strike that. It is positively surreal. I can't for the life of me understand why y'all can't focus on the question and instead think that the actual issue is whether or not current policy on Israel is correct or not.

I mean, my god.

Gee, Alex, maybe it is merely doing the right thing.

To which you have to either believe that the MASTER TEACHER is completely ignoring Alex’s question and running on about a completely different subject or you have to believe that the MASTER TEACHER simply can’t read. I chose the former and was castigated by the MASTER TEACHER for my choice.

You're missing it, Hal. If the general perception is that our policies in each of these areas is the correct one, would that or would that not affect the reaction to those policies, thus altering the number of times 'anti-semite/racist' gets dragged out a a charge?

Israel was formed just after WWII, Hal, as you are probably unaware

Israel may not have declared statehood until 1948, but the formation and population of Israel by European Jews had been going on since just after WWI as part of the British mandate in Palestine to establish a Jewish homeland.

You really are a dufus.

Why is it when you bring up the observation that one political obstacle in changing our foriegn policies regarding Israel is the influence of the American Jewish population, then you are labled a “bigot” or “anti-Semite.”

However, when you bring up an analogous observation that one political obstacle in changing our foreign policies regarding Cuba is the large Cuban population in Florida, you are labeled “Captain Obvious.”

To this, Christopher - the master teacher - responded

Gee, Alex, maybe it is merely doing the right thing.

To which you have to either believe that the MASTER TEACHER is completely ignoring Alex's question and running on about a completely different subject or you have to believe that the MASTER TEACHER simply can't read. I chose the former and was castigated by the MASTER TEACHER for my choice.

If I take the MASTER TEACHER's response at face value, it parses as

It's okay to call people an "anti-semite" when they point out that one political obstacle of changing foreign policies regarding Israel because "it's the right thing to do".

Now, maybe that really is what the MASTER TEACHER meant to say, but in that case he's an absolute fool, not merely someone with a less than third grade reading comprehension.

It's pretty clear that Christopher barely parsed Alex's post and responded with his lizard brain, thinking that Alex was asking why it's wrong to criticize Israeli policy and why it's wrong to criticize America's Cuban policy.

Obviously, he didn't read the post before he responded to it.

Hal, you should go back to school. Maybe there is a liberal remedial school somewhere, but probably not-liberals like yourself do like to remain ignorant.

Or, as an alternative, he's suggesting that we'd be coming to the current policies, even absent the pressure groups involved, simply because what're we're doing (Supporting Israel and derailing Cuba) is the right thing to be doing.

Seems to me his thought on this is of a peice with my own when I suggested that the policy might not change all that much absent those groups.

Please, I'm waiting with a worm on my tongue.

.....................hmmm...according to James I shouldn't call people names or insult them when we disagree.

But Hal, I gotta say, what in the world are you talking about?!?

THE point was that policy was influenced by Americans with ties to a foreign country. MY point was that maybe policy ISN'T affected by that, and that current American policy was simply the right thing to do.

Get it, HAL? Schools out.

Though I admit a certain sympathy for turning 30 years of crying 'racist' around on such as Wright, Jackson, Sharpton, et al.

It's pretty well known that a small, vocal group can be used by those with another agenda in a passive fashion while keeping plausible deniability. Regardless, there are plenty of issues where people feel quite passionate about, but we somehow manage to have the discussion without yelling "anti-semite" at the first sign of disagreement. The issue isn't whether there's far more at stake regarding Israel than its grounding as a religious and cultural identity. The issue is why does "anti-semite" get thrown out at the drop of a hate when criticizing Israel, when this doesn't happen when discussing - say - Cuba, where equally passionate supporters are involved and the issues are easily as broad with as many varied interests.

And the simple answer is that by yelling "anti-semite", you can shut down the conversation and this is very, very convenient to a certain sector of the discussion. If the Cuban refugees could, they would be using the same tactic. The reason why they can't and the Israelis can is simply because of the religious and cultural identity that is strongly rooted in the state of Israel. Without that, the cries of "anti-semite" would be laughable.

I don't know where the lines are, particularly, here, I'm simply suggested another set of markers to work with, that might explain what's being seen.