I have to wonder if this is selective prosecution based on Adams' willingness to challenge the administration re illegal immigrants. In any case, anything he did/took is of almost no consequence. On the other hand, when foreign leaders get standing ovations in congress and $Billions to take home, that is extremely consequential.
>It’s possible Kushner really believes that everything he did on behalf of foreign countries who later ended up paying him was really in the interest of the United States.
Yeah, getting 2 billion dollars from a foreign country is pretty questionable no matter what you did. Still, it's hard to see how getting Saudi Arabia and Israel to make peace is bad for America. At worst it's neutral. I would just call that payment for a job well done and move on. Definitely much more suspicious than anything Adams did though.
Your choice of Israel is counterproductive to your argument.
Given Israel’s importance to Middle East stability and its diplomatic closeness to the U.S. coupled with the profound ignorance of sitting members of congress, Israel needs to show these imbeciles how Israel truly functions.
Look no further than to Gays for Gaza to understand why Israel needs to educate the intellectually challenged members of Congress
Every country needs to show American leaders their perspective. We’re the world's leading superpower with the largest economy and navy; it’s common sense for world leaders to want to influence us, and I don’t begrudge them for it. But the job of *my* elected representatives is to advance *my* interests and those of *my* fellow citizens, not whichever faraway land has the most lobbying dollars to spend. American leaders must put Americans first, just as Israeli leaders must put Israelis first and Turkish leaders must put Turks first.
I think Eric Adams was targeted for elimination after he did the right thing and criticized Joke Briben's migrant resettlement program that has done such severe damage to his city.
You wrote: "Benny Stanislawski, who works as the Communications Director for New York Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres, went on one of these trips alongside other House staffers over the summer. Torres, if you’ll recall, is one of the House Democrats most supportive of the current U.S.-Israel relationship (maybe someone can send him this article, he blocks me on Twitter)."
You can't help but accuse those dirty Jews of using their dirty Jew money to buy influence. There couldn't possibly be a moral or rational reason for the USA to support the only democracy in the Middle East, and the only country in the Middle East where LGBT people can live free and full lives, and where women have reproductive freedom.
It must be those dirty Jews and their dirty Jew money.
> You can't help but accuse those dirty Jews of using their dirty Jew money to buy influence.
I hold no rancor towards Israel for doing this sort of thing. If I was Israeli, I would want my government to curry favor with the leaders of the world’s most powerful country too! Of course they want to buy influence, everyone else also does, it's the smart and sensible thing to do. The only people at fault are the American politicians who put their pocket books and the interests of foreign countries above the constituents they have sworn to serve and represent.
I don't think these educational trips really qualify as buying someone's loyalty with money. Buying influence with money, sure. Considering how under-educated most Congresspeople are, relative to their power and influence, just being able to sit them down and explain your view in a managed and rehearsed way is probably an excellent cost / benefit move.
Aside from that... it's always bizarre watching allegations of genocide or similar come from the (seemingly) anti-Israel perspective. What do you think October 7th was? Didn't Hezbollah just recently blow up a soccer park and kill 10 kids? It's certainly true that Israel has killed children too, but just about nobody denies that they're doing it in response to that sort of violence to begin with. To count one side as committing slaughter (but not the other), you basically have to believe that taking back land stolen 75+ years ago is a legitimate cause, or that striking back after brutal terrorist attacks isn't. Alternatively you could consider missiles sent directly at soccer fields to be a legitimate military tactic, but relatively indiscriminate bombing near your actual military enemy to not be.
Or maybe you're not actually for one side. If so fair enough but that's pretty rare to find in this debate.
Hamas is an evil murderous terrorist group, that is obvious to anyone with eyes. And it is in no way incompatible with the IDF also engaging in murderous war criminal tactics, which can also be seen by anyone with eyes:
- targeting civilians, women, children, the elderly, mosques, churches, schools, hospitals, ambulances, aid workers, doctors, peaceful protestors
- using children as human shields
- hostage-taking
- rape
- torture
- mass starvation
- and more
> just about nobody denies that they're doing it in response to that sort of violence to begin with.
Hamas and Hezbollah also claim to be acting in response to past Israeli crimes. That’s why it’s a “cycle of violence”; each atrocity is used to justify the next, ad infinitum.
>It is in no way incompatible with the IDF also engaging in murderous war criminal tactics, which can also be seen by anyone with eyes:
This is a perfectly fair response, but I don't think the guy I'm responding to would agree. Though I do think at least some of these are exaggerations.
>Hamas and Hezbollah also claim to be acting in response to past Israeli crimes. That’s why it’s a “cycle of violence”; each atrocity is used to justify the next, ad infinitum
This, on the other hand...
There's a stark difference between immediate retaliation directly after an attack, and waiting years to suddenly launch an attack (and a totally indiscriminate one at that). The "cycle of violence" seems to be that one side attacks and is attacked back. While each retaliation may fuel the next conflict to some degree, it's hard to argue that this is the main cause of the conflict, or even close to it.
I have to wonder if this is selective prosecution based on Adams' willingness to challenge the administration re illegal immigrants. In any case, anything he did/took is of almost no consequence. On the other hand, when foreign leaders get standing ovations in congress and $Billions to take home, that is extremely consequential.
>It’s possible Kushner really believes that everything he did on behalf of foreign countries who later ended up paying him was really in the interest of the United States.
Yeah, getting 2 billion dollars from a foreign country is pretty questionable no matter what you did. Still, it's hard to see how getting Saudi Arabia and Israel to make peace is bad for America. At worst it's neutral. I would just call that payment for a job well done and move on. Definitely much more suspicious than anything Adams did though.
Your choice of Israel is counterproductive to your argument.
Given Israel’s importance to Middle East stability and its diplomatic closeness to the U.S. coupled with the profound ignorance of sitting members of congress, Israel needs to show these imbeciles how Israel truly functions.
Look no further than to Gays for Gaza to understand why Israel needs to educate the intellectually challenged members of Congress
Every country needs to show American leaders their perspective. We’re the world's leading superpower with the largest economy and navy; it’s common sense for world leaders to want to influence us, and I don’t begrudge them for it. But the job of *my* elected representatives is to advance *my* interests and those of *my* fellow citizens, not whichever faraway land has the most lobbying dollars to spend. American leaders must put Americans first, just as Israeli leaders must put Israelis first and Turkish leaders must put Turks first.
I think Eric Adams was targeted for elimination after he did the right thing and criticized Joke Briben's migrant resettlement program that has done such severe damage to his city.
You wrote: "Benny Stanislawski, who works as the Communications Director for New York Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres, went on one of these trips alongside other House staffers over the summer. Torres, if you’ll recall, is one of the House Democrats most supportive of the current U.S.-Israel relationship (maybe someone can send him this article, he blocks me on Twitter)."
You can't help but accuse those dirty Jews of using their dirty Jew money to buy influence. There couldn't possibly be a moral or rational reason for the USA to support the only democracy in the Middle East, and the only country in the Middle East where LGBT people can live free and full lives, and where women have reproductive freedom.
It must be those dirty Jews and their dirty Jew money.
Right?
> You can't help but accuse those dirty Jews of using their dirty Jew money to buy influence.
I hold no rancor towards Israel for doing this sort of thing. If I was Israeli, I would want my government to curry favor with the leaders of the world’s most powerful country too! Of course they want to buy influence, everyone else also does, it's the smart and sensible thing to do. The only people at fault are the American politicians who put their pocket books and the interests of foreign countries above the constituents they have sworn to serve and represent.
The only person referencing "dirty Jews" here is you.
What you apparently think of as "dirty Jew money" is just money.
Buying the loyalty of anyone with money is a dirty business.
Buying the silence of legislators in the most powerful nation on earth so you can slaughter children without consequence with weapons they provide?
"Dirty" hardly covers it.
I don't think these educational trips really qualify as buying someone's loyalty with money. Buying influence with money, sure. Considering how under-educated most Congresspeople are, relative to their power and influence, just being able to sit them down and explain your view in a managed and rehearsed way is probably an excellent cost / benefit move.
Aside from that... it's always bizarre watching allegations of genocide or similar come from the (seemingly) anti-Israel perspective. What do you think October 7th was? Didn't Hezbollah just recently blow up a soccer park and kill 10 kids? It's certainly true that Israel has killed children too, but just about nobody denies that they're doing it in response to that sort of violence to begin with. To count one side as committing slaughter (but not the other), you basically have to believe that taking back land stolen 75+ years ago is a legitimate cause, or that striking back after brutal terrorist attacks isn't. Alternatively you could consider missiles sent directly at soccer fields to be a legitimate military tactic, but relatively indiscriminate bombing near your actual military enemy to not be.
Or maybe you're not actually for one side. If so fair enough but that's pretty rare to find in this debate.
> What do you think October 7th was?
Hamas is an evil murderous terrorist group, that is obvious to anyone with eyes. And it is in no way incompatible with the IDF also engaging in murderous war criminal tactics, which can also be seen by anyone with eyes:
- targeting civilians, women, children, the elderly, mosques, churches, schools, hospitals, ambulances, aid workers, doctors, peaceful protestors
- using children as human shields
- hostage-taking
- rape
- torture
- mass starvation
- and more
> just about nobody denies that they're doing it in response to that sort of violence to begin with.
Hamas and Hezbollah also claim to be acting in response to past Israeli crimes. That’s why it’s a “cycle of violence”; each atrocity is used to justify the next, ad infinitum.
>It is in no way incompatible with the IDF also engaging in murderous war criminal tactics, which can also be seen by anyone with eyes:
This is a perfectly fair response, but I don't think the guy I'm responding to would agree. Though I do think at least some of these are exaggerations.
>Hamas and Hezbollah also claim to be acting in response to past Israeli crimes. That’s why it’s a “cycle of violence”; each atrocity is used to justify the next, ad infinitum
This, on the other hand...
There's a stark difference between immediate retaliation directly after an attack, and waiting years to suddenly launch an attack (and a totally indiscriminate one at that). The "cycle of violence" seems to be that one side attacks and is attacked back. While each retaliation may fuel the next conflict to some degree, it's hard to argue that this is the main cause of the conflict, or even close to it.