Hagee donates $6m to Israel, inc. West Bank settlement

You can read the entire AP story here on Pastor Hagee's $6 million donation in Israel.

Of particular interest is:

Hagee said his group was giving $6 million to 16 Israeli causes. Recipients include the Magen David Adom rescue service and a conference center in the West Bank Jewish settlement of Ariel.

Given John McCain's relationship with Hagee, what might this say about the U.S. being an honest broker in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations? Particularly, after the jump, Hagee's belief in an undivided Israeli Jerusalem.

So, are the Palestinians the equivalent of the Taliban?

Hagee thinks so:

"Turning part or all of Jerusalem over to the Palestinians would be tantamount to turning it over to the Taliban," Hagee told an audience filled with Americans who waved Israeli flags and cheered.

Now, let's see. We have the leader of the church Hagee denounced as the Great Whore overtly denouncing the invasion of Iraq and snubbing Condi Rice.

And we have Pastor Hagee interjecting himself this vividly into international affairs.

Discuss.

•  tips/recs/Hagee Hagee oxen free!

  by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:21:50 AM PDT

•  Looks like business as usual.

  Hagee and his group, Christians United for Israel, joined keynote speaker Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Israel's hard-line opposition Likud Party, at a rally in support of Jerusalem remaining united and under Jewish control.

  The fate of Jewish settlements like Ariel is at the heart of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The support of evangelicals for Israel's continued control of the West Bank endears them to Israeli hard-liners but troubles more dovish activists.

  by MajorFlaw on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:27:33 AM PDT

•  The evangelicals think they own Israel

  that is their mindset. It's their playground and they can do what they like there, and if any Israelis are to object, they are considered ungrateful.

  by decembersue on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:30:30 AM PDT

  •  they just need "perfecting" n/t

    by whitewidow on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:49:06 AM PDT

  •  Oh, but but but!

    The Israeli neocons say that this isn't so!  Honest!  And that the evangelicals really do love the Jews and Israel -- they're not just supporting the existence of Israel because it's supposed to be Ground Zero for Armageddon (which of course means the death of the Jews, but hey)!

    by Phoenix Woman on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:50:55 AM PDT

  •  Michael Oren's book

    lays it out from a historical perspective.  Interesting, it has always been the christian "restorationists" that have been the biggest zionists in the US.  At least prior to WWII.

    by Eiron on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:52:30 AM PDT

•  MDA does some great work

  but, eww

  by Eiron on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:31:06 AM PDT

•  I just read Hagee's book... it is

  extremely entertaining in its absurdity

  by GB1437a on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:50:22 AM PDT

•  Good.. The MDA can always use more money

  by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:51:36 AM PDT

  •  So can Palestinian hospitals and ambulances..eom

    by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:52:39 AM PDT

    •  Within Israel proper

      MDA delivers care without regard to race, religion, etc., they really are excellent.

      Now using American Dollars to build in the contested settlements is "not helpful" as Condi would say......

      by Eiron on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:54:36 AM PDT

      •  i don't think Ariel will be given up

        by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:57:52 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, except their donations tend to get

      turned into guns and missiles.

      by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:57:26 AM PDT

      •  yeh, that just shows Kahane was right &

        that the Palestinians are really subhuman since they don't want to treat their children or ill at all.

        Sheesh.

        by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:02:37 AM PDT

        •  No. It shows that there are

          groups like Hamas which take funds and appropriate them for guns.

          Gaza should never be given cash as long as Hamas is in control.

          by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:08:12 AM PDT

          •  same goes for Likud & the bldg of settlements n/t

            by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:15:28 AM PDT

            •  You know

              I'm sorry.. but equating the building of settlements with terrorism targeting civilians is disgusting.

              by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:17:35 AM PDT

              •  I didn't equate the act, I equated the money

                I don't contribute to the NRA nor do I contribute to the United Way. One is surely better, for the sake of argument, than the other, but I don't like the overhead of the latter.

                Cutting off the money is one way of getting their attention. American citizens do not have to support dollars for Israel if they oppose expanding the settlements. That can be funded someplace else in Israel's budget.

                by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:24:10 AM PDT

                •  American citizens do

                  not have to give Israel a fricking dime if they do not wish to.

                  The American government on the other hand has an agreement with Israel that gave Israel and Egypt cash for a peace agreement.

                  by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:25:44 AM PDT

                  •  then the American people through the US gov't

                    can hold back its cash until it deems fit.

                    I wouldn't worry about it though. We all know how many times Members of Congress go to the floor and suggest this and other items that might actually bring peace to the Middle East.

                    by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:34:37 AM PDT

                    •  The American gov't doesn't feel that is necessary

                      by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:42:58 AM PDT

                  •  Simply not true. I contribute my part of $5B/year

                    through taxes that I have to pay.  Plus loan guarantees, plus military hardware, plus, plus.

                    I am an American citizen, and I do not like my money going for brutal military subjugation and occupation of a neighbor's land and water.  Egypt does not do so AFAIK, and if they did, they shouldn't get any money from me either.

                    by Terra Mystica on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:49:52 PM PDT

                    •  Sorry.. it is our gov't choice.

                      by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:46:24 PM PDT

                      •  And that sums up all that is wrong with our

                        foreign policy in the region, and our governments priorities generally.

                        We have a major southern city still in ruins, while we still support an 19. century style colonial democracy on the Eastern Med, that is healthy enough to support itself.

                        Yer right though.  Just another example of how screwed up our government is.

                        by Terra Mystica on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:46:23 PM PDT

                        •  So, let me ask you this..

                          Do you support farm subsidies? coal subsidies?  the bailout of BearStern?  Everything our government pays for except money for Israel?

                          Oh and the accusation that Israel is "an 19. century style colonial democracy' is bullshit.

                          by Pumpkinlove on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:39:34 AM PDT

                          •  I do not support subsidies in general. But some

                            subsidies do stabilize a situation.  And the subsidies you mention are for domestic consumption, so that is another difference.  

                            In foreign aid, I do not support subsidies that enable conflict.  It's a very clear distinction, imho.  The cold war is over, and

                            Ah, bullshit.  I used to think that Israel was a shining spot in a sea of troubles.  But now I've come to believe that it is a colonial power with a "wog" problem.  Pretty 19. century to me.

                            The US went through its indigenous people displacement period about 100 to 150 years ago.  It was wrong (but accepted) then, and history shows us that it was even more wrong than we thought even 30 years ago.  I like to think that we may have learned something from that that could be applied to our and anyone else's activities today.  Maybe not.  But that is for you to decide.

                            So, to subsidize behaviour that we (our gov't to put it in your terms) have long ago decided was flat wrong and probably racist, is not the right thing to do.

                            Contributions to Israel from the US should have two principals involved:

                            a) Completely voluntary; and/or,

                            b) Precluded from going to states at war (particularly if that aid was designed to promote peace).

                            by Terra Mystica on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:26:20 AM PDT

                            •  Sorry, "The cold war is over, and..."

                              foreign aid in support of conflict is anachronistic at best.  If it was ever right to begin with.

                              by Terra Mystica on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:33:13 AM PDT

              •  Reality is Disgusting

                Settlement construction is a clear and unequivocal violation of the Geneva Conventions that arguably amounts to state-sponsored terrorism.

                Providing financial support for settlement construction is arguably indistinguishable from "providing material support for terrorism."

                Hagee is funding War Crimes. You are sweeping them under the carpet.

                by greenskeeper on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:29:56 AM PDT

                •  That's a thinn argument

                  by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:45:17 AM PDT

                •  Tell us more

                  How is constructing settlements like "terrorism"?

                  I understand how it's bad, how it violates people's rights, etc. What is the argument you would make that it is a terrorist activity?

                  by brittain33 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:45:57 AM PDT

                  •  Subsidiary Elements

                    1. It is, de facto, a means of using civilian shields for military operations against occupied populations for unlawful and indiscriminate purposes.

                    2. The system of checkpoints and dedicated roads put into place in conjunction with those settlements routinely exposes occupied populations to deadly military force wielded by both settlers and IDF units for unlawful and indiscriminate purposes.

                    3. The theft and destruction of homes and agricultural lands in order to construct security perimeters and the like is a form of economic warfare with no unlawful and indscriminate purposes.

                    All of the above are unlawful actions which produce indiscriminate death and deprivation; all flow directly and inexorably from the War Crime of settlement construction and subsequent protection of those settlements.

                    The major distinction between these actions and Palestinian "terrorism" is the comparatively larger number of deaths, displacements, and deprivations that result from them, and their comparatively more systemic and state-sponsored qualities. This distinction is one which would seem to make them rather worse than their counterpart from less-organized Palistinian groups in each meaningful aspect.

                    by greenskeeper on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:25:54 AM PDT

                    •  Ok

                      None of those is terrorism.

                      Lest you think I'm trivializing the significance of those, I'm not. However, what you are doing to the word "terrorism" is of a piece of what Bush has done with it, which is to capitalize on negative associations with the word by tacking it on to all sorts of behavior that have nothing to do with it. Like that ad that ran during the Super Bowl several years ago that said that smoking pot was contributing to the war on terror. Terrorism is not a synonym for "really really bad."

                      I understand, you want some symmetry for the accusations of Palestinian terrorism. The problem is that "terrorism" is inherently non-sovereign. Nazi crimes were bad, but not terrorist activities. Iran is considered a state sponsor of terror because it funnels money and arms to non-Iran, non-sovereign groups that carry out terror, not because of anything it does in its own name. To call Israel a "state sponsor of terror" because it is a state doing things that are bad is an abuse of terminology that makes it meaningless, in the long run. If you think suicide bombings and kidnapping are a positive form of resistance, perhaps making the term "terrorism" meaningless in the long term is a good strategy. I can't agree with it.

                      by brittain33 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:33:19 AM PDT

                      •  This is a Circular Definition

                        To the extent that I want some symmetry, a symmetry that brought us to a one-to-one kill ratio with an upper limit at the current annual rate of Israeli deaths from Palestinian attacks would be a major improvement.

                        The rest is semantic tapdancing.

                        by greenskeeper on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:07:37 AM PDT

                        •  Did you just say you wanted MORE Israeli deaths?

                          by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:22:37 AM PDT

                          •  No

                            Is your inability to read and reason a result of fundamental stupidity or blind sectarianism?

                            by greenskeeper on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:41:17 AM PDT

                            •  Why are you so nasty?

                              by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:59:19 AM PDT

                            •  Sure you did

                              Maybe the fundamental stupidity is your inability to form sentences.

                              by dashound on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:52:49 PM PDT

                        •  It's the definition

                          There's nothing circular about it. It is what it is. As a sovereign state, Israel has many responsibilities that a random group of people or a political party don't have, and along with that is sovereign responsibility for acts of violence it commits. Similarly, Hamas gets away with stuff that, say, Egypt or Syria couldn't.

                          by brittain33 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:26:53 PM PDT

                    •  what?

                      It is, de facto, a means of using civilian shields for military operations against occupied populations for unlawful and indiscriminate purposes.

                      No, it is a de facto claim to the land.  There are no military operations in the settlements generally.

                      The system of checkpoints and dedicated roads put into place in conjunction with those settlements routinely exposes occupied populations to deadly military force wielded by both settlers and IDF units for unlawful and indiscriminate purposes.

                      No, the systemic terrorism against civilian populations by a variety of Palestinian groups has forced those checkpoints and dedicated roads into existence.  THey are a result of the terrorism, not a cause.  Furthermore, rarely do settlers 'wield deadly military force' against the Palestinians.  The reverse is more common.

                      The theft and destruction of homes and agricultural lands in order to construct security perimeters and the like is a form of economic warfare with no unlawful and indscriminate purposes

                      That land is under dispute.   The settlments are Israel's attempt to lay claim.  While I am amused that you unintentionally claimed that was lawful, the Israeli courts seem to be upholding the settlements.

                      The major distinction between these actions and Palestinian "terrorism" is the comparatively larger number of deaths, displacements, and deprivations that result from them, and their comparatively more systemic and state-sponsored qualities. This distinction is one which would seem to make them rather worse than their counterpart from less-organized Palistinian groups in each meaningful aspect.

                      Unbelievable.  So in two sentences you sweep away all Palestinian terrorism and say that is not nearly as bad as building houses.    You are wrong.  The major distinction between Israeli settlements and Palestinian terrorism is that the Israelis are attempting to lay claim to part of the land that has historically been the jewish homeland.. it isn't called Judea for nothing while the purpose of Palestinian terrorism is to kill civilians and remove all Jews from Israel in its entirety.   Furthermore, your bullshit claim that the Palestinian aren't not well organized is funny.  The terrorist groups are highly organized and funded.  They have political and military wings.  They have vast communication networks.  

                      Regardless, comparision between the two groups must end with this...

                      The Palestinians are actively seeking the death of Jewish civilians.  

                      by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:48:19 AM PDT

                      •  The Land is Not Under Dispute

                        The land is under occupation.

                        God is not a landlord and the bible is not a deed.

                        by greenskeeper on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:03:47 AM PDT

                        •  Nope. It is disputed.

                          There is general agreement that eventually there WILL be a Palestine and a border between Israel and said state but where that border will be.. that is the dispute.

                          by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:24:27 AM PDT

                          •  Pick your Lines: '48 or '67, forget the rest eom

                            by greenskeeper on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:52:46 AM PDT

                            •  No.

                              by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:59:49 AM PDT

                •  If you want to get real technical, it isn't

                  you see this isn't really "occupied" territory as per UN and Geneva rules because the nation that is currently in control is not holding the land from another nation that claims the land.

                  Jordan has given up its claims, which makes this disputed territory, not occupied territory. Which just about negates any legal arguments.  Now moral arguments are another story, but legally, this isn't strictly true.

                  by Dcoronata on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:22:26 AM PDT

                  •  That's One Tired Duck You've Got There eom

                    by greenskeeper on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:36:26 AM PDT

                    •  Not if you really believe in law

                      I mean if you simply give it short shrift- saying you believe in the law no matter how tenuous the actual connections between the law and reality are.

                      He's one example- for years they've called the West Bank "Israeli Occupied Territory" but from 1948-1967 it wasn't called "Jordanian Occupied Territory" on maps, and the Gaza wasn't called "Egyptian Occupied Territory".  For the most part the law is supposed to apply evenly, but it almost never does.

                      by Dcoronata on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:39:33 AM PDT

                  •  If you wanna get technical

                    Jordan ceded its claims to East Jerusalem to the PA in the 80's.  The Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem is recognized by no other state, than Israel.  Even the US doesn't recognize the legality of the annexation.  Where's the dispute?  Beyond squatter and landowner?

                    by Eiron on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:57:43 AM PDT

                    •  Please explain something to me...

                      How does Jordan have a legitimate claim to East Jerusalem to cede to the PA?

                      They illegally occupied East Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967 as the result of a war.  That is Jordan's sole claim to East Jersualem.. that they won it in a military battle).  If Jordan's claim to East Jerusalem is valid and they are therefore able to cede their claim to someone else, how precisely is Israel's claim to Jerusalem (that they won it in 1967) invalid?

                      IF you assume that Jordan has any legitimate claim to Jerusalem to cede, then you must also assume that Israel's annexation of Jerusalem is equally as valid.

                      by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:03:51 AM PDT

                      •  What I assume really doesn't matter

                        But Israel lacks any substantive claim to East Jerusalem that is recognized by any one, except Israel, herself.  The Pentateuch is many things, but it ain't  a title insurance company.

                        Jordan apparently renounced their claim, as tenuous as it may have been, in favor of the PA.  

                        Imagine if they had renounced it in favor of ISrael, would you then be rejecting its validity?

                        .  

                        by Eiron on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:11:17 AM PDT

                        •  So there we are.

                          Jordan has no claim to it.
                          Palestinians have no claim to it except what Jordan gave.
                          Israel holds it though some reject her claim

                          So we await the final status agreements.

                          What if Israel says no to a Palestinian state which contains East Jerusalem?     Why should the Jewish community be asked to give up control of its holiest city in addition to control of its second holiest, Hebron?

                          Speaking of Jerusalem, I've run across some interesting pictures of Jerusalem
                          from 1901

                          by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:34:07 AM PDT

                          •  Interesting site

                            now I know where you get your "information"  , a really racist website, that.

                            To repeat, everyone rejects Israel's claim.  Not some, everyone but Israel.  Jerusalem was not part of the mandate.  Israel conquered West Jerusalem, and Jordan East Jerusalem.  So if Jordan's claim was invalid, isn't Israel's similarly so?

                            Again, The UK recognized  Jordan's claim to the Wast Bank after 1949  How does that affect anything?

                            If Israel feels strongly enough about it, let them negotiate for it.  Maybe a purchase agreement?

                            by Eiron on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:34:46 PM PDT

                            •  The UK recognized Jordan's claim

                              to East Jerusalem based upon Jordan conquering in a war?  Then they should recognize Israel's claim on the same principle.

                              Notice you didn't address the pictures.. the abandoned mosque with weeds.

                              by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:41:54 PM PDT

                              •  Uk was the only country to extend recognition

                                and they helped develop a plan to revitalize E Jerusalem with the Jordanian government.  In 1966.  In 1967 Israel started a  "pre-emptive" war with her Arab neighbors, so the plan never saw light.

                                Do you have any pictures of the Historic Moroccan quarter in East Jerusalem?  I mean before Israel razed it and paved it over, right after they conquered the place.    

                                by Eiron on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:30:29 PM PDT

                                •  'pre-emptive'?

                                  You think the Six Day war was pre-emptive???? wtf.   Egypt had asked and recieved a withdrawal of UN peacekeepers from Israel.   Egypt was blockading Eilat, an act of war.  Egypt had stationed troops on Israel's border.  Egypt's leaders were screaming for the blood of Jews.   Terrorists were attacking Israel from Syria and Jordan on a regular basis.

                                  "Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria is in a position to cut Israel in two at Kalkilya, where Israeli territory between the Jordan armistice line and the Mediterranean Sea is only twelve kilometers wide ... ." – El Akhbar newspaper, Cairo, May 31, 1967 F

                                  May 30, 1967: "With the closing of the Gulf of Akaba, Israel is faced with two alternatives either of which will destroy it; it will either be strangled to death by the Arab military and economic boycott, or it will perish by the fire of the Arab forces encompassing it from the South from the North and from the East."

                                  May 30, 1967: "The world will know that the Arabs are girded for battle as the fateful hour approaches.

                                  "All of the Arab armies now surround Israel. The UAR, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Lebanon, Algeria, Sudan, and Kuwait. ... There is no difference between one Arab people and another, no difference between one Arab army and another." – King Hussein of Jordan, after signing the pact with Egypt May 30, 1967

                                  by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:40:42 PM PDT

                                  •  Yup, sounds pre-emptive

                                    to me

                                    by Eiron on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:08:58 PM PDT

                                  •  Umm, the peacekeeprs were in Sinai

                                    which wasn't then, or isn't now, Israel

                                    by Eiron on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:10:35 PM PDT

                                •  Morrocan Quarter????

                                  You mean the trash dump that our Muslim masters built at the holiest site of Judaism?  the toilets that our soldiers had to remove?

                                  I guess you agree that Islam consider the proper place for a Jew to pray is in a Muslims toilet.

                                  by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:24:58 PM PDT

                                  •  I meant people's homes

                                    a neighborhood.  Where families lived, ate, slept, prayed and raised their families the best they could. .  Just not the right kind of families, I guess. bulldozed for a bus parking lot  for a tourist attraction.

                                    Imagine if Williamsburg were urbanly renovated for a ball park.

                                    The former Moroccan quarter, I might add, is segregated, women can't pray where the men do.  

                                    Some sort of law in place.

                                    by Eiron on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:08:03 PM PDT

                                    •  It was a trash dump and a toilet

                                      by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:32:03 PM PDT

                                      •  Is that what you read on that hate site?

                                        I might suggest you broaden your sources of information.

                                        by Eiron on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:41:05 PM PDT

                                        •  Here are some pictures for you to look at

                                          Jewish tombstones as stairs
                                          tombstones used as pavement
                                          just one of the many synagogues destroyed by Jordan

                                          by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:54:48 PM PDT

                                    •  There was NEVER a Morrocan Quarter

                                      The four quarters of Jerusalem were the Jewish, Muslim, Christian and Armenian Quarters.   Futhermore, if one reads the wikipedia article on the so called Morrocan quarter it describes the Jewish Quarter (from which Jews were expelled in 1948) and was written by a Palestinian group pretending to be a scholarly institution.

                                      by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:52:49 PM PDT

                        •  You can't give something to a nebulous

                          government that doesn't exist.

                          If they had a nation, that would be one thing, but since they do not, that "gift" has no value except as propaganda.

                          by Dcoronata on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:12:59 PM PDT

•  After what Jordan did to Jerusalem

  I can understand the hesitation of many to split the city.

  Frankly, my preference would be for Israel to keep Jerusalem in entirety.. however, untill/unless I chose to make aliyah, I don't have the right to demand my voice be heard.

  My husband on the other hand...

  by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:55:21 AM PDT

•  When will heretic Hagee register as an agent

  of a foreign power?

  I'm not holding my breath, but he really should.

  Hagee is such a huge heretic I don't even know where to begin.

  And he has the gall to call liberal Christians apostate.

  by slaney black on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:31:49 AM PDT

  •  What foreign power?

    Hagee is hardly a representative of Israel. Maybe cloud-cuckoo land...

    by brittain33 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:39:22 AM PDT

  •  Oh bullshit

    Will you ask all immigrants and citizens of non-European descent to register as an agent of a foreign power?   Will you ask all francophiles or anglophiles to register?  Will you ask all Catholics to register as foreign agents of the Vatican?

    or is it just for Israel that you make this demand?

    by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:49:31 AM PDT

    •  American law

      requires that  agents of foreign powers  seeking to influence US government decisions be registered.

      AIPAC is not an agent of a foreign power.  I guess.  

      by Eiron on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:00:22 AM PDT

      •  Wow.. that sounds an awful lot like

        "Obama isn't a Muslim... as far as I know."

        You well know that AIPAC is an organization of Americans and is no more an agent of a foreign power than the Catholic church, the Anglican church, or any other ethnicity based group.

        by Pumpkinlove on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:06:16 AM PDT

•  Mammon for Hell

  Hague is a complete failure. Even if he would give the whole sum to one poor Muslim, he would not succeed to make him give up on the first commandment. Hague is obssesed with mammon.

  by andycoster on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:32:30 AM PDT

•  What does this have to do with the US?

  Last time I'd checked, Hagee hasn't ever been an office holder.  He's never been appointed to any public position, or is anything other than a private citizen with his own warped agenda.

  Just because he's endorsed McCain doesn't in any way mean that he has actual influence.

  Just another weak and tenuous diary.

  by Dcoronata on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:18:56 AM PDT

  •  if you checked before you read the diary

    then why did you read it?

    Perhaps "Hagee donates $6m to Israel, inc. West Bank settlement" threw you even though you know Hagee isn't a public official and "donates" relates to a private, er, donation?

    by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:23:51 AM PDT

    •  I did read it, and it's bullshit

      Why are people so pissed (and think you didn't get the message or read their drivel) when you disagree with them?  

      You make the most baseless claims, and expect people to simply agree?  Then why bother writing in a space where people have the opportunity to post their own opinions? Hagee is an American citizen, with NO AFFILIATION to our government.  He is a private individual, yet you feel the need to draw the US government into his sphere.

      You make the claim, you are required to provide proof.  If that proof is either too weak or invalid, you need to take the criticism without challenging the wisdom of those who disagree.

      by Dcoronata on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:31:24 AM PDT

      •  what claim, asshat? It's an AP story

        and the diary says "discuss" for those who want to discuss the story.

        If you disagree with the FACT that Hagee donated money to Israel, then take it up with AP.

        He is, as I stated, in a relationship with McCain. You can dispute that FACT if you want to as well.

        You can post your opinion anywhere you want but it takes a real genius not to be able to read a simple headline and then complains that it has nothing to do with the U.S. government.

        I'm sure the pootie pic lady is waiting for you somewhere.

        by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:46:15 AM PDT

        •  I meant your idiotic take on it

          Not the fact of the money, your claim that he's part of the US government.

          If you had an ounce of brains, you'd realize that you made an amazing jump of conclusions, and that is the problem with your entire premise.

          by Dcoronata on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:11:18 PM PDT

          •  and the American educational system fails yet

            another person. What I said was

            Given John McCain's relationship with Hagee, what might this say about the U.S. being an honest broker in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations?

            "Might" as in if McCain is elected president?

            As far as what you said:

            he's part of the US government

            It might dawn on you, if nothing else does, that this is nowhere in the diary.

            Indeed, if I had an ounce of brains, I might have said this but that would entail reducing my brain-size to yours.

            by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:22:17 PM PDT

            •  How might I ask

              could his gift to Israel affect our relationship as a "honest broker" unless you suggest he has a relationship with the government proper?

              I read your miserable diary, and I condensed it to its weakest points:  Hagee=McCain.  I simply took your already stretched concept and took it to a conclusion that you implied; sorry if that showed how ridiculous it was.

              For some unfathomable reason, you still feel the need to defend your already ruined diary to the point of having it ruin your reputation.

              by Dcoronata on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:48:17 PM PDT

              •  I condensed your miserable life and reduced

                it to its weakest point: wanker.

                I didn't suggest he had a relationship with the government proper.

                We shall go through this verrrrrrrrrrry slowly just for you.

                Hagee <hearts> McCain. McCain might become President. How will the U.S. be an honest broker if a President McCain has friends like Hagee who support West Bank settlements?

                The funny thing is if you printed all this out and gave it to somebody you know who can actually read and without names, he or she would tell you what I have been telling you all along. You misread the diary.

                That's okay. I'm sure you often invade other people's diaries, misread them, and comment on them.
                That's what it means to be an asshat. Wear it proudly, the tinfoil will protect you.

                by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:57:32 PM PDT

•  Simpsons: "And here come the pretzels!" eom

  by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:01:35 PM PDT