Showing posts with label Jimmy Dore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jimmy Dore. Show all posts

Thursday, August 3, 2023

Eleven Things That Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Got Wrong About the Israeli-Arab Conflict, in His Interview with Jimmy Dore

     On Wednesday, August 2nd, 2023, Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., appeared on The Jimmy Dore Show, hosted by comedian-turned-podcaster Jimmy Dore.
     In that interview, Kennedy defended his so-called "unconditional" support of the State of Israel, while making a few minor concessions regarding the crimes committed by the Israelis.
     Kennedy made several inaccurate and/or incomplete statements during that interview.

     During the interview, Dore confessed that he was "not the smartest person" to "push back against" what Kennedy was saying. But Dore invited Kennedy to debate Max Blumenthal (a journalist of Jewish heritage whose father served in the Clinton Administration) on the topic of the Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.
     Since the mainstream media are currently smearing Kennedy as an anti-Semite (over his comments about Covid-19 and Anne Frank), it seems unlikely that the debate between Kennedy and Blumenthal will ever happen.
     That's why I would like to take this opportunity to clear-up a few of the things Kennedy said that were inaccurate.

     You can watch the Israel-Palestine segment, from that interview, at the following address:




     1. Although the Jews were obviously aligned against the Nazis, it's unfair of R.F.K. to conclude that the Jews were "on the side of the Allies" completely. That’s because, in 1947-48, during the War of Independence, the Jews kicked the British and Palestinians off Israeli land, at the same time.

 

     2. While R.F.K. was correct that the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine would have given the Arabs four-fifths of the land, most of that land was desert. That plan was not unfair to the Jews; that deal offered Jews plenty of good land.

 

     3. R.F.K. said the Arabs kicked Jews out (which is true), but also that the Jews didn’t kick all the Arabs out. The reason Israel didn't kick the Arabs out, in 1947-48, is because there were (and still are) so many Arabs there, that they couldn't possibly kick them all out. The Israelis did, however, make significant efforts to kick them out, including forcing 700,000 Arabs out in 1947-48, including “driving them into the sea” and onto boats, in an event known to Arabs as the nakba (“catastrophe”). The phrase “driving them into the sea” is now used against Arabs, to stoke fears that they will destroy Israeli civilization.

 

     4. R.F.K. rightfully says "Palestinian children are taught that it's okay to kill Jews". That’s true, but R.F.K. failed to mention that: 1) Palestinians have been under siege for nearly four generations, so they don’t need to be taught racist attitudes in order to find out who is responsible for bombing and imprisoning them; and 2) plenty of Israeli children are taught that it's okay to kill Arabs. Abby Martin can confirm just how many Israelis think it’s not only fine to kill Arabs, and many even seem to think that it is a laughing matter.

 

     5. R.F.K. rightfully criticized the killing of individual Jewish people by Palestinians. But he neglected to mention that a reason why Palestinians kill individual Jews, instead of bombing Israeli military targets (to comport with the rules of war), is because choosing Israeli military targets would be insane, due to the totally disparate levels of military technology and capability possessed by the two sides. Taking out an Israeli military base would get Arabs carpet-bombed. It would be a self-genocide mission.

 

     6. R.F.K. said that it is wrong to bomb non-military targets, but he also admitted that Israel has a policy that they will dig under sites being used as Palestinian militant positions. The reason why Palestinians take refuge in schools, mosques, and hospitals, is not because they are trying to make their children and sick people into human shields. It is because they are praying that the Israelis will not be so inhumane as to resort to bombing them even in their schools, mosques, and hospitals. A person only looks like a human shield if you're already willing to shoot at him. It is regrettable that the Arabs keep munitions in these places, but that is what is necessary for their self-defense, because the Israelis are willing to bomb any and all locations which could ever potentially be used for “military purposes” (i.e., self-defense).

 

     7. R.F.K. claimed that “Gaza isn't occupied; it's under self-rule". That is not true. In 2006, Hamas won elections in Gaza, after being encouraged by the Israelis to run in Palestinian Authority elections. Then the Israelis prevented those Hamas members from taking their oaths of office and their seats, and now considers Hamas a terrorist organization. That is not what self-rule looks like. Also, Gaza is surrounded by a fortified perimeter with razor-wire-topped fences and guard towers. Snipers with the I.D.F. (Israeli Defense Forces) will often shoot at children who come "too close" to those perimeter fences. And Gaza is not allowed sea access, because it’s under blockade. And it’s rarely allowed access to Egypt over land. So it is pretty much an isolated country, like North Korea. No country can be sovereign or self-sufficient which has practically no contact with the outside world. The fact that Israeli troops are not patrolling Gazan streets, does not make the Gaza Strip any less "occupied".

 

     8. When asked about the Gaza Strip, R.F.K. said "Why doesn't Jordan open itself up to the Palestinians?". Jordan is not connected to Gaza. Jordan opening itself up, would only help the people in the West Bank; it would not help anybody in Gaza.

 

     9. R.F.K. argued that Arabs can visit the Temple Mount, but Jews are not allowed to, therefore Arabs have more rights. That is not true, because: 1) The Jordanian Islamic Waqf owns that site, and it's allowed to set the rules; 2) Jews obey those rules because there are Arab as well as Judaic rules in place which are designed to protect the holiest sites from being trod on by the wrong people at the wrong times; and 3) a group of radical rabbis (associated with Machon Ha’Mikdash and the Temple Mount Faithful movement) ascended the Temple Mount illegally in the early 90s.

 

     10. R.F.K. seems to be trying to imply - without saying it directly - that the Arabs do not recognize the right of Jews to exist. But the Arab nations only reject the rights of Jews to exist as a state. Israel as a people (i.e., the Jewish people) has a right to exist. But Israel as a state (i.e., the Zionist imperialist Israeli statist government) does not have an inherent right to exist. Nations only have a right to exist if they do not start too many wars with their neighbors. Israel started all but like two of the wars they've been involved in. States do not have the right to exist. They are based on legitimized violence, and monopoly. If "the Arabs won't negotiate", then it’s because they are being forced to accept Israeli statehood, so no real free negotiation is possible, because one of the terms is non-negotiable. It wouldn’t be a huge challenge to get the Arabs to recognize the rights of Jews as a religion, a people, and a nation, because the Jews are those things, and they will always be those things. But there’s no need to intimidate the Arabs into endorsing a form of imperialist statehood that implicitly claims all the world’s Jews as its potential members, even if they have never visited the land. Jews believe they are protected by G-d, not by a king or a military. There is no need for a “Jewish state”, and various rabbis - such as Yoel and Moshe Teitelbaum, Yaakov Shapiro, Yisroel Dovid Weiss, and Elnahan Beck - have argued that the idea of Jewish sovereignty, without properly ordained rabbinic courts (Sanhedrin), is antithetical to Jewish teachings (specifically, the story of King Saul in the Book of Solomon). According to traditional “ultra-Orthodox” Jews, the Temple Mount is not supposed to be completely open to all Jews, until all people miraculously attain complete knowledge of G-d and His word, and join together in worship of YHWH. Secular liberal Jews who oppose Israeli apartheid do not make this argument, but it is true.

 

     11. R.F.K. said “Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians everything they wanted." That is not true because the Palestinians wanted Israel to stop being a state, and Barak did not offer the Palestinians this option. By the way, this is the same Ehud Barak who hung out with Jeffrey Epstein. And R.F.K. allegedly flew on the Lolita Express on February 17th and 27th, 1994.





Click on image, and open in new tab and/or window,
and/or download if necessary, to see in full resolution





     [Post-Script / Author's Note:

     To see a video of Max Blumenthal debunking of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s talking points, on The Jimmy Dore Show, click on the link below:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCcVvp0eBaQ

     To read my commentary regarding several potential solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict, click on the link below, to read my August 2020 article "Why I Support Autonomy, But Not Statehood, for Palestinians":
     http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/08/why-i-support-autonomy-for-palestinians.html]





Written and published on August 3rd, 2023.

Post-Script / Author's Note written and added on August 7th, 2023.


Sunday, January 17, 2021

Links to All of My Videos About Medicare for All From Late 2020 and Early 2021

Author's Note

     (written August 4th, 2021):


     The links below used to lead to videos I made about Medicare for All in 2020 and 2021.

     However, my YouTube channel (JoeKopsick4Congress) was removed in early 2021, so the links below do not currently work.

     These videos were saved, and will be uploaded to the internet a later point. When that occurs, the links below will be replaced with active links.





- Jimmy Dore Doesn't Go Far Enough: Demand MORE Than Medicare for All! (2020)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-ckQApU4nk


- Medicare for All Isn't the Only Health Care Proposal You Need to Know About (2021)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKe9eH-H8Hg


- Forcing the Vote on Medicare for All Would Give Pelosi Another Chance (2021)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIhzhIp64Dw


- Message to African-American Voters on Forcing the Vote and Trusting Government (2021)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn23TDByRkA




Compiled and Published on January 17th, 2021

Author's Note added on August 4th, 2021

Thursday, June 27, 2019

Letter to Jimmy Dore on Ron Paul and Free Markets


     I'm glad you've complimented Ron Paul for his consistent opposition to military intervention. It's regrettable that he's hired so many racist people to work and write for him, but I'm glad you're still willing to point out when he's right.
     I've heard you talk about interviewing Ron Paul, and supposedly proving him wrong about a free market system being possible and viable. I haven't seen that video. But I wanted to point out the following:
     Ron Paul has said that "we've never had free markets". There have certainly been times when free enterprise ownership and property ownership happened at higher rates, but that doesn't mean we had a fully free-market system.

     For example, on the border issue:
     While Paul may have a softly anti-immigration stance, he has also implied that if government were minimal or did not exist, then private property (and the risks involved in becoming a trespasser) would be the only thing stopping immigrants from coming to the United States.
     This could reasonably be construed to imply that in a free market society, individual property owners living along the border would be free to invite immigrants onto their property, and the government would be able to say little or nothing about it, because it would be fully private property, not the government's jurisdiction. As far as I know, America has never tried a system like that, with all property enforcement occurring voluntary (that is, unless you count vigilante border "protectors").
     It's also worth noting that there have rarely been times when the government both 1) adequately and effectively utilized its antitrust power against monopolies, and 2) declined to tax earned income.

     A real free market system would have no monopolies, no taxation of ordinary people's earnings, no state-controlled professional licensing systems, and most importantly, no government power to steal taxpayer money and then use that money to subsidize businesses and keep them afloat.
     Your point to Dr. Paul that "Markets have never regulated themselves" is perplexing. It's not that markets should be expected to regulate themselves. Consumers and workers are supposed to regulate the markets. By boycotting products they don't like, and companies which they feel are behaving unethically.
     But they're not able to fully boycott those products. First, because the Taft-Hartley Act prohibits secondary labor actions (i.e., coordinated boycotts which take place across multiple industries), and second, because subsidies exist (that is, government steals our money through taxes, and gives the money to its cronies in business).
     So we can try to put a company out of business through refraining from buying its products, but the government can just bail it out in order to save jobs. That may look like "capitalism", but it's not free-market, because it's government intervention in the economy. The fact that the intervention is for the benefit of businesses, should not sway free-market supporters towards capitalism, although regrettably it often does.

     I respect your opinion, but I believe that Ron Paul is right on this one. We have never tried free markets; we have never tried having government without monopolies; and most importantly, we have never tried depriving the government of its ability to bail out companies we don't like, insulate them from legal and financial risk, and deprive us of our freedom to have sustained, coordinated boycotts of private sector institutions which we don't wish to help fund.



Written on June 27th, 2019

Links to Documentaries About Covid-19, Vaccine Hesitancy, A.Z.T., and Terrain Theory vs. Germ Theory

      Below is a list of links to documentaries regarding various topics related to Covid-19.      Topics addressed in these documentaries i...