Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: muckmaw on April 15, 2004, 09:54:32 AM
-
I'm trying to figure this one out.
So far, what I've read this morning, I disagree with Bush's statement. Although I am very uneducated on this situation, I don't feel Israel should have anyone in the West Bank or Gaza.
But my question is this:
We put ourselves on the line for supporting Israel.
Why do we do it? What's in it for the United States?
So we have an ally in the Middle East. So what? They seem to need us alot more than we need them.
But like I said, I know little about this. So what do we get from this relationship? (Aside from the Jewish vote)
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
But like I said, I know little about this. So what do we get from this relationship? (Aside from the Jewish vote)
That and oodles of military sales
Beyond that, beats me. Its the homeland for a good chunk of the population, I suppose.
-
Never understood it myself, I mean you've got Turkey and even Egypt now as close allies - hell isn't Turkey even in Nato?
But I think you got it in your last sentence - it comes down to the Jewish vote in the USA.
-
Political pressure. Goes way back to turn of the century/pre-WW1 time period. There's an interesting book I picked up from B&N called "History of Warfare In The Middle East" and starts with the occupation of Palestine and the creation of Israel. Interesting book. Explains a lot of things.
Think of it this way: if the Anglo-Americans wanted to invade Ireland and make it a single nation, and had the US votes to support it, they would.
That's why we support Israel - because enough American citizens care about having a Jewish homeland.
-
Has anybody ever bothered to consider that Israel is a good thing in which to invest?
They're leaders in medical, genetic and microprocessor research. They produce more internationally significant scientific minds than all the other middle Eastern Countries combined.
Without prolonged US support, dare I say none of this would have been possible.
Oh yeah, and another small thing. We can count on their support when any or all of their neighbors have like-minded muslim states to whom they will always be loyal before us.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Has anybody ever bothered to consider that Israel is a good thing in which to invest?
They're leaders in medical, genetic and microprocessor research. They produce more internationally significant scientific minds than all the other middle Eastern Countries combined.
Without prolonged US support, dare I say none of this would have been possible.
So let's make the german scientists and import them.
Put them all on boat to the good ol' US of A and let he Pals have the place.
Of course, we run into that whole, "Sacred Land" thing.
I guess I just dont get it because I'm not religious.
So far, from what I've read here, I see no reason to support Israel.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
So let's make the german scientists and import them.
Put them all on boat to the good ol' US of A and let he Pals have the place.
What the hell does that mean? Make the German scientists? The point is, the Israelis have a tradition, that they've developed from long-standing traditions of intellectual excellence that predate Israel. It would not exist just anywhere else. It is a product of their societ.
Of course, we run into that whole, "Sacred Land" thing.
I guess I just dont get it because I'm not religious.
If you think Judiasm is just religion, you need to do more reading.
-
the land of Israel is not "sacred land" to the Zionists. Religion has nothing to do with it.
The religious stupid idiots you see dancing on the hills in the west bank are not zionists - they are idiots who call themselves zionists.
the USA has to support Israel otherwise we will destroy it.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by bozon
the USA has to support Israel otherwise we will destroy it.
Bozon
Not to be dense, but who is 'we', exactly?
-
Because fundamentalists Christians and Jews spend lotsa money lobbying our government to support Israel.
-
we = the Jews
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
But like I said, I know little about this. So what do we get from this relationship? (Aside from the Jewish vote)
So far as I know, there are 3 issues at work.
1. Jewish vote (as you noted)
2. Israel is the only country in the middle east with politicians elected by popular vote.
3. A residual amount of guilt left over by the lack of US / Brit response to the Jews trying to flee Europe during WW2.
curly
-
I am not Jewish, and I am for supporting Israel. Reason is the simple fact that Israel is an ally, and they have had to defend themselves from terrorist behavior since long before I came along. Simply put, I'd rather have Israel around then the Palestinians in their current state.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
What the hell does that mean? Make the German scientists? The point is, the Israelis have a tradition, that they've developed from long-standing traditions of intellectual excellence that predate Israel. It would not exist just anywhere else. It is a product of their societ.
If you think Judiasm is just religion, you need to do more reading.
That means, import Israeli's people, like we did with the German Scientists after WWII. (Gunther Wendt and company.)
So if Judaism is not a religion, what is it? A state of mind?
-
There's another angle I forgot to mention that we should consider.
I do not remember where I read this but found it compelling at the time.
There is another group in the US, even larger and more influential who is just as interested in keeping an Israeli state...
The Religious Right....the real hardcore Christian Fundamentalists.
Here's why. Accoding to the article I read, the Christian Funds. Believe that the sescond coming of Christ cannot happen until Armegeddon which is supposed to start in Israel.
Apparently, they believe if there is no Israel, there can be no Armegeddon and therefore, no second coming.
-
So if Judaism is not a religion, what is it? A state of mind?
It's the same name for a number of things, but you pretty much got it muckmaw. And I'm not kidding.
Bozon
-
Believe that the sescond coming of Christ cannot happen until Armegeddon which is supposed to start in Israel.
It already happened in Israel.
"Armegeddon" is a deformation of the Hebrew "Har Megido" or in english "Megido mountain".
It's a hill a little west of Jenin (inside 1967 border) inwhich a great battle was fought against the Romans during the great revult. Many people belived that this comming battle is the "light vs. darkness" battle that is before the comming of the Messiah.
Guess what? they "light" side lost and the Messiah missed the party.
Some nice ruins there today.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by bozon
It already happened in Israel.
"Armegeddon" is a deformation of the Hebrew "Har Megido" or in english "Megido mountain".
It's a hill a little west of Jenin (inside 1967 border) inwhich a great battle was fought against the Romans during the great revult. Many people belived that this comming battle is the "light vs. darkness" battle that is before the comming of the Messiah.
Guess what? they "light" side lost and the Messiah missed the party.
Some nice ruins there today.
Bozon
Very interesting post. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
That means, import Israeli's people, like we did with the German Scientists after WWII. (Gunther Wendt and company.)
So if Judaism is not a religion, what is it? A state of mind?
We, at least most of those that I know, consider ourselves a bloodline. Simply put, in deference to you, a race. We share attributes and problems that are common within races, including predispositions to certain diseases as well as physical characteristics.
Many have contested this, as I'm sure you will, and thus you solidify your inability to understand the mindset of the Jewish people.
You will not 'import' people that have no reason or willingness to leave the nation they've built.
-
Originally posted by bozon
It already happened in Israel.
"Armegeddon" is a deformation of the Hebrew "Har Megido" or in english "Megido mountain".
It's a hill a little west of Jenin (inside 1967 border) inwhich a great battle was fought against the Romans during the great revult. Many people belived that this comming battle is the "light vs. darkness" battle that is before the comming of the Messiah.
Guess what? they "light" side lost and the Messiah missed the party.
Some nice ruins there today.
Bozon
I did not know that. Intriguing. Thanks for the info!
-
They buy lots of multimillion dollar jets from us. And the far christian right actually believe that if the kingdom of iseral extends to the river jordan that christ will return.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
We, at least most of those that I know, consider ourselves a bloodline. Simply put, in deference to you, a race. We share attributes and problems that are common within races, including predispositions to certain diseases as well as physical characteristics.
Many have contested this, as I'm sure you will, and thus you solidify your inability to understand the mindset of the Jewish people.
You will not 'import' people that have no reason or willingness to leave the nation they've built.
Are'nt we quick to judge others.
You seem pretty certain of my mindset. Maybe you should worry less about my preconceived notions and more about your own.
Of course, by importing the best and the brightest, I meant enslaving them and transporting them to the united states in shackles.
Lighten up.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
They buy lots of multimillion dollar jets from us. And the far christian right actually believe that if the kingdom of iseral extends to the river jordan that christ will return.
Beautiful insight. You forgot, however, to mention that Santa Claus and Britney Spears have a Summer home together at Eilat, overlooking the Red Sea.
-
Yo, muck.
Sometimes it isn't what you get out of a deed, but whether or not its simply the right thing to do.
We were the first to recognize Israel as a state. We helped legitimize their existence. Question - at the time, was that the right thing to do?
Since then, the entire Arab world has sworn to wipe the Israelis out and tried to several times. If we were right at first, wasn't lending the Israelis a hand when they needed it against long odds also right?
As to now, well, I can understand your doubts. I'm just pointing out how we got started in our relationship.
Now, another question for you: do you turn your back on a friend? Even if you think he's ****ing up in certain ways? Or do you continue your friendship, while trying to get him to mend his ways?
OK, loaded multiple question, forgive me ;)
culero
-
Many US servicemen were first hand witnesses to the atrocities committed by the Nazis against the Jewish people.
I'm sure that had the effect of generating lots of support after the Second World War.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Are'nt we quick to judge others.
You seem pretty certain of my mindset. Maybe you should worry less about my preconceived notions and more about your own.
Of course, by importing the best and the brightest, I meant enslaving them and transporting them to the united states in shackles.
Lighten up.
Why import them at all when they have a nation of their own, that they have cultivated to levels unparalelled in the region, complete with Universities, institutes and research facilities that either match or surpass those found anywhere else?
You asked why support Israel, so I gave that as part of an answer.
You asked what Judiasm was if it wasn't a religion, and offered 'mindset' as a reply--to me that either implies ignorance or obstinance in the face of a common belief.
Perhaps you were playing devil's advocate, but I have no way of knowing.
As for lightening up, sorry man, but it just won't happen. I spent the earlier part of my life living outside of the US, behind the Iron curtain, where being a Jew isn't quite as easy(lightly put). I have sympathy for my fellow Jews overseas and simply cannot understand how the option of turning our collective backs on that race, again, can even enter into conversation.
You may have no love for the Israelis based on what you see in the news and what you hear spewed by European popular opinion but to gain your own perspective, I invite you to go see the nation for yourself. A few weeks there, seeing with your own eyes, should answer the question that started this thread.
-
Originally posted by culero
Yo, muck.
Sometimes it isn't what you get out of a deed, but whether or not its simply the right thing to do.
We were the first to recognize Israel as a state. We helped legitimize their existence. Question - at the time, was that the right thing to do?
Since then, the entire Arab world has sworn to wipe the Israelis out and tried to several times. If we were right at first, wasn't lending the Israelis a hand when they needed it against long odds also right?
As to now, well, I can understand your doubts. I'm just pointing out how we got started in our relationship.
Now, another question for you: do you turn your back on a friend? Even if you think he's ****ing up in certain ways? Or do you continue your friendship, while trying to get him to mend his ways?
OK, loaded multiple question, forgive me ;)
culero
I'm not baiting you here, Culero, but I'm trying to understand the situation.
What happened to the people that lived in Israel before it was formed? These are the Palestinians, correct? I heavily disagree with their murderous attacks, but if someone set up shop on my front lawn and told me it was their home now, I'd be pretty pissed off too.
Now, I must be oversimplifying the situation but that sounds like the gist of it.
If my friend was infringing on someone else's property, I would advise him to back off. Would I support if he coninuted to do something I thought was wrong and Illegal? Probably not.
Now, I'm not taking sides here, but that's the crux of the problem, is'nt it? Who has the right to the land called Israel?
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Why import them at all when they have a nation of their own, that they have cultivated to levels unparalelled in the region, complete with Universities, institutes and research facilities that either match or surpass those found anywhere else?
You asked why support Israel, so I gave that as part of an answer.
You asked what Judiasm was if it wasn't a religion, and offered 'mindset' as a reply--to me that either implies ignorance or obstinance in the face of a common belief.
Perhaps you were playing devil's advocate, but I have no way of knowing.
As for lightening up, sorry man, but it just won't happen. I spent the earlier part of my life living outside of the US, behind the Iron curtain, where being a Jew isn't quite as easy(lightly put). I have sympathy for my fellow Jews overseas and simply cannot understand how the option of turning our collective backs on that race, again, can even enter into conversation.
You may have no love for the Israelis based on what you see in the news and what you hear spewed by European popular opinion but to gain your own perspective, I invite you to go see the nation for yourself. A few weeks there, seeing with your own eyes, should answer the question that started this thread.
Ignorance would describe my understand of the country and it's poeple at this time. The main reason I started this thread was to learn.
As for traveling to Israel, I would very much like to do that some day. Though I'm not Jewish, I do love history and there are few if any places more rich in history. Unfortunately, I am under the impression that the middle east is not the safest place in the world for an American civilain to be right now.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
but that's the crux of the problem, is'nt it? Who has the right to the land called Israel?
So if they allocated land for the Palestinians you would support continued aid to Israel?
-
Did'nt they do that already?
Anyone got a source of where I can read up about this situation on the web? Preferably, and unbiased source?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Unfortunately, I am under the impression that the middle east is not the safest place in the world for an American civilain to be right now.
I went in the late 90s. Like an idiot I visited Hebron. Got rocks thrown at our car outside Jerusalem. In truth, I doubt there ever was or in the forseeable future, will be a time when it will be a region safe for any citizen, American or other.
Sometimes risk is worth it though.
Plus you get to float around in water that won't let you submerge no matter how hard you try.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
I'm not baiting you here, Culero, but I'm trying to understand the situation.
What happened to the people that lived in Israel before it was formed? These are the Palestinians, correct? I heavily disagree with their murderous attacks, but if someone set up shop on my front lawn and told me it was their home now, I'd be pretty pissed off too.
Now, I must be oversimplifying the situation but that sounds like the gist of it.
If my friend was infringing on someone else's property, I would advise him to back off. Would I support if he coninuted to do something I thought was wrong and Illegal? Probably not.
Now, I'm not taking sides here, but that's the crux of the problem, is'nt it? Who has the right to the land called Israel?
Answer: the people who live there and participate in the democratic society that exists there.
Clue: there was *no* state there before Israel established one.
Clue: last time I looked, roughly 20% of Israel's citizens were non-Jewish folks of Palestinian descent.
My conclusion: The Israelis aren't seeking to persecute or exclude anyone. They're willing to accept the Palestinians as neighbors and citizens. They're just not disposed to take any **** from people whose avowed purpose is to wipe them out.
FWIW, I'm all for the idea that the Palestinians have a right to their homeland just as much as the Israelis. I agree we should focus on doing everything we can to cause the Israelis to deal with them fairly.
I just have little sympathy for their cause so long as their organizational entities disavow Israel's right to exist and support terror as a tactic. They need to back down a notch, accept the Israelis as neighbors, and learn to live with them.
culero
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Did'nt they do that already?
Anyone got a source of where I can read up about this situation on the web? Preferably, and unbiased source?
I meant a land parcel that satisfies current Palestinian requirments(not including their desire to wipe the Earth clean of the Jews).
Unbaised information will be hard to come by.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Did'nt they do that already?
Anyone got a source of where I can read up about this situation on the web? Preferably, and unbiased source?
Its a pretty twisted and complicated situation, not given to simple answers. You ain't gonna get the gist from "A" source.
Here's another snippet: the "West Bank", "Golan Heights" and "Gaza" were areas that belonged to Jordan Syria and Egypt before those countries joined together and attacked Israel, with the stated purpose to either kill every Israeli or drive them into the sea.
Now, if all the surrounding neighbors did that to YOUR homeland, would you feel you were illegally occupying their land if you took some buffer zone from their dogasses to help prevent future attacks?
culero (I'm tolding you, it ain't simple)
-
Just a load of disconnected thoughts:
A friend of mine told me (he's an American jew) that the strongest Jewish lobby in the US (there's an acronym for it, but I forget what it is) is composed of Jewish women. He told me this lobby group is incredibly powerful.
A while back I met up with another American friend of mine who is well connected and used to work in the state department. He told me that for the first time, The fundamental Christians in the US and the Jews are batting on the same side, due to this 'second coming' event that muck was talking about earlier. If the Jews are not in Israel when that happens, then that will blow the prophesy. Sharon personally welcomed a load of fundamental Christians from the US a couple of years ago...the event was televised.
As I see it, Israel is much more than 'an ally' to the US, to many of Jewish people who live there, it is another US state. As I understand it, without dollar support, the Sheckel would have collapsed a long time ago. Come to think of it, as an ally what DID Israel do for the US during gulf war 1 or gulf war 2?
The Israelis and Palestinians have been brutalising each other since partition, and there is every indication that this is going to continue. I expect that when Bush tore up the 'Road Map', the Arabs just chuckled and said 'like we believed you were going to honour it anyway' (if you remember the road map was a concession made by the US to get world support for the invasion of Iraq). It seems to me that the Bush administration has given up trying to act as a peacemaker in that part of the world and has now pinned its colours to the mast.
Again, something else which my Jewish American friend told me was that most Jewish Americans see themselves as Jews first and Americans second, in strong contrast to the other minorities who have settled in the US over a period of generations.
Ravs.
-
Interesting tid bit..
Is it true that the nation of Israel is only 15% of the original area known as Palestine!
I had no idea, but according to my reading, the bulk of what was Palestine became Trans Jordan, later Jordan.
If this is correct, the Arabs already have 85% of Palestine under their control.
Of course, this came a from a very biased websight, so I am asking for confirmation.
Very intersting history Israel has..
-
The US gives Isreal 4 billion a year, they only have 17 million folks,per person thats more than any tax refund in the US.
Isreal is one of the worlds 5 top arms dealers, one of their best clients...China.
Never will understnd world politics.
-
Whatever happened to all the Jews in Europe?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Interesting tid bit..
Is it true that the nation of Israel is only 15% of the original area known as Palestine!
I had no idea, but according to my reading, the bulk of what was Palestine became Trans Jordan, later Jordan.
If this is correct, the Arabs already have 85% of Palestine under their control.
Of course, this came a from a very biased websight, so I am asking for confirmation.
Very intersting history Israel has..
No kidding :)
culero (keep digging, bro!)
-
because if we didn't, the Israelis would wipe Palestine off the map the next time a nightclub/bus was bombed by a nutbag .. and they wouldn't stop there
on second thought, why do we support them? :)
-
Originally posted by ravells
Come to think of it, as an ally what DID Israel do for the US during gulf war 1 or gulf war 2?
In Gulf War 1, we asked them to stay out. Remember all the tension as Saddam launched SCUDS into Tel Aviv, and the Israelis had the strength not to retaliate? If they had, our coalition (specifically the Arab members) would have fallen apart. We needed those bases in Saudi Arabia and other nearby Muslim countries.
The Israelis did their part in the first Gulf War. They sat there and took it because they were asked to, and because they realized that it was important for the overall cause. I can imagine no better ally than one who will have its nose bloodied repeatedly and simply turn the other cheek for the sake of its allies.
I'd bet they were asked to sit out Gulf War 2 for the same reasons.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Why do we do it?
Because they are the good guys, and they would not survive without the US support.
Tell me who your enemies are, and I'll tell you something about you...
Well, the enemies of Israel are the suicide bombers and Pearl-murderers, the airline hijackers and the fundamental moslems, its the Saddam/Khomeini/Ghadaffi-type dictators, the 9-11 terrorists...you get the picture.
-
So muck, you're saying that we have to have a political or financial motive for supporting a Jewish homeland?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
There's another angle I forgot to mention that we should consider.
I do not remember where I read this but found it compelling at the time.
There is another group in the US, even larger and more influential who is just as interested in keeping an Israeli state...
The Religious Right....the real hardcore Christian Fundamentalists.
Here's why. Accoding to the article I read, the Christian Funds. Believe that the sescond coming of Christ cannot happen until Armegeddon which is supposed to start in Israel.
Apparently, they believe if there is no Israel, there can be no Armegeddon and therefore, no second coming.
You're close.
The Jews are God's chosen people....any who stand against her will perish....to believe our government takes no scriptual consideration for the support of Isreal is to kid yourself.
-
Thats what I'm trying to understand.
I don't know what the political or financial advantages are, if any.
The more I read, the more I believe supporting Israel is the right thing to do, though.
-
We are supporting Israel because it is the right thing to do.
Forget religion. Just look at the two sides and who is the modern free responsible side and who is the repressed corrupt violent side.
Before any of you idiots say Israel is violent because they kill so many and they are not better than the PLO etc etc consider this.
Hamas and the PLO are sending suicide bombers over to try to kill any person they can. If Israel decided to adopt similar tactics they could wipe out the entire population of the West Bank and Gaza in a couple of days.
Once side has the ability to do so and shows remarkable restraint. The other side does not have the ability and uses every chance it can to try and kill innocents.
They are only the same in a very twisted mind.
-
Here's another snippet: the "West Bank", "Golan Heights" and "Gaza" were areas that belonged to Jordan Syria and Egypt before those countries joined together and attacked Israel, with the stated purpose to either kill every Israeli or drive them into the sea.
The Golan was part of Syria, but the West Bank and Gaza were part of British mandated Palestine, not Jordan or Egypt. They were occupied by Jordan and Egypt following the war.
Now, I'm not taking sides here, but that's the crux of the problem, is'nt it? Who has the right to the land called Israel?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer: the people who live there and participate in the democratic society that exists there.
What about the people who live there but aren't allowed to participate in the democratic society?
My conclusion: The Israelis aren't seeking to persecute or exclude anyone. They're willing to accept the Palestinians as neighbors and citizens.
Israel is not prepared to accept large numbers of Palestinians as citizens, if that leads to Jews no longer being a majority in the state of Israel.
That's why Israel has never annexed the West Bank and Jordan, because then it would have to give the Palestinians citizenship, and the Palestinians would then outnumber the Jews.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The Golan was part of Syria, but the West Bank and Gaza were part of British mandated Palestine, not Jordan or Egypt. They were occupied by Jordan and Egypt following the war.
No argument, but I was referring to the status quo that existed in the early 1970s, and the claims that Israel is illegally occupying those areas now. It was as I said at the time Israel took possession, and for the reasons I stated.
Originally posted by Nashwan
What about the people who live there but aren't allowed to participate in the democratic society?
Israel is not prepared to accept large numbers of Palestinians as citizens, if that leads to Jews no longer being a majority in the state of Israel.
That's why Israel has never annexed the West Bank and Jordan, because then it would have to give the Palestinians citizenship, and the Palestinians would then outnumber the Jews.
Again, as I said, IMO the Israeli justification for being there is that those areas are the bounty of war, to be used as buffer zones from repeat attacks. I'd say that as such, they have no obligation to annex and extend citizenship to the inhabitants.
OTOH, I *do* agree the Palestinians deserve their rights, and its why I agree we should be adamant with the Israelis that these issues must be addressed.
I don't claim to know what the best specific solution(s) is/are, but my instinct tends toward a separate Palestinian sovereign state.
Resolution is going to be difficult given the tensions and distrust that exist.
One thing is for sure, so long as the Arabs utilize terror attacks as a tactic and espouse the elimination of Israel as a goal, I for one will always give the benefit of the doubt to the Israelis. Token or not, they do at least grant some Palestinians citizenship, that's much more than they are being offered in return.
culero
-
Originally posted by culero
Answer: the people who live there and participate in the democratic society that exists there.
Clue: there was *no* state there before Israel established one.
Clue: last time I looked, roughly 20% of Israel's citizens were non-Jewish folks of Palestinian descent.
My conclusion: The Israelis aren't seeking to persecute or exclude anyone. They're willing to accept the Palestinians as neighbors and citizens. They're just not disposed to take any **** from people whose avowed purpose is to wipe them out.
culero
ooOOOooo Dangerous Dangerous subject!
Weird , Had this very conversation with my mother and my uncles and Aunt (father s side and from different schools)and they would strongly dissagree that there was no Palestine prior to the formation or reformation as the case may be of Isreal after WWII.
They all went to school prior to and during WWII and all absolutely and Totally INSIST that they were taught in school about Palestine and that there Was indeed a palestine Prior to the recreation of Isreal.
This conversation took place after watching someone on FNC claiming it never was which prompted one uncle to call the claim "revisionist BS" (hisw woirds not mine Though I've met many others who have pretty much said the same thing)
I just find it interesting how there can be two very definately different views on history
On another note I saw a rather interesting program a while back that dealt with the current situation. and i'd heard this before too but never quite considered it in this light.
it is predicted that at the current birth rate that within the next 20-25 years Palestinian and muslam isrealies will well outnumber jewish isrealies.
All they need do then is demand the same one person one vote system that we have in the rest of the democratic world (Which from what I understand they do not have now for non jews.) To place Isreal on the real horns of a delemma.
That being if they give the non jews the vote they would risk giving up being a "jewish state" Which they are not likely to want to do.
on the other hand
To deny them the right of one person one vote would alienate them from the rest of the democratic world including the USA.
should be interesting to say the least to see how it all works out.
I am neither for or against the palistenians or Isrealies.
I can agree with the arguements and dissagree with the methods of both sides.
And as far as the methods used I do not see one side as being any more innocent then the other. Both sides have very dirty hands
I do see their current problems as being a a vicious circle forever feeding off one another each reaping what they sow.
-
Very well put.
I well remember the tension being so thick you could cut it with a knife during the press statement when they said they would not respond.
I remember thinking to myself during it and saying to myself"c'mon dont let pride over ride logic"
Thing is the absolute best and most devestating attack Isreal could have made on Saddam during that war is path they chose.
Which is the attack they didnt make.
Sometimes not using the power you have can more powerful then in using it.
they attacked by not attacking.
Originally posted by Tarmac
In Gulf War 1, we asked them to stay out. Remember all the tension as Saddam launched SCUDS into Tel Aviv, and the Israelis had the strength not to retaliate? If they had, our coalition (specifically the Arab members) would have fallen apart. We needed those bases in Saudi Arabia and other nearby Muslim countries.
The Israelis did their part in the first Gulf War. They sat there and took it because they were asked to, and because they realized that it was important for the overall cause. I can imagine no better ally than one who will have its nose bloodied repeatedly and simply turn the other cheek for the sake of its allies.
I'd bet they were asked to sit out Gulf War 2 for the same reasons.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Thing is the absolute best and most devestating attack Isreal could have made on Saddam during that war is path they chose.
Which is the attack they didnt make.
Sometimes not using the power you have can more powerful then in using it.
they attacked by not attacking.
they used it when they had to and blew his nuke plant to bits when no one else had the balls or desire to do so...
-
DRED -
You're right, its a deep subject. First off, I'm talking MODERN history (more on that qualification later).
Your uncle was right, Palestine did exist. However, as I said, it wasn't a "state", as recognized by international convention. It was a territory administered by Great Britain after World War One, before which it was a possession of Turkey.
From http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html :
The Palestine problem became an international issue towards the end of the First World War with the disintegration of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Palestine was among the several former Ottoman Arab territories which were placed under the administration of Great Britain under the Mandates System adopted by the League of Nations pursuant to the League's Covenant (Article 22) .
All but one of these Mandated Territories became fully independent States, as anticipated. The exception was Palestine where, instead of being limited to "the rendering of administrative assistance and advice" the Mandate had as a primary objective the implementation of the "Balfour Declaration" issued by the British Government in 1917, expressing support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".
During the years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place, the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the notorious Nazi persecution of Jewish populations. Palestinian demands for independence and resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides during and immediately after World War II. Great Britain tried to implement various formulas to bring independence to a land ravaged by violence. In 1947, Great Britain in frustration turned the problem over to the United Nations.
OTOH, to be fair, its history dates to ancient times:
http://www.usd.edu/erp/Palestine/history.htm
The kicker here is that it was known as Judea until the Romans practiced a little ethnic cleansing....hence the Israeli claims of rightfully returning to their homeland ;)
culero
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Interesting tid bit..
Is it true that the nation of Israel is only 15% of the original area known as Palestine!
I had no idea, but according to my reading, the bulk of what was Palestine became Trans Jordan, later Jordan.
If this is correct, the Arabs already have 85% of Palestine under their control.
Of course, this came a from a very biased websight, so I am asking for confirmation.
Very intersting history Israel has..
Completly untrue.
You can argue forever on where are the borders on "Palestine", but in no way Israel is only 15% of it.
The "truth" is that there is no real border to Palestine. oh, mandatoric Palestine some would say - well, some of those borders were a result of the "Sikes-Pico" (probably misspelled their names) agreement between Britain and France from 1915 that devided the area between them (note that this is BEFORE they even conquered it from the Turks).
anyway those borders were much closer to the current borders of after 1967 then before.
Bozon
-
Thing is the absolute best and most devestating attack Isreal could have made on Saddam during that war is path they chose.
Most people don't know how close Israel was to joining Gulf war I.
The Pilots were already going out to their planes.
The other Bush really had to put some pressure on prime minister Itzhak Shamir to stop it.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Very well put.
I well remember the tension being so thick you could cut it with a knife during the press statement when they said they would not respond.
I remember thinking to myself during it and saying to myself"c'mon dont let pride over ride logic"
Thing is the absolute best and most devestating attack Isreal could have made on Saddam during that war is path they chose.
Which is the attack they didnt make.
Sometimes not using the power you have can more powerful then in using it.
they attacked by not attacking.
err...right. so the best thing the Israelis did during gulf war 1 was *not* use nuclear weapons in a country in which Amercian army personnel were next door to, and not make the rest of the world decide that for the sake of a couple of scuds they would use a nuclear deterrent.
Well, phew, good thing we didn't use nuclear arms against the Argentinians, then wasn't it? I wonder how 'forgiving' the Americans would have been then?
Actually while we're on that subject...what did America do for the UK durin the Falklands conflict? Arn't we your allies too? Frankly, we have done a hell of a lot more than the Israelies have for your country in terms of international shoulder to shoulder posturing. Don't see you pouring millions of dollars into our economy.
Crap argument...do better next time.
Ravs
[edit] writhe which way you want on this argument but the fact is that you have a very strong Jewish lobby which call the shots in your country. If Israel really was 'America compliant' we would have had peace in the middle east by now. [edit]
[edit #2] Interesting you were thinking that about Israel...I was thinking the same thing about America after 9/11 when I saw pictures in our papers of car stickers in the US saying 'Nuke 'em'
[edit #2]
-
Originally posted by ravells
err...right. so the best thing the Israelis did during gulf war 1 was *not* use nuclear weapons in a country in which Amercian army personnel were next door to, and not make the rest of the world decide that for the sake of a couple of scuds they would use a nuclear deterrent.
Well, phew, good thing we didn't use nuclear arms against the Argentinians, then wasn't it? I wonder how 'forgiving' the Americans would have been then?
Actually while were on that subject...what did America do for the UK durin the Falklands conflict? Arn't we your allies too? Frankly, we have done a hell of a lot more than the Israelies have for your country in terms of international shoulder to shoulder posturing. Don't see you pouring millions of dollars into our economy.
Crap argument...do better next time.
Ravs
You missunderstand. Israel could have wiped out Iraq on it's own with conventional forces, and they had every right to attack Iraq after Saddam launched missles into Israel.....which is what Saddam wanted.
Israel trusted their security to the US and the Allies in order to avoid a possible Arab fury over Israel and the US attacking Iraq. They stayed out to help the situation.
And the Falkkands? I don't recall the UK ever asking or needing our help there.
As far as pouring billions into your economy ??? I'm sure if the UK were in need of that for it's very survival, we'd do whatever was needed to ensure you survived.
Really not a fair compairison on many of your points in my opinion.
-
Nuke...you forgot the [/b] ! ah ok edited!
I'm sorry, Israel could not have wiped out Iraq with its conventional forces... they just did not have the numbers over a widely disperesed area.
The point that was being made was that the billions being poured into Israel was somehow ... worth it.
Do you know what? (and I'm with Muck here) If someone chooses to go and plant their flag in a different country, then good for them. That is where their allegience lies. The thing about the US / Isreal realtionship is that you have American citizens (who are really Israelis in their loyalties) who are making your tax payers pour money down a black hole because they have the influence to make it happen.
Ravs
-
Actually we did ask for your help and you did give us Sattelite information.
so.........thank you. :)
We did the rest ourselves.
Ravs
[edit] pour millions into our dental health [edit]
-
Anyway...if you are going to pour billions into a country do it where the people are starving and really need it.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
They're leaders in medical, genetic and microprocessor research. They produce more internationally significant scientific minds than all the other middle Eastern Countries combined.
NO WAR FOR MEDICAL, GENETIC AND MICROPROCESSOR RESEARCH
Hahahahaha...I couldn't resist.
-
The thing about the US / Isreal realtionship is that you have American citizens (who are really Israelis in their loyalties) who are making your tax payers pour money down a black hole because they have the influence to make it happen.
about the billion dollars myth:
Those "billions" are millitary aid, it's not real money. It's as if someone is giving you coupons to use at his own shop. The US is actully pouring money into it's own millitary industry and grabing Israel by the balls. For America this costs a lot less then it sounds.
If microsoft gave you a winXP CD they could claim they gave you a 299$ (from micro$oft's site) gift while for them it cost about 50 cent to burn on a CD. Now you are at their debt.
The second effect is that the US is killing the business competition. Israely companies are hard pressed to get deals since it's cheaper for the IDF to by from the US competition using this on paper money.
I personally object to Israel's accepting this aid as it is now.
If someone caims to be a jew first and american second this doesn't mean his loyality is Israely before american.
Can't you see that "Jew" and "Israely" are two different things?
It's like saying that some American Catholic's loyality is to the state of the Vatican and not to America.
Bozon
-
muck...i only read ur post....
We support Isreal becuase the CrakHeads terrosits who should be slaughtered will Kill every last "Infadel Jew" ...To me they wan tto finsih off what the Nazis started...
What I dont get is why Isreal doenst withdrawl..from what ever territory it is camping on....
Then if 1 more suisid bomr coems in...
Give the border countries 24 hours notice you are going to Nuke the country side..
seems simple to me..they teach to kill jews..
-
We don't Gsholtz, but apparently if it does happen then the chosen few (the fundy Christians) will get on their express elevators to heaven.
Thanks for the response Bozon...did a quick google and found this: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
It says
(havn't got time to check the slant of the source though)
Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.
Aid to Israel
Grand Total
$84,854,827,200
Interest Costs Borne by U.S.
$49,936,680,000
Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$134,791,507,200
Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli
$23,240
-
Originally posted by ravells
Actually we did ask for your help and you did give us Sattelite information.
so.........thank you. :)
We did the rest ourselves.
Ravs
[edit] pour millions into our dental health [edit]
and aim9L's apparently.....
-
Originally posted by GScholz
So it is necessary for Jews to live in Israel because if not then Armageddon won’t happen. Hmm … Do we really want ARMAGEDDON?!
Depends on how far to the right you lean :D
-
Just thought about spending all eternity with Fundamentalist Christians......one has to wonder if there is anyway of booking ahead on this sort of thing to ensure that at least you are able to obtain some interesting conversation as you wait out eternity....
-
Originally posted by ravells
err...right. so the best thing the Israelis did during gulf war 1 was *not* use nuclear weapons in a country in which Amercian army personnel were next door to, and not make the rest of the world decide that for the sake of a couple of scuds they would use a nuclear deterrent.
Well, phew, good thing we didn't use nuclear arms against the Argentinians, then wasn't it? I wonder how 'forgiving' the Americans would have been then?
.
Crap argument...do better next time.
Ravs
Hardly
Nukes? Who said anything about Isreal using Nukes? Certainly wasnt mentioned in my post.
Isreal has always maintained it would not be the first in the region to use nukes. So I highly doubt they would have in this case.
For one reason they would have had to have known that no way would the US agree to it and if they had tried to on their own the US would have had no choice but to blow them out of the sky before they reached their targets or risk a MUCH wider conflict then just the alliance falling apart
-
As I look outside from my glass doors I can see an apple tree. It is currently full of beautiful little anna apples. It blooms and bears fruit every year. The apples are small but wonderfully sweet and are my favorite apples. The tree came from Israel and the apple tree blooms in Miami Lakes, Florida.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
they used it when they had to and blew his nuke plant to bits when no one else had the balls or desire to do so...
I was talking about Gulf War I.
I seem to remember that attack on the nuclear facilities taking place sometime before that.
The point I was getting at was By not physically attacking They attacked Saddams plan.
Saddams plan was counting on Isreal to physically retaliate.
that is what he wanted them to do. They didnt thus ruining the plan.
So they attacked by attacking the plan and not physically attacking.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Just thought about spending all eternity with Fundamentalist Christians......one has to wonder if there is anyway of booking ahead on this sort of thing to ensure that at least you are able to obtain some interesting conversation as you wait out eternity....
Oh no!
Now THAT would be hell
I wouldnt want to spend eternity with fundamentalist anything.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
So this is hell? Great, just my luck.
If this is hell, what part of hell is the KFC down the street?
-
I haven't read every single post in this thread, but read most of them, and I didn't see any mention of the 7-day war. Anyone remember that little dust-up? Basically, the Arabs and all teh other neighbors surrounding Israel tried to roll over Israel because it's a well-known fact they hate the Jewish people and wanted to erradicate them, once and for all. But the Jews kicked their tulips big-time, and in the process captured and held the Golan Heights (I think) for security reasons. I mean, who could blame them? We wouldn't want an enemy who'd declared an unprovoked war on us occupying a strategic location adjacent to our country, especially if we were a country the size of Israel. Anyway, that's how the whole "occupation" thing got started in (modern times). I don't think the Israelis should have had to give it back, the other side started it, and lost. We ain't about to give back Texas, New Mexico, California, et. al. to Mexico, are we?
Now, you history buffs, feel free to correct me where I've erred.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
If this is hell, what part of hell is the KFC down the street?
That would be in the PETA section.
-
Just to put it in perspective. What is going on in Isreal is just history repeating itself. Just because land that is populated by a peoples is not considered a state in the worlds view doesnt make it less that peoples homeland. If your homeland was not considered a state yet some immigrants came to take it over would you fight for it? Come to think of it Europeans have been doing this for centuries. How do you think America got started. The conflict in the middle east will never end in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by bozon
about the billion dollars myth:
Those "billions" are millitary aid, it's not real money. It's as if someone is giving you coupons to use at his own shop. The US is actully pouring money into it's own millitary industry and grabing Israel by the balls. For America this costs a lot less then it sounds.
If microsoft gave you a winXP CD they could claim they gave you a 299$ (from micro$oft's site) gift while for them it cost about 50 cent to burn on a CD. Now you are at their debt.
Such a gross exaggeration negates your point. Let's stick with facts. What do you think it costs the US Government to buy an F-16? What does Israel pay for one?
-
Actually, i"m sick of both of them. The Arabs and the jews. Their never-ending *****ing and whinin with each other, is dragging the whole world down with them.
I wish they'd both grow up for a change.
-
Originally posted by slimm50
snip
Anyway, that's how the whole "occupation" thing got started in (modern times). I don't think the Israelis should have had to give it back, the other side started it, and lost. We ain't about to give back Texas, New Mexico, California, et. al. to Mexico, are we?
Now, you history buffs, feel free to correct me where I've erred.
Well, for one thing, Texas won its freedom in much the same way the US did, but the US *started* the war with Mexico that resulted in it forcing Mexico at gunpoint to cede New Mexico, Arizona, and California to the US. It was an example of the aggressor winning and getting what it wanted.
culero
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Such a gross exaggeration negates your point. Let's stick with facts. What do you think it costs the US Government to buy an F-16? What does Israel pay for one?
Paying with your merchendise is the best payment a company can have. In the market-value of the product you include the research & development of the product and other secondary-costs, asaid from how much it actually costs the company to produce 1 product. That what I was trying to illustrate in the winXP example.
Now, the millitary market (this is not just weapons, but also a lot of electronics and material engineering) is VERY competative and companies are finding it hard to survive. USA is paying it's own local companies in order to keep them profitable (and in big the market) and by making larger production batches it lowers the cost per-unit for the US millitary. So this money leaks back to the security badget.
USA does that because it want it's industries to controll the market. A Simmilar thing is done in some branches of agriculture as well.
This looks like a non-economical policy, but it isn't.
The added value is the control of the US over the supported countries. Israeli industries have to get an american approval to sel their products to other countries (otherwise the US will cut back on the aid). The US want's to put pressure on a country? they'll threat it with a cut back on the aid.
It got to a point where the US goverment made the Israeli goverment make ELAL (the airline company) choose Boing over Airbus for their next planes (ELAL choose Airbus initially).
Not to mention billion dollars deals to sell radars to India and China (a RADAR! how many americans can you kill with a radar?? and don't tell me USA is at war with china)
I can't tell you exacly how much each F16 bought though this aid costs the american tax payer. I dont know and even an estimation is difficult, plus the US IS buying something with it.
Bozon
-
I forgot to answer to how much it costs Israel.
It kills the economy. Companies go bankropt because the millitary stopped buying from them - even if they have a superior and CHEAPER product, it's even cheaper to use the american coupons.
Another business competitor gone.
I mentioned before the radar deal with india that the US delayed. This caused serious losses to the companies invulved, just because US didn't want India to have an exellent radar (better then any american radar btw) against Pakistan.
Israel developed it's own fighter about 15 years ago. It was supposed to be a serious competitor to the F16. The project was closed after there was a flying proto-type and the US happily "soled" F16s, in coupons, to Israel instead. Competition no more.
same with night vision, avionics, sensors, unmanned aircrafts and the list goes on.
The subject of this thread should have been "why is israel accepting the aid?"
Bozon
-
Thanks for your opinions Bozon; it's refreshing to read calm and analytic thoughts about situation in the middle east.
-
One point to note is that just because a state may not have historically existed doesn't reduce the right of the people to self determination (and the formation of thier own state). There are many historical examples of states forming where there was no state before:
The USA
Israel
Iraq
Jordan
Pakistan
among many others
The US supports Israel because of fellow feeling in the US electorate. Support for Israel has no economic or strategic advantages (in fact it hurts US self interests in the Middle East and elsewhere) so is in that sense altruistic.
The problem with Israel is that it occupies (by force) land and resources that belonged to other people and that Israel is constitutionally bound to maintain itself as a state for one racial/religous group: "the Jewish State" (something that is anathema to modern western civilization).
The Palestinians on the other suffer from the same problems that effect much of the Middle-East: incompetent and corrupt leadership, little or no appreciation of civil law and the growing primacy of violent religous fanaticism. Their inability to maintain a civilized opposition is mirrored by Israel's inability to justify itself by anything other than violence.
So in short I'm tempted to think the two deserve each other, but in the long term either there must be a Palestinian state or there must be an inclusive secular state that embraces people of all races and religions. I doubt either will happen in my lifetime, though the wall building and the latest events over Gaza show that the Israeli establishment are expecting a Palestinian state to happen.
-
The problem with Israel is that it occupies (by force) land and resources that belonged to other people and that Israel is constitutionally bound to maintain itself as a state for one racial/religous group: "the Jewish State" (something that is anathema to modern western civilization).
thses are two true statements always understood and used wrong.
What is occupied by force? just the Gaza and West-bank or the entire country?
Until the peace agreement with Egypt in 1980 israel had no international borders, only cease-fire lines. The 1949 borders were cease-fire lines. So where does the occupied territory start and where does it end?
I'm actually happy that most people in the world accept 1949 lines as the Israeli borders. The Palestinian could claim (and many do) more then just the 1967 occupied parts - does it matter if it was occupied in this war or that one?
The 1949 borders are also not what the UN voted on. They are a result of the war that broke out after the Palestinians and neighboring countries refused it.
Israel is a "jewish state", it says so in the decleration of independence. Only problem is it doesn't say what "jewish state" means.
So now you have interpretations of it in infinit number of ways: From an orthodox religious state, through racist "jew only" state, through "Safehouse for the world jews", to "a democratic state in the spirit of jewish culture".
Israel does make a difference between jews and none-jews. Part of it is due to the state of war it's in since it's independence (like Israeli arabs not allowed to serve in the army and certain goverment offices). Part of it due to it being open to jewish immigration (under the "safehouse" interpretation) but not so to other immigrants.
Only when safly sitting inside it's borders this issues can be worked out.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
I'm trying to figure this one out.
So far, what I've read this morning, I disagree with Bush's statement. Although I am very uneducated on this situation, I don't feel Israel should have anyone in the West Bank or Gaza.
But my question is this:
We put ourselves on the line for supporting Israel.
Why do we do it? What's in it for the United States?
So we have an ally in the Middle East. So what? They seem to need us alot more than we need them.
But like I said, I know little about this. So what do we get from this relationship? (Aside from the Jewish vote)
One possible reason for the current administration's Israel position - according to adbusters (http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/52/articles/jewish.html) - is the neo-cons having quite a say in the policy of the Bush administration. They came up with this list of neo-cons as the 50 most influential at the moment, pointing out that just over half are Jewish, which is interesting. Although I have neither the time nor the inclination to check whether the list is skewed or not - perhaps someone here can check.
(http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/52/img/nameslong.gif)
So it may be more than just the "Jewish vote" at work - after all the neo-cons do seem to exert influence on government policy. I'm not going to subscribe to a "huge zionist conspiracy" nonsense, but there does seem to be influence at play - albeit more in the vein of the NRA than the silly sinister Elders of Zion nonsense.
In fact perhaps the most interesting part of the list is that - if it's genuine - one has to wonder how many Jewish Americans are on the far right-wing - in order for over half the top 50 neo cons to be Jewish, and why?
-
Heh, this is sweet...a list of names where all jews are picked out.
Yeah, definitively rings a bell... If only they could wear some sort of sign on their chest too so it would be easier to pick them out in a crowd.
-
When I was young and wild we used to spent some time at cruise ships between Helsinki and Stockholm and usually got a fight or two with swedes.
I can't help thinking if Hortlund was one of not so lucky swedes; that would explain his bitternes :D
Well Hortlund; you attacked against a messenger once again because you couldn't say anything else. Life sucks eh ??
:D
Ease up sonny; go nuke some camel-spiders or take care of Syria and Iran :rofl
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Heh, this is sweet...a list of names where all jews are picked out.
Yeah, definitively rings a bell... If only they could wear some sort of sign on their chest too so it would be easier to pick them out in a crowd.
Well the list does work on the assumption that Jewishness may predispose people to supporting the Jewish State of Israel: how true that assumption is, is impossible to say. Another problem of course is that it may be their neo-con beliefs rather than their religious beliefs that shape their support of Israel.
-
Most of my Jewish friends are liberal and very much fun to debate, while some are extreme rightists way more than half are total liberals.
-
ravells.... if britain had needed help against argentina, then the british had bigger problems than having to face argentina dont you think? ;)
oth, did britain ASK for help in the falklands? I think not. See above paragraph.
Why is the US supporting Israel?
Forget all the religious and social and economical reasons you can dream up.
Just look at a map of the middle east. If the answer doesnt pop out and slap you then perhaps you should take a hardcover atlas and hit yourself in the head with it until it sinks in.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
One possible reason for the current administration's Israel position - according to adbusters (http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/52/articles/jewish.html) - is the neo-cons having quite a say in the policy of the Bush administration. They came up with this list of neo-cons as the 50 most influential at the moment, pointing out that just over half are Jewish, which is interesting. Although I have neither the time nor the inclination to check whether the list is skewed or not - perhaps someone here can check.
(http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/52/img/nameslong.gif)
So it may be more than just the "Jewish vote" at work - after all the neo-cons do seem to exert influence on government policy. I'm not going to subscribe to a "huge zionist conspiracy" nonsense, but there does seem to be influence at play - albeit more in the vein of the NRA than the silly sinister Elders of Zion nonsense.
In fact perhaps the most interesting part of the list is that - if it's genuine - one has to wonder how many Jewish Americans are on the far right-wing - in order for over half the top 50 neo cons to be Jewish, and why?
There are fewer than 6 million jews in the US, and as Storch mentioned, a good deal of them are liberal.
I guess the remaining 3-3.5 million must be pulling some serious strings to bend a nation of over a quarter billion to their evil conservative will.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
I'm trying to figure this one out.
So far, what I've read this morning, I disagree with Bush's statement. Although I am very uneducated on this situation, I don't feel Israel should have anyone in the West Bank or Gaza.
The US support of Israel was established long before Bush came along. That being said, wouldn't we look real peachy if we dumped Israel and violated a long standing commitment? There are many others who the US supports that would quake at this, and few who would take seriously any commitment from the US in the future.
You are concerned with the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Had you listened to what the president said, you would have heard that this is an openning proposal by Israel, not the final agreement. Bush did not say he supports keeping any settlements in the West Bank, but sees Irael's offer as a possitive basis for resuming negotiations.
Contrast what the US is doing in Israel with that of any other country. Though there is constant criticism of what we are doing there, no other country is raising a finger to help resolve the situation. More to the contrary, anti-semitism is running ramped in Europe. The proof is in the pudding. Who is doing what and what are the respective goals?
grizzly
-
Hardly
Nukes? Who said anything about Isreal using Nukes? Certainly wasnt mentioned in my post.
Isreal has always maintained it would not be the first in the region to use nukes. So I highly doubt they would have in this case.
For one reason they would have had to have known that no way would the US agree to it and if they had tried to on their own the US would have had no choice but to blow them out of the sky before they reached their targets or risk a MUCH wider conflict then just the alliance falling apart
Re Nukes: Quite right, Drediok, I'm sorry, I must have misread your post (the result of me posting late at night and bieng a bit tipsy!).
I still have my doubts about whether Israel didn't do anything during Gulf War 1 because it was in Israel's interest rather than the US (or UN interest). I believe it was more through self interest. My memory fades, but at the time wern't the rest of the world virtually begging Israel not to retaliate? To measure Israel's commitment to US interests, we need some sort of situation where Israel carries out an act which does not further Israeli interests but which does further US interests. I can't think of one, although that's probably through a lack of knowledge.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by OIO
ravells.... if britain had needed help against argentina, then the british had bigger problems than having to face argentina dont you think? ;)
oth, did britain ASK for help in the falklands? I think not. See above paragraph.
Why is the US supporting Israel?
Forget all the religious and social and economical reasons you can dream up.
Just look at a map of the middle east. If the answer doesnt pop out and slap you then perhaps you should take a hardcover atlas and hit yourself in the head with it until it sinks in.
Um... not sure what you are saying here, OIO.
I cannot believe that Britain did not ask for help (albeit behind closed doors) from the US during the Falklands - Maggie was virtually Regan's second wife. And as I said, we did receive help...certainly Satellite information and as Shaden said, AIM 9L missiles.
I think you are saying in your second paragraph that Israel occupies some sort of Geographical strongpoint which assists America...perhaps true in the past, but now with Aircraft carriers which can carry planes that wipe out any opposion anywhere in the world, does Israel still occupy a geographical position of importance? As I recall, during GW1 and 2 (I may be wrong) the US did not base any aircraft in Israel, but in Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Or else I'm missing your point entirely.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
Give the border countries 24 hours notice you are going to Nuke the country side..
Great way to irradiate your population too. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
There are fewer than 6 million jews in the US, and as Storch mentioned, a good deal of them are liberal.
I guess the remaining 3-3.5 million must be pulling some serious strings to bend a nation of over a quarter billion to their evil conservative will.
Actually I found it interesting precisely because the general US political stereotype for the "Jewish vote" is that it is for the most part a liberal vote. So how come there are so many Jewish neo-cons? Is the stereotype perhaps wrong? Is the "Jewish vote" actually right-wing?
Given that the US has a population of 290 million and - according to you - there are less than 6 million Jewish Americans, a good deal of whom are liberals - why is the number of Jewish neo-cons so disproportionate? If we assume 3 million of the US population are right wing Jewish Americans, that represents only about 1% of the US population. All things being equal, one would therefore expect a very low percentage of neo-cons to be Jewish American - based on the "50% of voters are right wing" assumption we made before.
As it is, according to this list, the percentage is up at past 50%. Which is a statistical anomaly. Why? What's the big attraction of being a neo-con to Jewish Americans? Is it because neo-cons are pro-Israel - thus attracting the Jewish American right-wingers? Or are the neo-cons pro-Israel as a result of their group having so many Jewish Americans? It's a bit of a chicken/egg question.
As to a minority influencing a nation of 290 million - well in some ways it's not really a far-fetched conspiracy theory - pretty much all governments work on that principle. The US government itself is always a minority, and has the power (given a majority in Congress/Senate) to bend a nation of 290 million to their will for 4 years. And every government relies on policy "think tanks" and "experts".
Whether the neo-cons represent the policy shapers of the current government or not is a moot point, but Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and Bolton are all on the list, so there's certainly some influence brought to bear.
That said, I don't subsribe to any evil zionist conspiracy theory - but I do find it odd that a group touted as being traditionally liberal and making up 2% of the US populace should make up over 50% of a list of the leading lights in the far-right.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Well Hortlund; you attacked against a messenger once again because you couldn't say anything else. Life sucks eh ??
What the hell are you talking about?
-
Avro......we do have small nukes...hell use Fuel Vapor bombs...just kill alot of them
-
Originally posted by Pei
One point to note is that just because a state may not have historically existed doesn't reduce the right of the people to self determination (and the formation of thier own state). snip
Oh, aye, absolutely. I never meant to imply otherwise when I brought that up. I agree that in order for all this to be settled peacefully and honestly, the Palestinians must be accomodated.
The lack of a pre-existing state is relevant, however, when people talk about Israel somehow being guilty of illegal occupation.
culero
-
"I cannot believe that Britain did not ask for help (albeit behind closed doors) from the US during the Falklands - Maggie was virtually Regan's second wife. And as I said, we did receive help...certainly Satellite information and as Shaden said, AIM 9L missiles."
I meant help as in combat forces. but yeah, i'd agree intel wouldve been shared. note the ;) . i was just being a wiseass :D
"I think you are saying in your second paragraph that Israel occupies some sort of Geographical strongpoint which assists America...perhaps true in the past, but now with Aircraft carriers which can carry planes that wipe out any opposion anywhere in the world, does Israel still occupy a geographical position of importance? As I recall, during GW1 and 2 (I may be wrong) the US did not base any aircraft in Israel, but in Turkey and Saudi Arabia."
And between Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia, which would you say is a reliable ally?
And im not reffering to which nation is honorable or dependable or which is more amiable to your ideology... Its a case of which nation is in no position of turning against your interests at any given time. The middle east is extremely important because of one thing: oil.
Israel is practically next door the biggest source of it. If there was no Israel, what kind of influence would the US, who is literally addicted to 'black gold', have over those nations? Over the oil supply? Just imagine there was no israel... one little disagreement between any of the oil producing nations and the US could result in an oil embargo that could cause a lot of problems for a superpower nation (as it did last century when the US was embargo'd).
Aircraft carriers are nice... but having an established beach head (israel) is better.
And who can make a better ally to protect such important assets than one that cannot turn against you? Israel is capable of kicking the arabs for a good while, but they cannot survive a prolonged conflict.
Its all a matter of self-interest. Simple as that.
-
And between Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia, which would you say is a reliable ally?
Probably Turkey first (when they join Nato) then Saudi and then Israel.
Why? Because the Turks want to be Europeans very much, the Saudi's are in debt to their eyeballs and Israel are just looking after Israel.
I just cannot see Israel allowing the US to fly planes from there if it meant a bigger problem for Israel after the US left. The Israelis are a very practical people and they know that at the end of the day, they are on their own and that other nations can be fickle.
Ravs
-
"Why? Because the Turks want to be Europeans very much, the Saudi's are in debt to their eyeballs and Israel are just looking after Israel."
The best ally is the one thats in no position to go against you. Of the above which of the 3 has been literally fighting for its own survival as a nation...and which of the 3 relies on the US FOR its survival?
"I just cannot see Israel allowing the US to fly planes from there if it meant a bigger problem for Israel after the US left. The Israelis are a very practical people and they know that at the end of the day, they are on their own and that other nations can be fickle."
Which is exactly why the US pocketed the Saudis to be their ground staging area for the gulf wars. Israel cannot stand alone in the long run, and they know it, the US knows it. Both the US and Israel have it in their own best self interest to support each other. Israel gets the protection of a superpower and the US gets the benefit of having a beach head in a very critical region...and the US would be really stupid to risk their 'queen' Israel to take out an opposing pawn (Iraq/Taliban) when they can just a lesser piece (Saudi) to get the job done.
self-interest.
-
But....but...Israel has never danced to the US tune. Whereas the Saudis and the Turks have. We are at a stage today when if your very survival is at stake as Israel then so many variables are going to come into play that it's impossible to determine the outcome.
Whereas with Saudi and Turkey it's easier: The Saudi Royal family owe the US a TON of money. The Turkish people want to be part of the EU and NATO.
I see the point you're making, but it's an 'Armageddon point'. And if people started invading Israel and were suceeding then we're all probably fu**ed.
I like your chess analogy and I can really see what you're saying, but I think, in the end, Israel will prove to be a poisoned chalice to the US. The difficulty being that the US cannot look at the Israeli problem objectively. If they could, the place wouldn't be the powder keg it is today.
To use the chess analogy again, perhaps the US should sacrifice her queen and push a pawn (in the form of Turkey) to the 8th Rank and queen it instead.
The Turks would know the US would only want it as a staging post in return for aid and it would be an 'arms length' relationship.
Ravs
-
"But....but...Israel has never danced to the US tune"
I never said Israel was a puppet that did everything the US told them. But when push comes to shove that is what will happen. Case in point: Israel did not retaliate as Hussein's scuds fell on them. To have done otherwise wouldve been disastrous to both.
"Whereas with Saudi and Turkey it's easier: The Saudi Royal family owe the US a TON of money. The Turkish people want to be part of the EU and NATO. "
Money and Want dont guarantee that Saudi and Turkey will go along with what the US wants. They are both wide open to influence from OTHER nations, especially the European powers and other Arab nations..whereas Israel only really has to worry about influencing the US.
When push comes to shove, Turkey and Saudi Arabia would be very unreliable 'allies'.
And thats why the US supports Israel (the topic at hand) imo.
-
Well then. She's a very expensive queen.
So far I think that Israel has been an unreliable ally to the U.S.
Thing about Israel is that she can't be bought.
Ravs.
-
"Well then. She's a very expensive queen."
Not as expensive as the alternative... keeping a fleet or 2 of nuclear carriers parked in a certain area of the world... troops, etc... ;)
"So far I think that Israel has been an unreliable ally to the U.S."
I think Israel has been a very reliable ally. Israel has survived. That is the only thing the US needs (again, imo). The beach head remains secure. They even took those scud hits in the first gulf war and didnt fight back. If they had their arab neighbors wouldve come a-screaming down while the bumbling UN debated itself to death and issued toothless resolutions.
"Thing about Israel is that she can't be bought."
Why buy the queen when you're her only lifeline? :) What you think France or Germany will run to help Israel? Or that the UK has enough military capability to help them if crap hits the fan? UN/NATO? *cough* :rofl
-
Originally posted by bozon
It already happened in Israel.
"Armegeddon" is a deformation of the Hebrew "Har Megido" or in english "Megido mountain".
It's a hill a little west of Jenin (inside 1967 border) inwhich a great battle was fought against the Romans during the great revult. Many people belived that this comming battle is the "light vs. darkness" battle that is before the comming of the Messiah.
Guess what? they "light" side lost and the Messiah missed the party.
Some nice ruins there today.
Bozon
Wow....thanks, Bozon
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The chicken part of hell.
yeah no watermelon :lol