Re: What's with the Israel haters?

> Jesus Chrysler wrote:

> And Justinian, you and Macchiavelli should put a sock in your mouth. Read another bloody book (one that's slightly more up to date perhaps?), rather than quote and misquote 1 over and over again wink>>

Like read a book on the political maneuvers of Metternich, Bismarck or Kissinger? Do you know of any good ones?

I was considering reading Hans Morgenthau.

<<Also, American Empire?
Das Viertes Reich? Is that what you're going for? tongue>>

No I just recognize that America is a empire, and it's time to be honest about it rather than hide under moralistic ideals.

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

"The Jews have been persecuted by nations and empires for centuries and I think they deserve to be left in peace."

Bullshit.

"That's like saying it's unfair that a body-builder beats up a weaker guy who has just kicked him in the gonads."

No its more like saying "...a body-builder destroys a weaker guy with a plank of wood who has just thrown a non-bursting water baloon at him"

"reduce the middle east to a smouldering crater"

You CANNOT destroy the hamas. Even if you kill all of its members another organisation will arise and take its place. This isn't about religion, its about land. The west created a state that it now cannot control, and that state refuses to give up any land. Those that want to seperate that state from land are being bombed. Granted the bombs generally target the fanatics, but there is a hell of a lot of people in the cross-fire.

That crazy Iranian guy had it right all along: The only solution is to wipe Israel from the map. Only then can all people in that region live in peace.

Morbo: Morbo can't understand his teleprompter. He forgot how you say that letter that looks like a man with a hat.
Linda: It's a 't'. It goes "tuh".
Morbo: Hello, little man. I will destroy you!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpP7b2lUxVE

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

>>"reduce the middle east to a smouldering crater"

You CANNOT destroy the hamas. Even if you kill all of its members another organisation will arise and take its place. This isn't about religion, its about land.<<

And my solution would destroy the land.  Eliminate the source of the conflict, and consequently the people involved, and you have resolved the conflict.  Aside from oil what good comes out of dealing with the middle east?  All that would be required is to ensure the valuable resources are not completely destroyed while the people are.  Here's an analogy if a neighbour complains about a hornet's nest in their garden do you suggest they try to work around the hornets or try to make peace with them or do you just kill the bastards?

There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

The middle east is a big place. How exactly do you plan to eradicate it?

Morbo: Morbo can't understand his teleprompter. He forgot how you say that letter that looks like a man with a hat.
Linda: It's a 't'. It goes "tuh".
Morbo: Hello, little man. I will destroy you!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpP7b2lUxVE

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

Cut of the water supply I guess.

Je maintiendrai

31 (edited by Matrix 04-Jan-2009 23:33:49)

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

"Hamas was formed with the specific purpose of destroying the Israeli nation and driving the Jews in to the sea.  Why shouldn't the Israelis fight with everything they have to prevent this?
"

they were formed with the help of israel so that the PLO loses power 20 years ago.... bad idea in the end..

what did the current defense minister of israel Barak said 8 years ago?
"if i would live in the Gaza strip i would become a terrorist for sure"
and why did he forget that by now? oh elections are soon... and a war is best to get votes...

btw
no word about the setlements?
no word about the 150 illegal outpost in the westbank that israel promised to dismantel to the US and UN several times?
no word that its was deal of the ceasefire that israle opens the borders and allow trade which it didn't?
no word that BOTH sites did violate the ceasefire the last month?

the Gaza strip is one big prison.
no trade possibel since years the Israel controlls all borders, the air port and the see.
and wetsbank will be a big prison soon too.
ever checked where Israel plans to build the wall?
the people will get no educatione, and wont ever see everything else expect there prison
sure that will bring peace... lol
what do you actuall people expect to do? to sit there there whole life till the die and do nothing?



Israels radicals want no peace
Palestianen radicals want no peace

who is to blame?
Israel as much as the Palestiance

do i hate Israel when i say that? no i hate the radical idiots in charge and there radical setler organisations...
Nations should boycott Israel the same way the boycott Hamas.. until they say: yes we will stick to international law. yes we will remove illegal outpost now (i'm not talking about settelments! ), yes we will remove all trade barriers and actuall allow the palestinence to get some econmocly grow.

Tobi

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

Can't believe people think this a Israel/Hamas thing.

This is part of a bigger plan by Israel to start a war with Iran before Obama becomes El Presidente.

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

Below are 2 posts, one by sen J Inhofe (R/Okla) and the second is a response to his comments

I used these as an argument about 3 years ago for my western religious ideas module in university.

~ DeathWatch ~
Long Live Triangulum

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

I was interested the other day when I heard that the de facto Saudi ruler, Crown Prince Abdullah, made a statement which was received by many in this country as if it were a statement of fact, as if it were something new, a concept for peace in the Middle East that no one had ever heard of before. I was kind of shocked that it was so well received by many people who had been down this road before.
I suggest to you that what Crown Prince Abdullah talked about a few days ago was not new at all. He talked about the fact that under the Abdullah plan, Arabs would normalize relations with Israel in exchange for the Jewish state surrendering the territory it received after the Six Day War, as if that were something new...
[But] there isn't anything new about the prospect of giving up land that is rightfully Israel's land in order to have peace. When it gets right down to it, the land doesn't make that much difference, because Yasser Arafat and others don't recognize Israel's right to any of the land. They do not recognize Israel's right to exist.

    

I will discuss seven reasons why Israel is entitled to the land they have and that it should not be a part of the peace process. If this is something that Israel wants to do, it is their business to do it. But anyone who has tried to put the pressure on Israel to do this is wrong.
We are going to be hit by skeptics who are going to say we will be attacked because of our support for Israel, and if we get out of the Middle East -- that is us -- all the problems will go away. That is just not true. If we withdraw, all of these problems will again come to our door. I have some observations to make about that.
But I would like to reemphasize once again the seven reasons that Israel has the right to their land.
1) ARCHEOLOGY
The first reason is that Israel has the right to the land because of all of the archeological evidence. All the archeological evidence supports it. Every time there is a dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that Israelis have had a presence there for 3,000 years. The coins, the cities, the pottery, the culture -- there are other people, groups that are there, but there is no mistaking the fact that Israelis have been present in that land for 3,000 years. It predates any claims that other peoples in the region may have.
The ancient Philistines are extinct. Many other ancient peoples are extinct. They do not have the unbroken line to this date that the Israelis have. Even the Egyptians of today are not racial Egyptians of 2,000, 3,000 years ago. They are primarily an Arab people. The land is called Egypt, but they are not the same racial and ethnic stock as the old Egyptians of the ancient world.
The Israelis are in fact descended from the original Israelites.
2) HISTORY
The second proof of Israel's right to the land is the historic right. History supports it totally and completely. We know there has been an Israel up until the time of the Roman Empire. The Romans conquered the land. Israel had no homeland, although Jews were allowed to live there. They were driven from the land in two dispersions: One in 70 A.D. and the other in 135 A.D. But there was always a Jewish presence in the land.
The Turks, who took over about 700 years ago and ruled the land up until about World War One, had control. Then the land was conquered by the British. The Turks entered World War One on the side of Germany. The British knew they had to do something to punish Turkey, and also to break up that empire that was going to be a part of the whole effort of Germany in World War One. So the British sent troops against the Turks in the Holy Land.
One of the generals who was leading the British armies was a man named Allenby. Allenby was a Bible-believing Christian. He carried a Bible with him everywhere he went and he knew the significance of Jerusalem. The night before the attack against Jerusalem to drive out the Turks, Allenby prayed that God would allow him to capture the city without doing damage to the holy places.
That day, Allenby sent World War One biplanes over the city of Jerusalem to do a reconnaissance mission. You have to understand that the Turks had at that time never seen an airplane. So there they were, flying around. They looked in the sky and saw these fascinating inventions and did not know what they were, and they were terrified by them.


Then they were told they were going to be opposed by a man named Allenby the next day, which means, in their language, "man sent from God" or "prophet from God." They dared not fight against a prophet from God, so the next morning, when Allenby went to take Jerusalem, he went in and captured it without firing a single shot.
The British government was grateful to Jewish people around the world, particularly to one Jewish chemist who helped them manufacture niter. Niter is an ingredient that was used in nitroglycerin which was sent over from the New World. But they did not have a way of getting it to England. The German U-boats were shooting on the boats, so most of the niter they were trying to import to make nitroglycerin was at the bottom of the ocean. But a man named Weitzman, a Jewish chemist, discovered a way to make it from materials that existed in England. As a result, they were able to continue that supply.
The British at that time said they were going to give the Jewish people a homeland. That is all written down in history. They were gratified that the Jewish people, the bankers, came through and helped finance the war.
The homeland that Britain said it would set aside consisted of all of what is now Israel and all of what was then the nation of Jordan -- the whole thing. That was what Britain promised to give the Jews in 1917. In the beginning, there was some Arab support for this action. There was not a huge Arab population in the land at that time, and there is a reason for that. The land was not able to sustain a large population of people. It just did not have the development it needed to handle those people, and nobody really wanted this land. It was considered to be worthless land.
Mark Twain -- Samuel Clemens -- took a tour of Palestine in 1867. This is how he described that land. We are talking about Israel now. He said: "A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."
Where was this great Palestinian nation? It did not exist. It was not there. Palestinians were not there. Palestine was a region named by the Romans, but at that time it was under the control of Turkey, and there was no large mass of people there because the land would not support them.
This is the report that the Palestinian Royal Commission, created by the British, made. It quotes an account of the conditions on the coastal plain along the Mediterranean Sea in 1913. The Palestinian Royal Commission said:
"The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track, suitable for transport by camels or carts. No orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached the Yavnev village. Houses were mud. Schools did not exist. The western part toward the sea was almost a desert. The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many villages were deserted by their inhabitants."
That was 1913.
The French author Voltaire described Palestine as "a hopeless, dreary place." In short, under the Turks the land suffered from neglect and low population. That is a historic fact. The nation became populated by both Jews and Arabs because the land came to prosper when Jews came back and began to reclaim it. If there had never been any archaeological evidence to support the rights of the Israelis to the territory, it is also important to recognize that other nations in the area have no longstanding claim to the country either.
Did you know that Saudi Arabia was not created until 1913, Lebanon until 1920? Iraq did not exist as a nation until 1932, Syria until 1941. The borders of Jordan were established in 1946 and Kuwait in 1961. Any of these nations that would say Israel is only a recent arrival would have to deny their own rights as recent arrivals as well. They did not exist as countries. They were all under the control of the Turks.
Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.
3) AGRICULTURE
The third reason that land belongs to Israel is the practical value of the Israelis being there. Israel today is a modern marvel of agriculture. Israel is able to bring more food out of a desert environment than any other country in the world. The Arab nations ought to make Israel their friend and import technology from Israel that would allow all the Middle East, not just Israel, to become an exporter of food. Israel has unarguable success in its agriculture.
4) HUMANITARIAN
The fourth reason I believe Israel has the right to the land is on the grounds of humanitarian concern. You see, there were 6 million Jews slaughtered in Europe during World War Two. The persecution against the Jews had been very strong in Russia since the advent of communism, and before then under the Czars.
These people have a right to their homeland. If we are not going to allow them a homeland in the Middle East, then where? What other nation on Earth is going to cede territory, is going to give up land?
They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel would fit into my home state of Oklahoma seven times. They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel is very small. It is a nation that, up until the time that claims started coming in, was not desired by anybody.
5) STRATEGIC ALLY
The fifth reason Israel ought to have their land is that she is a strategic ally of the United States. Whether we realize it or not, Israel is an impediment to certain groups hostile to democracies and hostile to what we believe in, hostile to that which makes us the greatest nation in the history of the world. They have kept them from taking complete control of the Middle East. If it were not for Israel, they would overrun the region.


They are our strategic ally. It is good to know we have a friend in the Middle East on whom we can count. They vote with us in the United Nations more than England, more than Canada, more than France, more than Germany -- more than any other country in the world.
6) ROADBLOCK TO TERRORISM
The sixth reason is that Israel is a roadblock to terrorism. The war we are now facing is not against a sovereign nation; it is against a group of terrorists who are very fluid, moving from one country to another. They are almost invisible. That is whom we are fighting against today. We need every ally we can get. If we do not stop terrorism in the Middle East, it will be on our shores.
One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States is that the policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them.
Since its independence in 1948, Israel has fought four wars: The 1948 War of Independence, the 1956 Sinai campaign, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In all four cases, Israel was attacked. They were not the aggressor. Some people may argue that this was not true because they went in first in 1956, but they knew at that time that Egypt was building a huge military to become the aggressor. Israel, in fact, was not the aggressor and has not been the aggressor in any of the four wars.
Also, they won all four wars against impossible odds. They are great warriors. They consider a level playing field being outnumbered 2-to-1.
There were 39 Scud missiles that landed on Israeli soil during the Gulf War. Our president asked Israel not to respond. In order to have the Arab nations on board, we asked Israel not to participate in the war. They showed tremendous restraint and did not. Now we have asked them to stand back and not do anything over these last several attacks. We have criticized them. We have criticized them in our media. Local people in television and radio often criticize Israel, not knowing the true facts. We need to be informed.
I was so thrilled when I heard a reporter pose a question to Secretary of State Colin Powell. He said: "Mr. Powell, the United States has advocated a policy of restraint in the Middle East. We have discouraged Israel from retaliation again and again and again because we've said that it escalates the violence. Are we going to follow that ourselves?"
Mr. Powell indicated we would strike back. In other words, we can tell Israel not to do it, but when it hits us, we are going to do something.
But all that changed in December when the Israelis went into Gaza with gunships and into the West Bank with F-16s. With the exception of last May, the Israelis had not used F-16s since the Six Day War. And I am so proud of them because we have to stop terrorism. It is not going to go away. If Israel were driven into the sea tomorrow, if every Jew in the Middle East were killed, terrorism would not end. You know that in your heart. Terrorism would continue. It is not just a matter of Israel in the Middle East. It is the heart of the very people who are perpetrating this stuff. Should they be successful in overrunning Israel -- which they won't be -- but should they be, it would not be enough. They will never be satisfied.
7) BIBLICAL RIGHT
I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel, and that it has a right to the land, because God said so. In Genesis 13:14-17, the Bible says: "The Lord said to Abram, "Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward, southward, eastward and westward: for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever... Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee."
That is God talking. The Bible says that Abram removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord. Hebron is in the West Bank. It is at this place where God appeared to Abram and said, "I am giving you this land" -- the West Bank. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.
CONCLUSION
The seven reasons, I am convinced, clearly establish that Israel has a right to the land. Eight years ago on the White House lawn, Yitzhak Rabin shook hands with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. It was a historic occasion. It was a tragic occasion. At that time, the official policy of the government of Israel began to be, "Let us appease the terrorists. Let us begin to trade the land for peace." This process continued unabated up until last year.
Here in our own nation, at Camp David in the summer of 2000, then-Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak offered the most generous concessions to Yasser Arafat that had ever been laid on the table. He offered him more than 90 percent of all the West Bank territory, sovereign control of it. There were some parts he did not want to offer, but in exchange he said he would give up land in Israel proper that the PLO had not even asked for.


And he also did the unthinkable. He even spoke of dividing Jerusalem and allowing the Palestinians to have their capital there. Yasser Arafat stormed out of the meeting. Why did he storm out of the meeting? Everything he said he wanted was offered there. It was put into his hands. Why did he storm out of the meeting? A couple of months later, there began to be riots, terrorism. The riots began when now-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon went to the Temple Mount. And this was used as the thing that lit the fire and caused the explosion. Did you know that Sharon did not go unannounced and that he contacted the Islamic authorities before he went and secured their permission to be there? It was no surprise.
The response was very carefully calculated. They knew the world would not pay attention to the details. They would portray this in the Arab world as an attack upon the holy mosque and use it as an excuse to riot. Over the last eight years, during this time of the peace process, where the Israeli public has pressured its leaders to give up land for peace because they are tired of fighting, there has been increased terror.
In fact, it has been greater in the last eight years than any other time in Israel's history. Showing restraint and giving in has not produced any kind of peace. It is so much so that today the leftist peace movement in Israel does not exist because the people feel they were deceived. They offered a hand of peace, and it was not taken. That is why the politics of Israel have changed drastically over the past 12 months. The Israelis have come to see that, "No matter what we do, these people do not want to deal with us... They want to destroy us."
That is why even yet today the stationery of the PLO still has upon it the map of the entire state of Israel, not just the little part they call the West Bank. They want it all.
We have to get out of this mindset that somehow you can buy peace in the Middle East by giving little plots of land. It has not worked before when it has been offered.
These seven reasons show why Israel is entitled to that land

~ DeathWatch ~
Long Live Triangulum

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

Israel's right to exist?

An answer to James M. Inhofe

By

Stuart Yates

Introduction

There have been numerous articles on whether or not Israel has the right to exist. This article examines one of the most carefully reasoned: that of US Senator James M. Inhofe in an address to the US Senate on March 4th, 2002. He argues Israel's right to exist on seven main points and he has received favourable responses to his article. The full text can be found at http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Israels_Right_to_the_Land.asp. I will look at each of these points in turn.

1. ARCHAEOLOGY

The Senator says :

"The first reason is that Israel has the right to the land because of all of the archaeological evidence. All the archaeological evidence supports it. Every time there is a dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that Israelis have had a presence there for 3,000 years. The coins, the cities, the pottery, the culture -- there are other people, groups that are there, but there is no mistaking the fact that Israelis have been present in that land for 3,000 years. It predates any claims that other peoples in the region may have.......... The Israelis are in fact descended from the original Israelites."

The Palestinian answer to this, which of course is difficult to prove or disprove, is that they are descended from the Canaanites, who certainly predate the Israelites in Palestine: there is ample evidence that the Canaanite and Israelite cultures both clashed and merged. However, even if the Israelites were first, the Senator's argument can be used to uncomfortable effect with regard to the US: the native Americans certainly predated the European and other settlers and so can, on the above argument of the Senator's, stake a convincing claim to the US. Even if we take into account the scattering of the Jews and argue that they have a right to their "original homeland", this would apply to the English settlers in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. On this logic, their descendants would have a prior claim to English land, above for instance 2nd or 3rd generation Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis etc. Anyone arguing this type of case is in BNP/Nazi territory.

Arguments based on the "we were first" premise are doomed: there have been too many movements of people and races. "Original homeland" concepts are meaningless over such a period of time. This is somewhat borne out by the fact that the Zionist movement's first choice of a "Jewish homeland" was not Palestine/Israel, but Argentina

2. HISTORY.

The senator's second reason is based on history: "The second proof of Israel's right to the land is the historic right. History supports it totally and completely. We know there has been an Israel up until the time of the Roman Empire. The Romans conquered the land. Israel had no homeland, although Jews were allowed to live there. They were driven from the land in two dispersions: One in 70 A.D. and the other in 135 A.D. But there was always a Jewish presence in the land"

An Israel up until the time of the Roman empire: sounds as though the Israelites ruled a land called Israel from 3,000BC until the time of Christ, doesn't it? Washington State University has a different story (see http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/HEBREWS/HEBREWS.HTM.). Until 1050BC the Israelites were just one of many peoples fighting for possession of the land - when the Israelites trekked to the Promised Land from Egypt they found the land already occupied, so they had to fight for it - sounds familiar? Israel, in the sense of an independent state, existed merely 130 years, between 1050BC and 920BC. The kingdom then split into two, with the Israelites based in Samaria (not Jerusalem, which was occupied by the Judeans) and the Israelites were then apparently scattered and lost, totally. Jewish people still survived in the land, but were subject to foreign rule: Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans. In fact the Persians allowed them to return from exile in around 538BC, but they were not self-governing.

So "Israel" as an independent state lasted throughout all that time not much more than twice the length of time that the modern state of Israel has already existed. The historical argument is thin to say the least. The ancestors of modern Israelis certainly had a continuous presence in the land, but so did others.

3. AGRICULTURE

"The third reason that land belongs to Israel is the practical value of the Israelis being there. Israel today is a modern marvel of agriculture. Israel is able to bring more food out of a desert environment than any other country in the world. The Arab nations ought to make Israel their friend and import technology from Israel that would allow all the Middle East, not just Israel, to become an exporter of food. Israel has unarguable success in its agriculture." says the Senator.

Well, that's OK then. On the basis of this argument the US would have lost any rights to huge areas of the States in the Great Depression, when enormous areas were turned into dust bowls. Let us not forget also that Israel has been able to develop its agriculture (and its vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction) because of the enormous aid received from the West. This has hardly been a small nation bravely pulling itself up by its bootstraps.

"The country that receives more overseas aid than any other in the world is Israel, at $212 per head of population per year. Yet Israel's gross national product per capita is $4,500, which makes it richer than 88 other countries. (OECD Development Co-operation 1982 review)" cited in the New Internationalist, September 1985.

Hardly a level playing field: how many other developing countries could have an "unarguable success in its agriculture" if they had received similar aid?.

4. HUMANITARIAN

"The fourth reason I believe Israel has the right to the land is on the grounds of humanitarian concern. You see, there were 6 million Jews slaughtered in Europe during World War Two."

Indeed there were and the holocaust was an appalling period of cold-blooded cruelty and inhumanity. There were indeed many Jewish refugees, along with many more in Europe and in other parts of the world. It is a sad fact that refugees either have to make a home in the country to which they flee or wait until the time is right when they can return to their homeland. What compelling reasons are there to make an exception, an exception which displaces others from their homes? Whilst there was a humanitarian argument for Jewish refugees to seek a new life in Palestine, this should have been overseen by the international community so that all peoples in that land could, and should, work out a way of co-existing. The creation of an exclusively Jewish state, the partition of the land, giving way to the actions of Jewish terrrorists: these are the causes of the continuing misery of the area.

"These people have a right to their homeland. If we are not going to allow them a homeland in the Middle East, then where? What other nation on Earth is going to cede territory, is going to give up land?"

Who indeed? So why should the Palestinians have to cede their land? How can a wrong done to one people be right unless there is sufficient compensation? Fifty years in refugee camps does not seem to me to be sufficient compensation, it seems to be a second wrong. Palestine is not the "homeland" of the vast majority of Israelis: some indeed settled there from Europe after the second World War (genuine refugees) but since then there has been a stream of people who had perfectly reasonable lives elsewhere, but who continue to displace Palestinians in the West Bank, building their fortified settlements, continuing a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.

"They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel would fit into my home state of Oklahoma seven times."

Would the Senator ever have asked a seventh of the people he represents to give up their homes, to move elsewhere, on the grounds he has set out in his address? More particularly, would he have asked if the people wanting to settle were backing their aims with terror tactics?

5. STRATEGIC ALLY

"The fifth reason Israel ought to have their land is that she is a strategic ally of the United States. Whether we realize it or not, Israel is an impediment to certain groups hostile to democracies and hostile to what we believe in, hostile to that which makes us the greatest nation in the history of the world. They have kept them from taking complete control of the Middle East. If it were not for Israel, they would overrun the region."

This is a circular argument. Israel is an ally because she is largely the creation of the US. History may prove her to be another US puppet, in spite of her apparent independence: Eisenhower certainly brought her into line. Other states' hostility to the US is partly because of the existence of Israel: creating Israel was at the expense and at the continuing expense of Palestinians. Palestinians have lived for over five decades in refugee camps, having been ethnically cleansed by Israel, because the West, having maintained Israel, reneged on the promise to create and support an independent Palestinian state. No wonder other Middle Eastern states are aggrieved. The Israel/Palestinian issue is the most glaring example of the West's double standards.

The reason for the other part of this argument, hostility to the US, lies in the phrase: "hostile to that which makes us the greatest nation in the history of the world" . Really? I suppose this attitude is common to all imperialist powers: Roman, British etc. The consolation is that empires decay and fall away, but in the meantime, like all imperial powers, the US is feared, distrusted and resented for the power that she wields over other nations.

"If it were not for Israel, they would overrun the region."

Just who "they" are and which areas in the region other than Israel "they" would overrun is not clear. Equally it is not clear which states in the region are defended by Israel: so far Israel has attacked every single one of its neighbours and occupied their lands.

6. ROADBLOCK TO TERRORISM

"Israel is a roadblock to terrorism. The war we are now facing is not against a sovereign nation; it is against a group of terrorists who are very fluid, moving from one country to another. They are almost invisible. That is whom we are fighting against today. We need every ally we can get. If we do not stop terrorism in the Middle East, it will be on our shores."

This is another circular argument. "Middle East" terrorism is almost wholly directed against Israel and the US and UK's uncritical support of Israel. It is not so much Israel's existence that foments terrorism: it is the inhuman treatment of the Palestinians (refugees in their "own" land). It is the missile attacks on crowds of civilians, the demolition of houses of families of suicide bombers (since when were families of criminals themselves treated as criminals and without trial in any decent society). It is the wanton destruction of the civilian infrastructure and most of all, the continual extension of fortified settlements on land that was never ceded to Israel, the building of roads outside Israel solely for Israelis, the shooting of Palestinians when they try to harvest their olives. That is Middle Eastern terrorism and the suicide bombers, horrific though their crimes against civilans are, form the desperate response of an abused people. Do not just take my word for it, read Amnesty International's report on the Jenin "incursion": http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/MDE151432002!Open

It is not clear how Israel can be a "roadblock to terrorism". As we know, international terrorism (and Middle Eastern terrorism is very parochial in nature) is not deterred by national boundaries. The existence of a small 'friendly' country in the midst of 'enemies' is incidental.

"Since its independence in 1948, Israel has fought four wars: The 1948 War of Independence, the 1956 Sinai campaign, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In all four cases, Israel was attacked. They were not the aggressor. Some people may argue that this was not true because they went in first in 1956, but they knew at that time that Egypt was building a huge military to become the aggressor. Israel, in fact, was not the aggressor and has not been the aggressor in any of the four wars."

Well, the 1948 war of independence can be viewed rather differently as a terrorist campaign: I am old enough to remember the pictures of British soldiers being strung up, but perhaps Americans are rather more sanguine about justice Boot Hill style. At this time also Jewish terrorists were rather active with letter bombs and assassinations.

The 1956 "Sinai campaign" - is this the same campaign which saw an eight year old state attacking Egypt with British and French forces? I wonder how such a young state obtained such weaponry such as the latest French Mystere jets? Not solely from its own resources.

The Senator omits to mention the extended Israeli incursion into Lebanon, which included the Sabra and Chatila massacres in which the present Israeli head of state, Ariel Sharon, was involved.

"Also, they won all four wars against impossible odds. They are great warriors. They consider a level playing field being outnumbered 2-to-1.."

Well, I suppose sending F-16s in against Palestinians armed only with hand weapons is the exception which proves the Senator's rule.

7. BIBLICAL RIGHT

"Israel ......has a right to the land, because God said so. ..... God appeared to Abram and said, "I am giving you this land" -- the West Bank. ..... It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true."

The difficulty with this is whether or not the founding of the modern state of Israel accords with the will of God. The Talmud in Tracte Kesubos teaches that no Jewish state should be founded before the coming of the Moshiach (Messiah). God did indeed give the land to Abram and his seed for ever, but the Israelites were disobedient, resulting in exile. This exile cannot be ended by human acts or desires, only by the will and action of God. The absence of a Messiah turns the "will of God" into the "will of men". Certainly the actions of those who have been in charge of modern Israel are more in keeping with human politics than of those carrying out the will of God.

Conclusion

I do not believe that the Senator's seven points make a convincing argument for the existence of Israel as such, certainly not the right to exist: I wonder if any state, at any time, has an absolute right to exist. For instance, Yugoslavia existed as a federal state: I believe President Milosovic, by directing Serbia's lethal actions against Croatia, Bosnia etc, forfeited the right of Serbia to run such a federal state.

So Israel may not have the right to exist, but this does not mean that Israel should not exist. There have been Jewish people living there for centuries. If a multi-cultural country bounded by Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt is not possible, then what is needed is a way that enables all people in that area to belong to independent, autonomous states that are viable, which have the support of the UN and which respect each others' boundaries.

To achieve this means abandoning the black and white, right/wrong absolutist arguments. It means that the West has to look at Israel's faults as well as Palestinian faults. The power lies with Israel and the West: when you have power you have to exercise the resulting responsibility wisely.

~ DeathWatch ~
Long Live Triangulum

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

Posting too much information kills a thread tongue.

Morbo: Morbo can't understand his teleprompter. He forgot how you say that letter that looks like a man with a hat.
Linda: It's a 't'. It goes "tuh".
Morbo: Hello, little man. I will destroy you!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpP7b2lUxVE

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

its all relevant and it makes for a good read if you are an intellectual

~ DeathWatch ~
Long Live Triangulum

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

Are you calling me stupid?


tongue

I read the conclusion, but its far too hot to do anything constructive today.

Morbo: Morbo can't understand his teleprompter. He forgot how you say that letter that looks like a man with a hat.
Linda: It's a 't'. It goes "tuh".
Morbo: Hello, little man. I will destroy you!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpP7b2lUxVE

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

"The middle east is a big place. How exactly do you plan to eradicate it?"

Nukes - make the land uninhabitable and a low likelihood of survivors

I'm not saying it's a good idea or that this is the best moral option but it'd be quick.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

"So you basically advocate standing back and watch them destroy each other?  That's sick.  Then if Israel wiped out the Arab nations around it, would you cry that their genocidal maniacs?"

right. its super sick.. as this whole conflict is.
look.. since i can think and at least understand a lil abour politics those 2 parties keep fighting each other.. the bloodshed goes on and BOTH sides are unable to stop it. Many many people tried solving it. it allways failed. we may had been close to it when rabin and arafat made that agreements.. pitty some radical jew killed rabin a short time later...

as it is right now.. you have david vs. goliath. palestinians stand no military chance against israel.
it is in human nature people do somehow sympathize with david instead of goliath.

In my real not cynical opinion i see only one chance that could solve this problem.. and that would be a MASSIVE UN peacekeeping force.
this peacekeeping force has to make sure that ALL jewish settlements on palestinian soil are disbanded. It has to make sure that the gaza strips supply is not totally dependent on israels good will. and it has to make sure that there will be no attacks from palestinians on israel.
In the end it will have to be the 2 state sollution with an independant palestinian state.
But after all.. this will never happen because israel and the US will never allow an UN force.

so what else we could do... let it all just go as it goes? Kinda unfair because Israel is heavily armed by the west...
so arm the palestinians!

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

"Nukes - make the land uninhabitable and a low likelihood of survivors"

Ok, nukes. How many nukes do you think it will take?

And who will be delivering these weapons? And how will they be delivered?

Morbo: Morbo can't understand his teleprompter. He forgot how you say that letter that looks like a man with a hat.
Linda: It's a 't'. It goes "tuh".
Morbo: Hello, little man. I will destroy you!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpP7b2lUxVE

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

lol summon the god and send all middle east flooded by water.

i love you all!

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

Turn off the water supply! Or better yet poison it!

Je maintiendrai

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

Deathwatch, was very good post and they made some compelling arguments.

Not many people know this, but I own the first radio in Springfield. Not much on the air then, just Edison reciting the alphabet over and over. "A" he'd say; then "B." "C" would usually follow...

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

TY Arocalex, someone decided to read them

~ DeathWatch ~
Long Live Triangulum

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

I just want Isreal to get its settlements and settlers out of Gaza and the West Bank, after that they can do whatever they like to Hamas, Hezbollah, and anyone else who honestly thinks that they can bring down Isreal with Semtex, Molotovs, and rockets that have a success ratio of 1/10,000.

My only condition is that Isreal make an effort to hit actual targets rather than carpet-bomb Palestinians. Hell, even Russia tried harder than they do, and that's saying something!

"So, it's defeat for you, is it? Someday I must meet a similar fate..."

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

i want the barnhouse effect to snub every weapon and every warlord to the point where human beings can only fight with sticks and stones.

@deathwatch
your post is relavant and has good points.  but it is far too long, you're better off just taking snippits.  i'm sure there's an intellectual or two hangin' around here but even they have some things do to and reading giant ass posts takes up lots of time.

> Justinian I wrote:
> Ouro,
Even though you were the first one to arrive at the scene who clearly pwned Einstein and showed how biased he is, you are an outright arsehole.

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

No it doesnt you lazy gits

Not many people know this, but I own the first radio in Springfield. Not much on the air then, just Edison reciting the alphabet over and over. "A" he'd say; then "B." "C" would usually follow...

Re: What's with the Israel haters?

We already have enough cheap bastards as well.