Why unilateral support of Israel?

I should visit here more often it seems; T9 you brought up France, I did not. You made a stupid comment, I shot it down with historical references. I said France did not join NATO but never mentioned money at all, you did. You are anti-Semitic and that is inescapable.

Try this reason on for size; the Muslims hate the Jews and that is good enough for me to be a friend of Israel though it is far from the only one for me. Go find yourself a good prison guard job somewhere and live out your fantasy.

A little video from one of your friends T9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rayry...embedded#at=14 Originally Posted by john_galt

Shot it down my ass. We're talking about Israel, you're talking about NATO..... You took a reference to France, which really had very little to do with the argument, and made it your talking point - you took a one-second sound byte, in typical bullshit, republican, FOX news fashion, and made it your talking point. The problem is that France is irrelevant to the argument of Israel, and France was a true ally during WWII, which was my only mention of France - as a definition of a truly participatory alliance. You jumped in as a Franco-phobe and started your "I'm really smart, look at me" gibberish. Still looking for that small victory, I see.....You are more than pathetic and you're in an intellectual free-fall; and every new post of yours show a continued slip of your grasp on sound thinking and logic and highlights your inability to combat sound reasoning.

You support Israel because Muslims hate them - what a dumbass. What about the Muslims in northern Africa, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Albania, Algeria, Bosnia, the U.S. etc, etc. I'm far from anti-semetic and you accusation is both baseless and typical. Whenever someone questions Israel, they're anti-Semetic. Anti-Semetic Ahhhhh!!! oOoh Boogey Boogey! Mommy, can you please leave the light on? Carol An-nnne! Downright scary!! Please, do us all a favor and STFU!! What I am is anti-bullshit, anti-dumb-ass, and anti-hater and that makes me anti-John Galt.

Prison guard? Really? Don't project your fantasy of living and working around Big, Husky, Men onto me. LOL. O.K. Navy man.

And the video..... absolutely, utterly, pathetic. That guy in the video sounds as disconnected and dumb as some of your arguments, and I've said nothing remotely similar. I bet that you were in your room at mommy's saying, "I'm really gonna get him with this one."

I guess that this is really you without the cut-n-paste option, and what you resort to when what we're talking about is not a hot topic on FOX and talk radio.

And just how would conservatives prefer the world be run? Do tell, since you want to politicize the issue...

If ownership by conquest is the rule, and if might makes right, then ownership by re-conquest is also the rule and sovereignity is thrown out of the window. If it is Israel's right to hold what was taken by force, then it is equally the right of the Palestinian, and their allies, to re-take what they once held, by force. The terrorists who attack the US do so because we interfere in Mid-East affairs by supporting Israel, not b/c we hold land that they once owned. The "terrorists" who attack Israel do so b/c they want to re-conquer land that was taken from them, by force of might. SO, in the situation in the Middle East, why are we involved? Why are Americans dying? Why are we supporting them, and why do they need our help? Why not disengage? Can't we just buy oil and let them stand for themselves? Israel has long since passed "victim status".

Abandoning Israel is not feasible, but if they refuse to even consider negotiations, then why bother. American losses can be avoided altogether, and our position in the world can be strenghtened in the process. Everyone in the ME will never love us b/c over the last 50 years, generations have been reared on hatred of the west. Removing the reason for the hatred is like taking the wind out of radical Islam's sails - they'll have no reason to bother us, and it would make our response to terrorism all the more righteous and indisputable - no matter if we smash roaches with sledge-hammers or fly-swatters. But at some point, the cause, as well as the effect needs to be examined. Examining the cause does not make a nation weak. Stubborn, bull-headed continuation of a failed policy results in quagmires, both political and militarily ala Vietnam. Originally Posted by thorough9

You confuse wishes and wants with the way things are. I don't want the world governed by "might makes right" but what I want is irrelevant. What you want is irrelevant. It is what it is and always has been.

Saddam is no longer in power, did a dance at the end of a rope. How did that happen? His military was defeated.

You say if this is the way it is then it should be OK for the Palestinians to take it back by force. They've tried. Several times. With lots of help from their Arab neighbors. They haven't been able to do it yet. If they ever do get it done I may not like it much but, again, that won't change the reality of the situation now will it?

Your comments about Israel not negotiating are really where your anti-semitic views are apparent. Which party is not willing to negotiate when their stated purpose is the destruction of the other?? How do you negotiate with conditions like that? Israel was satisfied with the existing borders before the six days war. You remember, before they were attacked? Yes, they kept captured territory, why shouldn't they? It's in their interest to aid in their national defense.

You steadfastly refuse to address several points that have been brought up. Who has been the aggressor in the region, Israel or the Arab world? Which party has started the wars and why in the past, Israel or the Arab world? You don't like the reality of conquest determining ownership? I'm not all that fond of it either but that's not going to change the reality of it and you can wish and bitch all you want, it won't change a thing.

Jack

I gotta admit, I agree with Thorough9 again. Disagreeing with our policy toward Israel doesn't make one an anti-Semite any more than disagreeing with President Obama makes one a racist. These are just handy pejoratives used when a party to a discussion is either unable or unwilling to address the real issues being raised.

As far as the Native Americans moving to KC, and us moving to South Dakota, uh, western South Dakota already belongs to the Native Americans by treaty. The law of the land. On an equal footing with the Constitution. But when gold was discovered in the Black Hills we kind of pushed the treaty under the carpet. "What? What treaty?"

Yes, the Bible does grant blessings for those who support Israel, but I'm not sure our foreign policy should be dictated by the Bible. If the Bible dictated our domestic policy, we would be stoning adulterers, homosexuals and disobedient children.

Yes, a great wrong was perpetrated against the Palestinians, but we can't really correct it now. What do we tell the Israelis? "Oops, we made a mistake. Here, take Wyoming instead." That won't work. Palestine needs some mature leadership to tell them "This is the way it is. Let's enjoy life, rather than fighting for something we will never achieve." I don't know how to implement that, but we have to understand that the Palestinians really do have a gripe.

You confuse wishes and wants with the way things are. I don't want the world governed by "might makes right" but what I want is irrelevant. What you want is irrelevant. It is what it is and always has been.

Saddam is no longer in power, did a dance at the end of a rope. How did that happen? His military was defeated.

You say if this is the way it is then it should be OK for the Palestinians to take it back by force. They've tried. Several times. With lots of help from their Arab neighbors. They haven't been able to do it yet. If they ever do get it done I may not like it much but, again, that won't change the reality of the situation now will it?

Your comments about Israel not negotiating are really where your anti-semitic views are apparent. Which party is not willing to negotiate when their stated purpose is the destruction of the other?? How do you negotiate with conditions like that? Israel was satisfied with the existing borders before the six days war. You remember, before they were attacked? Yes, they kept captured territory, why shouldn't they? It's in their interest to aid in their national defense.

You steadfastly refuse to address several points that have been brought up. Who has been the aggressor in the region, Israel or the Arab world? Which party has started the wars and why in the past, Israel or the Arab world? You don't like the reality of conquest determining ownership? I'm not all that fond of it either but that's not going to change the reality of it and you can wish and bitch all you want, it won't change a thing.

Jack Originally Posted by ksjack

Just because racism and antipathy is the basis of your views and political positions doesn't mean that I am cut from the same cloth. What's anti-semetic about this statement:

Abandoning Israel is not feasible, but if they refuse to even consider negotiations, then why bother. Originally Posted by thorough9

I am/was saying that the U.S. is a victim of terrorism as a direct result of unilaterally supporting Israel. As an ally, an ally that has paid a human cost for my alliance, I can ask a favor(try negotiations again) of my ally, and it shouldn't be too much to ask. The Palestinians are fractured. The extremists want the total destruction of Israel, but negotiations have taken place in the past with the more logical and moderate factions. And it's so easy to characterize an entire race because of the actions of extremists. That's incredibly small-minded and smacks of bigotry.

I'm not afraid of the Anti-semetic boogey-man so Jack and John are wasting your time trying use it as leverage. Again, by your right-makes-right logic, it really doesn't matter who is the aggressor and the land will change hands as much as militarily possible. Also, as a "that's just the way it is, you can't change it" defeatist, why even comment in the first place if that's your final solution/answer for everything.

I gotta admit, I agree with Thorough9 again. Disagreeing with our policy toward Israel doesn't make one an anti-Semite any more than disagreeing with President Obama makes one a racist. These are just handy pejoratives used when a party to a discussion is either unable or unwilling to address the real issues being raised. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It is not anti-Semitic to disagree with our Israeli policy, but when you bring up completely unfounded numbers of how much of the media that is Jewish owned followed by a statement essentially saying Jews control the money, then there is a slight odor of anti-Semitism. Plus, shouldn't you be WK'ing somewhere instead of posting here?

It is not anti-Semitic to disagree with our Israeli policy, but when you bring up completely unfounded numbers of how much of the media that is Jewish owned followed by a statement essentially saying Jews control the money, then there is a slight odor of anti-Semitism. Plus, shouldn't you be WK'ing somewhere instead of posting here? Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

Hey, Again i said "rumored" as in accused or suspected but unsubstantiated, but if you really want founded numbers, there is plenty of info on the web - beyond the conspiracy sites - should your interest extend beyond an argument. I've been rumored to have a horse-cock, Viagara was made from a drop of blood from my erection, the personality of Casanova, drop-dead gorgeous good looks, six-pack abs, and an irresitably panty-dropping singing voice, but that isn't totally true - i can't sing for shit. LOL.

I am/was saying that the U.S. is a victim of terrorism as a direct result of unilaterally supporting Israel. As an ally, an ally that has paid a human cost for my alliance, I can ask a favor(try negotiations again) of my ally, and it shouldn't be too much to ask. T
Originally Posted by thorough9

When we give more money to Arab states than Israel I guess I just don't see that as "unilateral support" of Israel. We give a tremendous amount of military aid to Egypt, the Saudi's, and Jordan. I'm just not seeing how things are so unilateral.

I'm also not clear where you get that Israel isn't willing to negotiate. Not willing to go back to the '67 borders? Yeah, I can see that, they were there, and they've offered to go back nearly to them before, and the Palestinians want none of it. They want Israel gone. Period, end of discussion (for them I mean).

My comments on your apparent anti-semitic views are how one sided you view things. Reading your posts this is what someone would take away.

1) Israel has not and never will even consider negotiating with the Arabs.
(wrong, they have in the past and they will in the future if they're ever approached in good faith, see the Camp David Accords)
2) Israel gets all the US money and the Palestinians get none (the meaning of the word "unilateral")
(wrong, Israel gets more than the Palestinians, but the PA gets nearly a Billion a year and all the Arab countries get more than Israel)
3) The US supports only Israel's military. (again, meaning of the word "unilateral")
(wrong, the US is a major supporter of Egypt, the Saudi's, and Jordan's military as well as that of Iraq now)
4) The US supports Israel because the Jew own all the banks, media, etc., etc.
(You throwing in there that it's "rumored" is not a get out of jail free card. If it's nothing more than rumor, conjecture, or innuendo it should be ignored. I heard a rumor that you have carnal relations with goats in your backyard, should I make a decision on whether or not to hire you based on that rumor? Of course not)

Anytime an individual is so vehemently opposed to a specific group of people as you have posted it's not a stretch to think you might just not like them very much and be prejudiced against them.

What is a stretch, though, is to think if we withdraw some of our support from Israel (since you said you didn't want it all withdrawn) the Arabs/Muslims in the region would start to like us (or at least hate us less). It's not going to make a bit of difference.

Jack

kcpapa you made a classic mistake; being anti-Muslim is not racism as Islam is not a race. There are Asian Muslims, Black Muslims, White Muslims, all kinds of Muslims which is not racist. Yes, I think Islam, as it is being taught, is more cult than religion.

kcpapa you made a classic mistake; being anti-Muslim is not racism as Islam is not a race. There are Asian Muslims, Black Muslims, White Muslims, all kinds of Muslims which is not racist. Yes, I think Islam, as it is being taught, is more cult than religion. Originally Posted by john_galt

That's why I included "/Arab," so dipshits such as yourself could differentiate between the rest of the Muslim world. Looks like you made the classic mistake...which is basically just being yourself.

When we give more money to Arab states than Israel I guess I just don't see that as "unilateral support" of Israel. We give a tremendous amount of military aid to Egypt, the Saudi's, and Jordan. I'm just not seeing how things are so unilateral.

I'm also not clear where you get that Israel isn't willing to negotiate. Not willing to go back to the '67 borders? Yeah, I can see that, they were there, and they've offered to go back nearly to them before, and the Palestinians want none of it. They want Israel gone. Period, end of discussion (for them I mean).

My comments on your apparent anti-semitic views are how one sided you view things. Reading your posts this is what someone would take away.

1) Israel has not and never will even consider negotiating with the Arabs.
(wrong, they have in the past and they will in the future if they're ever approached in good faith, see the Camp David Accords)
2) Israel gets all the US money and the Palestinians get none (the meaning of the word "unilateral")
(wrong, Israel gets more than the Palestinians, but the PA gets nearly a Billion a year and all the Arab countries get more than Israel)
3) The US supports only Israel's military. (again, meaning of the word "unilateral")
(wrong, the US is a major supporter of Egypt, the Saudi's, and Jordan's military as well as that of Iraq now)
4) The US supports Israel because the Jew own all the banks, media, etc., etc.
(You throwing in there that it's "rumored" is not a get out of jail free card. If it's nothing more than rumor, conjecture, or innuendo it should be ignored. I heard a rumor that you have carnal relations with goats in your backyard, should I make a decision on whether or not to hire you based on that rumor? Of course not)

Anytime an individual is so vehemently opposed to a specific group of people as you have posted it's not a stretch to think you might just not like them very much and be prejudiced against them.

What is a stretch, though, is to think if we withdraw some of our support from Israel (since you said you didn't want it all withdrawn) the Arabs/Muslims in the region would start to like us (or at least hate us less). It's not going to make a bit of difference.

Jack Originally Posted by ksjack

Unilateral, as in one-sided support, as in reluctance to condemn obvious infractions of one party while doing so to the other. But hey, the world is all black and white. Everything is so simple. You're either for us or against us. You either support everything that Israel or _______ does, unconditionally, and voice no objections, or you're Anti-semetic or anti-_______. The world is not so simple, and diplomacy and politics can not be practiced or analyzed with such a simplistic and "Cowboy mentality"

What you took from my posts is: simply what YOU took from them. I'm a big boy. I know how to type, and I know how to communicate effectively. I don't need you to paraphrase anything that I said. And what YOU took from my posts is YOUR interpretation of what I said, just as it is YOUR interpretation of vehemence. If you're going to use my words, be sure to use direct quotes, and be sure to use them in context - not how YOU paraphrase and interpret them. Labeling one, incorrectly, as an extremist, is a defense mechanism employed when faced with either the inablity to combat an argument or an attempt to discredit an argument. Throughout this thread, I've never labeled you anti-Palestinian b/c your views differ from mine....Absolutes and extremism are the refuges of one who has an inability to process or recognize contructive criticism, and your insistence upon labeling anything but glowing praises for Israel as Anti-semetic is a reflection of that inability. I'm also not a sheep or a defeatist so I will never share your views, but I'm ok with that.

Unilateral, as in one-sided support, as in reluctance to condemn obvious infractions of one party while doing so to the other. But hey, the world is all black and white. Everything is so simple. You're either for us or against us. You either support everything that Israel or _______ does, unconditionally, and voice no objections, or you're Anti-semetic or anti-_______. The world is not so simple, and diplomacy and politics can not be practiced or analyzed with such a simplistic and "Cowboy mentality"

You defined the issue as black and white in your first post when you used, and continue to use, the word "unilateral" when our support is nothing of the sort.

What you took from my posts is: simply what YOU took from them. I'm a big boy. I know how to type, and I know how to communicate effectively. I don't need you to paraphrase anything that I said. And what YOU took from my posts is YOUR interpretation of what I said, just as it is YOUR interpretation of vehemence. If you're going to use my words, be sure to use direct quotes, and be sure to use them in context - not how YOU paraphrase and interpret them. Labeling one, incorrectly, as an extremist, is a defense mechanism employed when faced with either the inablity to combat an argument or an attempt to discredit an argument. Throughout this thread, I've never labeled you anti-Palestinian b/c your views differ from mine....Absolutes and extremism are the refuges of one who has an inability to process or recognize contructive criticism, and your insistence upon labeling anything but glowing praises for Israel as Anti-semetic is a reflection of that inability. I'm also not a sheep or a defeatist so I will never share your views, but I'm ok with that. Originally Posted by thorough9

Here's a hot tip for you. I'm a big boy too and I really don't need you to tell me what or how I should or should not post on a forum. You don't like what I post either respond to it or not, but I can assure you lecturing me on my attitude or behavior is probably not going to have much of an effect on me.

Like most liberals you just can't get over the fact that all us stupid hicks have an opinion and it differs from yours so we have to be shouted down, hence the STFU and numerous other comments instructing me what I should or should not say from you.

Whatever, Party On, dude.



Jack

T9 is not a racist. JG is not a racist. It's become almost automatic in this country now days to label anyone with an opinion a racist, and I'm pretty sick of it.

Certainly, there is nothing wrong with a reexamination of US/Israel relations. Relations with other countries are constantly in flux and nothing is permanent. Friendships between nations have always been a matter of convenience.

Like it or not, the US and Israel are natural allies. We share similar values, and have a long history together. If we were to blatantly abandon Israel it would have ramifications on our relations with every one of our other allies. How could a country, like Japan for example, trust us anymore after watching us throw Israel under the bus?

Our president openly calling for Israel to surrender territory was a colossal foreign relations blunder in my opinion. It should have been done behind closed doors if at all.

If the president thinks that his words will help our relations with middle-eastern Arab nations he's incredibly naive. Obama's mistake is thinking he can make political points with Arab nations by abandoning Israel. What he clearly doesn't understand is that the reason those Arab nations hate us and Israel isn't politics, it's religion. To us politics and religion are separate spheres of interest. In the Muslim world they are inseparable.

The Muslims who hate us hate us because we are heretics and blasphemers, not because we support democracy or are imperialistic or want their oil or exploit their land or blah blah blah. They hate us because we don't worship Allah they way they want Allah to be worshiped. Period.

The fact is that if we abandon Israel the radical Muslims will still hate us. We can't win their affection no matter what we do. So, the correct question isn't "Why the unilateral support for Israel?", the correct question is "Why Not?"

What do we have to gain from throwing Israel under the bus? The $2.8 Billion argument doesn't fly unless your argument is to stop all foreign aid because we don't give the Israelis any more than we give the Arab world. If you propose ending all foreign aid I'm with you.

Obama calling for Israel to surrender territory won during the 1967 war (which they didn't even start) is really no different than a foreign leader calling for the US to give New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and California back to Mexico.

T9 is not a racist. JG is not a racist. It's become almost automatic in this country now days to label anyone with an opinion a racist, and I'm pretty sick of it. Originally Posted by BigWayne

In case you missed the above post, JG admitted to being racist against Arabs-Muslims. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...good chances it's a duck. Pretending racism doesn't exist is the pure stupidity.

The Muslims who hate us hate us because we are heretics and blasphemers, not because we support democracy or are imperialistic or want their oil or exploit their land or blah blah blah. They hate us because we don't worship Allah they way they want Allah to be worshiped. Period. Originally Posted by BigWayne

Seriously??? Why haven't they attacked China? They don't worship Allah in China do they? How about Mexico? They are a largely Christian Nation? Brazil? Any South American country? Japan? How about Australia? It IS because of the repressive regimes generally backed by the US and our allies and our support for Israel.

Why haven't they attacked China? They don't worship Allah in China do they? How about Mexico? They are a largely Christian Nation? Brazil? Any South American country? Japan? How about Australia? It IS because of the repressive regimes generally backed by the US and our allies and our support for Israel.

I'm looking forward to the answer to this one also.

Why the lie KC papa? Can't argue otherwise? I NEVER said anything about Arabs. I was talking about Islam and I was very clear. (are you drunk again?) I consider Islam, it's practice, it's philosophy, and it's origin bordering more on being a cult than a religion. A dangerous cult.
An illiterate man goes into a cave, a child molester (even by the standards of those days) comes back with a written text that he says was written by God. Much of the Koran is copied from the Torah and the Old Testament. So I guess that makes the Islamic god a plagarist as well. You say that a billion people beleive in Islam. Which version? At least with christianity the various denominations have a central root with similar beliefs. Islam says all people of the book (Muslims{irrelevent to race}, Jews, and Christians) are to be respected. Unless of course you are reading the new improved Koran which demands that Jews and Christians be slaughtered. In the old Koran women had a near equal footing with men (based on cultural differences) but in the new improved Koran women rank somewhere below cattle. Islam, like the other two great religions, originated in the middle east. The Torah and the Old Testament started out harsh and brutal but softened with the passing of years. The Koran has become more brutal and there seems to be no end in sight.
I can recognize the enemy of my time, can you? There were millions of people in the last century who believed Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were reasonable men who could be bargained with. Until someone allows for the position that you be allowed to live there can be no accommodation.