Why unilateral support of Israel?

Guess I typed my post with the invisible keyboard strokes, lol

STFU.

The posts were civil until you showed up with your "what's your point" and your "why ask the fucking question" lines. So you can drop the agressive-passive approach. If you want to contribute to the thread with civility, then do so, but if you come here blowing a bunch of hot air and internet puffery, then I will respond accordingly. You can answer a question without having to re-inforce your illusions of intellectual grandeur, JackASS. And as far as not responding well when what's presented is not what's expected, ain't that the pot calling the kettle round and hot.....

I can tell you something that I'd learned by sixth grade: If all of the people over there want you dead, then stay the fuck away from over there - especially if you don't live there: If i get my ass kicked everytime i go to my friend's house to visit, then my friend is gonna have to come to my house. And, unilateral support of Israel is the reason why most of the people over there want us dead. I fully understand Islamic extremism, but I also understand why their extremism is directed at the U.S. I also know the history of the region and you attributing unilateral support of Israel to Islamic extremism is like attributing the neutralization of the American Indian solely to Indian aggression. Both instances are about the acquisition of land and territory that belonged to another. We didn't commit the Holocaust and as horrid as it was, we shouldn't carry any guilt that compells the US to unilaterally support Israel, especially since the US basically defeated Nazi Germany, and even more so when factoring in the cost of American lives both in WWII and since.


BTW get a dictionary and look up the word "rumor". Right next to it, you'll find those numbers that you're looking for. Originally Posted by thorough9

In reverse order...

Rumor is your acceptable level of information when making decisions? Okay.

We can leave the Middle East tomorrow. We can tell Israel to go screw themselves tomorrow. Do you honestly believe the day after that radical Islam will suddenly think we're their friends, or at least have a change of heart about our being the Great Satan? Not likely.

In a perverted sort of way the Muslim world's hatred of Israel is a stabilizing influence. Look back through history (long before 1949). This has never been a peaceful region. While Israel is their lightening rod they have someone other than each other to hate. Look at what happens when the focus changes to other Arab states. The Iran-Iraq war. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait (without intervention do you think he'd have stopped there?).

You can't discuss Israel without bringing into the discussion extremist Islam, they are too inter-related.

While I agree with another poster that Israel is far from pristine it can't be denied that the Arab states have been the aggressors in the major conflicts that have involved Israel. The 1956 Sinai War, the 1967 "6 day war", the 1973 Yom Kippur war, all of them were initiated by Arab states with Israel defending its borders. In their victory over the invaders they captured territory and have so far held most of that territory.

You might not like it, I might not like it, but history shows that most of the time borders are set by the victors in military conflict. Sure, some can be negotiated, but the starting points are what was captured and the winning side has the benefit of negotiating from a position of strength. Whether we like it or not, when a country is invaded, beats back the invaders and captures territory, they set the terms. Until, that is, someone else can do that to them. It's the way its always been and I suspect the way it will always be.

I have no idea if you support Obama's plan to start negotiating by giving back all the territory captured in the 6 days war. Israel won't do it. A lot of that land they kept because it was nearly indefensible and they aren't going to let that happen again. Besides that, why should they? If the Palestinians have shown one thing it's that it will never be enough. They will NEVER be satisfied as long as one little village in that region flies an Israeli flag. That's not rumor or conjecture, that's their stated goal. "Drive Israel Into The Sea" is Hamas stated purpose.

Jews can make just as good a historical claim on this land as any other group of people in addition to the claim that the original Israeli territory was legally given to them in several ways as a homeland as well as the legal claim of being captured territory in defense of their nation. Those are all valid claims.

Now look at what the Palestinians can claim. Were some "displaced"? Absolutely. They have also been allowed to live there with more rights than most Arab countries allow them to have. But it's never enough. It never will be enough.

You ask why we support Israel so one-sided. Financially we don't. We give more money to Arab states combined than we do Israel in the region. We are the largest supporter of the Palestinians financially. Militarily, absolutely we do and in my mind rightfully so. Israel hasn't invaded Syria, or Jordan, or Egypt to try to expand their borders. They've actually given back captured territory. While not pristine (nobody is that fights to win) I believe them to have captured the moral high ground in this regard so we should back them.

There is no Palestinian nation. There never has been. The Palestinians consist mostly of nomadic transients settling in the region because, to be blunt, nobody else wants them. Israel has never done what Saudi Arabia did recently by booting out several hundred thousand from their borders.

Why is it that Jordan, or Syria, or Egypt haven't stepped up and said "Hey guys, we feel your pain, here's some of OUR land for you to make your homeland. Good luck and Allah bless." Oh, because that's THEIR land? And it's THEIR land more than Israel's land is Israel's how? Honestly I think that if any of the parties believed this would solve the problem and bring about a lasting peace they might very well do it but they know it won't because having land for a Palestinian Homeland isn't the problem. The problem is there are Jews living in an area that Jews have lived in for thousands of years, they hate the Jews and they want them dead or at least gone. That's the problem. Belief in anything else is simply naive.

Finally, if the PA came to the table and said "Look, if you give us the land back that was captured in '67, and let us rule ourselves, we will promise to recognize your right to exist, live in peace with you as good neighbors, and begin a new age of cooperation." and REALLY MEANT IT. And then DID IT. Do you doubt for one minute that Israel would no welcome that solution? I don't. But the Palestinians will NEVER make that offer. Anything Israel offers will NEVER be enough for them as long as there's an Israel, and Israel knows it.

Perhaps it's possible to not pick a side, let them solve their own differences. We tried that once prior to WWII and that didn't work out so well. I'm not going to argue that the current policy hasn't exactly been a raving success either, but it hasn't resulted in a world war, at least not yet.

Jack

They are big boys stop giving them money and let them fend for them self. Simple

World War 2, France??? We gave, and gave, and gave. What did we get from France? They won't join NATO. We liberated their country and then they decided to become isolationist when it was time to pay up. You want to win this argument (you can't) then don't bring up France. Hell,they won't even let us fly FB-111 bombers over their country to bomb Khadaffi.

Again, show me in the US Constitution where it says that representation in the US Congress is supposed to be proportional.

I get it, you are an anti-semetic, a Jew hater, a wannabe camp guard. You are one sick bunny or maybe I should say piggy. Originally Posted by john_galt

Nice try, but not at'all. France: France lost lives, land, etc, was conquered and occupied, in a World War, and got the living hell beat out of them. They had no money and had to rebuild their entire country - on credit - a nation on welfare. Did you expect them to be World leaders? France was traumatized, even more than the rest of the world, and with the rest of the world vowed "never again". France is a sovereign nation BUT they are neither our "most favored ally" nor a diplomatic liability. France is a non-issue. But isn't it just like the FOX parrot to become righteously "enraged" and lose sight of the main points, which you have no answer for, and harp upon some miniscule and inconsequential detail in an attempt to turn a mole-hill into an attention diverting mountain.

And just like the FOX parrot to insist that any questions concerning Israel, makes the inquirer Anti-semetic.. You are becoming more and more pathetic. Your arguments are weak & couldn't hold water, and when they are proven to be so, you devolve into boogey-man terms. Typical republican bullshit.

John Citizen: What about gas prices?(Bush Era)
Republicans: uh...... Gay people are getting married. Abortions. Stem Cells
John Citizen: Maybe.. we shouldn't have gone into Iraq
Republicans: uh.... You're Un-American. You're against our troops.
John Citizen: Since you oppose all of his plans, what is your plan?
Republicans: uh.... He's not even a citizen - he wasn't born here - he's a Kenyan Muslim
John Citizen: Maybe we should re-evaluate our relationship with an ally
Republicans: uh... You're anti-semetic

I wonder if you hold the same attitude about those who want to re-evaluate our "alliance" with Pakistan. Wait - there's no boogey-man term for that one ..... yet

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk....

Pathetic, Joana Galt, absolutely F'n pathetic.

A bunny? A piggy? I don't know if you have a bestiality fetish or if you're trying to make another unbubstantiated acccusation. Am I LE now? Do you want to see my Hobby-birth certificate? The long form? LOL -LMAO - ROTFLMAO! I pull apart a few of your posts, and injure your little fragile-ass ego, and now i'm a piggy. I rest my case.

The jews were scattered across the globe for centuries and the land (possession being 9/10 of the law) was in the hands of the Palestinians. The entire area was conquered by the Ottomans, who were later defeated by the Briwish in WWI. Nobody wanted, or gave a damn about the land b/c there were no oil fields. So the Palestinians (tribes) were allowed to stay where they had stayed, for all of the years since the jews were scattered about. There were a few extremely small pockets of jewish population in the area, but the palestinians were displaced by the jewish migratory influx following WWII and the holocaust. Until then, the two populations existed peacefully.

And if historical claims are your argument, then the American Indian can re-patriate any part of the US that they choose, whenever they choose: So if enough Native Americans move into KC, it should legally be theirs? Are you gonna move out of your house and move to South Dakota? LOL. Hell no. I'd throw rocks, old car mufflers, empty bottles and whatever else i could get my hands on.....

The US supported Israel and any other secular regime in the area to counter the uniting Islamic influence and the common cause of independence from britain: we supported Sadaam before he left the reservation. The region would be different if Israel had simply beat the arabs on their own, but they beat them with American and British arms and support. The US became so much more involved to counter British influential monopolies over oil producers.

As a result of our interference and unilateral support, we are the recipients of a hate that is fifty years in the making - and all because we support Israel. How many American lives is an Israeli homeland worth? NONE. If Israel is attacked tomorrow, how many American lives do we lose before we say that it's really not worth it? We may have been better off if we'd just conquered an oil producing country - like - Iraq. LOL.

The jews were scattered across the globe for centuries and the land (possession being 9/10 of the law) was in the hands of the Palestinians. The entire area was conquered by the Ottomans, who were later defeated by the Briwish in WWI. Nobody wanted, or gave a damn about the land b/c there were no oil fields. So the Palestinians (tribes) were allowed to stay where they had stayed, for all of the years since the jews were scattered about. There were a few extremely small pockets of jewish population in the area, but the palestinians were displaced by the jewish migratory influx following WWII and the holocaust. Until then, the two populations existed peacefully.

And if historical claims are your argument, then the American Indian can re-patriate any part of the US that they choose, whenever they choose: So if enough Native Americans move into KC, it should legally be theirs? Are you gonna move out of your house and move to South Dakota? LOL. Hell no. I'd throw rocks, old car mufflers, empty bottles and whatever else i could get my hands on.....

The US supported Israel and any other secular regime in the area to counter the uniting Islamic influence and the common cause of independence from britain: we supported Sadaam before he left the reservation. The region would be different if Israel had simply beat the arabs on their own, but they beat them with American and British arms and support. The US became so much more involved to counter British influential monopolies over oil producers.

As a result of our interference and unilateral support, we are the recipients of a hate that is fifty years in the making - and all because we support Israel. How many American lives is an Israeli homeland worth? NONE. If Israel is attacked tomorrow, how many American lives do we lose before we say that it's really not worth it? We may have been better off if we'd just conquered an oil producing country - like - Iraq. LOL. Originally Posted by thorough9

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you're going back as far as the Ottoman empire why stop there (particularly since you bring up the Native Americans)? You can continue down that path in a circular argument for as long as you like and it will get you nowhere.

The NATION of Israel was founded the way most liberals would like the world to be run, by committee and grant from the United Nations with the partition of the mandate of Palestine. When Great Britain abandoned that mandate in May of 1948 Israel declared itself a sovereign nation. The Palestinians began their attack the next day.

In modern times, Great Britain was the conqueror and controller of that region before it began giving back land to Arab countries. Further back in history, to me, doesn't really matter. Right, wrong, or indifferent, after GB conquered and held that land after WWI it was theirs. They sought a resolution to the problem through the UN (and League of Nations earlier) and there never was a satisfactory result from them. GB allowed sporadic immigration of Jews to that area as they could do since they controlled that land.

From the time Israel declared itself a sovereign nation, when have they tried to destroy the Palestinians or any other group (except in self-defense after first being attacked)? They've never lusted after other lands. You can't show one bit of evidence that Israel would not be content just to live in peace with their neighbors.

Are they perfect? No. But of the two sides they are certainly the most willing to compromise. Virtually every plan ever put forth to end the conflict is rejected by the Palestinians out of hand and it will continue to do that as long as Israel is there.

As far as the Native Americans being able to repatriate whatever they want, well, no they can't. Again, right or wrong, they are a conquered people. Now if the US Government wants to return their lands, as they are the owners by conquest, then they can do that, but the Native Americans can do nothing about it themselves as they are the ones negotiating as the conquered from a weakened position.

You bring up our aid in the wars and you're right but you also have to remember who the aggressors were in those wars. We came to the defense of a smaller nation being attacked without provocation on multiple fronts. You may not agree with that aid, but you can't change it now.

Once again, you seem to think if we just abandon Israel everyone there would love us. That's not going to happen. This is a religious and cultural difference and Israel is just a very visible point for the Arabs in that region. If for some reason Israel should vanish in the night, the west will just become the next target, starting with Europe where the invasion by immigration is already in full force.

Jack

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.

We are a nation of Christians and the Bible pretty much says it's a good thing to be on their side and a bad thing to be against them.

I hate to admit it, but I tend to agree with JG that this is an anti-Semitic thread. Trust me, no one would know anti-Semitism like our favorite little neo-con. Of course, JG then proceeds to dumb up his arguments with his normal crazy, illogical, and downright stupid rhetoric. If we didn't back Israel, the Arab country would hate us anyways because they see us as rapers of their land for oil. Not that this is true, but this is the perception. If their governments took care of their people with their vast oil royalties, the perception may dissipate. This thread essentially comes off as the Jews own the media and the money and that there are too many Jewish Congressional members compared to the population which is why the US supports Israel.

Shirley you jest... Does 911 ring a bell?? It wasn't Jews that did it, remember?

We are a nation of Christians and the Bible pretty much says it's a good thing to be on their side and a bad thing to be against them. Originally Posted by Waitt

Says a man, on a board, where men buy "time" from women.

Nice avatar, BTW

I hate to admit it, but I tend to agree with JG that this is an anti-Semitic thread. Trust me, no one would know anti-Semitism like our favorite little neo-con. Of course, JG then proceeds to dumb up his arguments with his normal crazy, illogical, and downright stupid rhetoric. If we didn't back Israel, the Arab country would hate us anyways because they see us as rapers of their land for oil. Not that this is true, but this is the perception. If their governments took care of their people with their vast oil royalties, the perception may dissipate. This thread essentially comes off as the Jews own the media and the money and that there are too many Jewish Congressional members compared to the population which is why the US supports Israel. Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

It's nothing of the sort. It's a "why are we supporting another nation when supporting that nation is bad for business" thread - especially when the support flows in one direction. Look at the thread objectively, in the abstract, and take out the word Israel and put in Albania, Somalia, or Libya, or whatever other country that you like and re-evaluate. The first question asked would be "What is ____ doing for us?" followed by "How will an alliance with _____ be detrimental to us?"

Getting back to the question - why? Although it is done in a round about way, it is illegal for a country to do it directly, Israel is a major lobbyist and contributor to the US political scene. Money talks.

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

...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.[/url] Originally Posted by john_galt

From anti-Semitism to anti-Muslim/Arab. Racism is racism JG, my little unstable friend, and neither are acceptable. At least you finally admitted to being a racist...not that I didn't know that already.

Foreign policy is a fickle mistress. This is the real world and allies are bought, just like politicians are bought. We want a base in your country...here's some money. Those bases aren't there just for us to add some protection those countries. They are also logistical support for our military. We are worried about your nuclear arsenal and the security of such...here's some money.

I don't like giving our tax dollars away either, but it is a fact of life. Will we stop giving money to Pakistan because, more than likely, Osama bin Laden was being protected by some Pakistani officials? No. Should we stop giving them "aid"? No. Why? Because they are the nuclear arsenal I am referring to in the above example. Paying a few billion a year versus the risk of terrorists procuring a nuclear device. I choose the paying of the money. We are buying influence and that is what much of foreign policy is about. We don't just hand out the money for absolutely no reason. When we give out money, there may be an obvious reason or it may be an underlining agenda.