Democratic Party leadership statements of support for Israel

Of course, there seems to be some confusion about what actually happened in your instance, Brandon.

A question for those supporting Israel's position:

There are how many US citizens in Lebanon? 25k? Let's say that several dozen of them get blown up in the process of Israel 'defending themselves' (as many Lebanese citizens have been). Would Israel still be justified in their actions?

Cycloptichorn

Cyclo--

Here is my thing:

1) The Jews were hunted like animals all over the world, and one of the most widely hated ethnicities on the face of the earth. If you want to bring diverse, warring groups together, bring up how much they both hate the Jews. Instant allies.

True enough. Why do you think this is? Complete irrationality by every other group in the world? I seriously would like to know the historical basis for this.

2) Israel was carved out by others and given to the Jews. So far, in my opinion, they've done nothing wrong but a) be born and b) survive and c) live long enough for the rest of the world to be so morally convicted of the inhumane treatment they've suffered, to be given a homeland, where they shouldn't have to feel hunted and threatened.

Hmm, to be more accurate, the Jews were given Israel because none of the other allied nations wanted to absorb them into their populations after WW2. I'm not making a moral judgement of this, just stating what I've read to be the case.

Why did their homeland have to be in the area which is 'homeland' for Christianity and Islaam? Was this a good idea? Wouldn't they have been much safer somewhere else?

3) There are still countries wanting them wiped off the face of the earth, who have sworn to do it and tried to do it.

This is true, but it does not give Israel any special moral justification for their actions. They are hardly the only country in the world who has been threatened with extermniation, historically.

4) Their very existence is openly threatened.

True, but this does not give them any special moral justification for their actions. We openly threaten the existence of Iran and other 'axis of evil' countries, but that doesn't give them the right to attack other countries or any sort of special moral justification.

5) They are bombed on their buses and in their restaurants and on their streets because of their religion.

Incorrect. It is not because of their religion. It is because of their state, their policies, their actions, their location. You may notice that the 'enemy' states speak often of eradicating Zionism, but not of eradicating Judaism. There is a perceptable difference.

6) It should be well understood that since they are attacked constantly and openly reviled and threatened with obliteration, that their defense under attack will be decisive.

It is hard to say whether they were attacked or not. We have no evidence that they were, other than the fact that they say they were; there certainly was no tangible evidence of an 'attack.' I'm not saying that they weren't, just that there is confusion about the issue.

7) People act as though the 67 war was an arbitrary decision by Israel, rather than a strike against the plan to destroy them by Arab nations.

While I did not speak of this issue specifically, I will state that every nation has justified aggressive actions as 'defense' throughout history. This does not give Israel any special moral authority.

8) If Israel sent terrorist bombers into Palestine, I wouldn't support it. Why don't people give Israel their due? Don't support everything they do, but look at each move objectively and fairly in the context of the last 50-60 years.

What is the difference between using a terrorist bomber and a helicopter to blow up people?

What is the difference between using a terrorist bomber and denying water and medical care to people who desperately need it?

What is the difference between using a terrorist bomber and an army sargent who kills children?

Only a difference of viewpoint, money, technology.

..they've done nothing wrong but a) be born and b) survive and c) live long enough for the rest of the world to be so morally convicted of the inhumane treatment they've suffered, to be given a homeland, where they shouldn't have to feel hunted and threatened...

freedom4free, Follow the money explains how most politicians vote, but the deeper question about Israel is our country's support of Israel that identifies itself as a "democracy," but is not.

I just finished reading "The Other Side of Israel" by Susan Nathan, a Jew. She lives with the Palestinian Arabs in Tamra, and knows first hand of how the Jews of Israel treats the Palestinians.

It's an eye-opening, insightful, story of the Jewish oppression of the Palestinians and Arabs in Israel.......

Israel kills Lebanese civilians
An Israeli air raid has killed at least 13 Lebanese civilians who were fleeing southern border areas. Women and children were among those killed when the convoy was hit. "Bodies litter the road," an eyewitness said.

Want to know what I'd do if I were the PM of Israel? I'd inform the slammite world they had thirty (30) days to find a place to put the "palestinians" and that the place had to be at least five hundred miles from Israel, and that 31 days hence, I was going to simply kill any found closer than that, oh, and have a nice day....

Putin Thinks Israel 'Pursuing Wider Goals'


Saturday July 15, 2006 9:46 PM


AP Photo SUM187

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (AP) - President Vladimir Putin said Saturday that he thinks Israel is pursuing wider goals in its military campaign against Lebanon than the return of its captured soldiers.

``However complicated the questions are, maximum efforts must be applied to resolve the situation in a peaceful way and I think all efforts have not been exhausted,'' Putin said. ``However, it is our impression that aside from seeking to return the abducted soldiers, Israel is pursuing wider goals.''

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5953499,00.html

He's right ofcourse.

Israel is the agressor.......

....I mean, aside from the holocaust denial thing, you make it sound like Hitler was some sort of a misunderstood genius and a victim of some sort of a Jewish/French/British/NewYorker conspiracy after the Poles invaded Germany for no reason....

The basic realities are that WW-II was caused by racism (mostly German), evolutionism and the ideological doctrines derived from it including naziism and communism, ideas about "will to power" and the like also derived from Chuck Darwin's bullshit as well as from that of people like Nietzsche, and also largely by an out of control arms race which Hitler hoped to win by simply catching a wave and riding it so to speak, and what that means is more or less as follows:

Prior to WW-I the most major mimlitary expense of western nations was capital ships which had a service life of two or three decades at least. After 1919 tanks and military aircraft became major expenses and they had a useful life of a few years before becoming outmoded. Nations trying to play the game had three options:

• They could do what England did and prototype each new generation of tanks and aircraft and hope that God and/or their navy might keep the nation from harm in the event of war while the latest prototype was being produced.
  
• They could do what the Poles and French did and build an entire new generation of weapons and spread it out amongst their forces and look like the baddest of the bad for six or eight years without fighting any major wars, and then have their governments overthrown by leftists as the costs of all that bankrupted them.
  
• They could do what Hitler did, and build entire new generations of weapons and equip their militaries with them and start a major war on the assumption that how much he owed the banks would cease to matter the day after he was proclaimed Kha Khan (Genghis Khan's old title) of the entire world.
  

What Hitler did was called catching a wave and riding it, or at least trying to. What the British did had the disadvantage that most of its forces would have very little clue regarding the most modern weapons at the outbreak of any war and that the infrastructure for manufacturing and maintaining the latest weaponry would not be there initially. They got lucky.

As for the "misunderstood genius" Hitler, he had several chances to win and could have won very easily by doing any one or two very simple things differently. He could have built the jet Messerschmidt as an area defense fighter early on which would have totally denied the skies over Germany to allied bombers; he could have started the Atlantic war with the 300 ocean-going U-boats which Doenitz wanted instead of spending money on battleships which had no hope of beating the Anglo-Saxon powers in surface battles, he could have made Franco some sort of an offer he couldn't refuse and seized Gibralter early on; he could have entered Russia and the Ukraine as a liberator instead of as a mass murderer trying to kill everything in sight....

But the simplest thing he could have done which would have won was simply to not invade Russia. People I speak to who were living in Russia in the 30s say that the system was on the verge of collapse by 35 - 37. You misunderstood genius could have simply waited and picked up the pieces, after dealing with England.