15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 08:32 pm
@georgeob1,
Obama has been careful to not say anything in regard to some issues, but reading between the lines, that is all we can do, Obama is not pro-Israel, far from it. He made a point of granting his first tv interview on an Arab network, and now he is going to be visiting a Muslim country, I guess Turkey, which granted is sort of an ally, but it is not Israel. He has to walk a tightrope for a while, but I think you will see events and policies begin to drift to the undermining of Israel. Another thing he has done is open up talks with Syria, and we all know he intends on talking to and warming up to Iran, a country that has vowed to wipe Israel, off the map. The Iran guy says Israel is a cancer that needs to be removed.

So I don't know where you have been, George, when the above has made the news?
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 10:54 pm
As usual, George is wrong about Israel. It is far fetched that O is somehow being anti-Israel by appearing on an Arab media source. O has always made it clear that he wants to talk to and have relations with all countries.

O is intelligent and, as such, he will soon see how valuable Israel to the USA.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 11:15 pm
@okie,
Well, Okie -- do you think that makes President Obama an anti-Semite ?

Whether we agree with him or not he has been fairly clear that he believes we have allowed our relations with the Arab & Islamic world to become unnecessarily hostile and stagnant and that some dialogue with Syria and Iran is advisable. These are certainly reasonable positions -- indeed they were the policy of this country until 9/11. They are certainly not a sufficient basis on which to conclude that he is either an anti Semite or anti Israel. If so you should also add Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and even Reagan and Clinton to your list.

If alternatively you wish to apply a higher standard for "anti Semitism" - say anyone who believes that Israeli policy could be wrong, or that their treatment of the Palestinians has been both unfair and in no one's interest (not ours, not the Palestinians, and not the Israelis themselves either) - then perhaps you could make a case for it. By that standard I too am an anti-Semite (I suspect Advocate might agree). However, I don't think that such a standard could withstand even a little rational scrutiny. By the same logic anyone who even wishes to see some limitations on continued affirmative action is necessarily a racist. Are you a racist??

Now it is a fact that certain Zionists and some evangelical Christians believe that we all have a moral obligation to support Israel's security and ascendancy in the region - no matter what they might do. That however is a matter of personal religious belief. While I have no objection to it, I also recognize that such considerations have no place in our national policy or politics. Moreover they also have no place in a national policy in which we seek to treat other peoples with justice and in accordance with our own founding political and moral principles. According to these principles Palestinian human beings have the same worth and intrinsic rights as Israeli human beings, and our interest in peaceful relations with the Islamic world is as great as that with Israel.

Turkey, by the way is a long-term NATO ally, one that for decades supported us in Korea and throughout the Cold War (significant for the Turks in that they had a land border with the USSR and looked across the Black Sea at them). We have no such treaty relationship with Israel.

0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 11:24 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

As usual, George is wrong about Israel. It is far fetched that O is somehow being anti-Israel by appearing on an Arab media source. O has always made it clear that he wants to talk to and have relations with all countries.

O is intelligent and, as such, he will soon see how valuable Israel to the USA.


Please educate me. Just what value has Israel provided the United States?

Perhaps you will assert they help us in confronting enemies we wouldn't have without our unthinking support for Israel.

On the contrary our support of Israel has cost the United States a great deal, in terms of strategic relationships; the cost of dealing with political adversaries we wouldn't otherwise have; the direct cost of subsidizing Israel and paying off Egypt and other countries to make peace with her; and as well as the cost of the military establishment required to protect her.

Please don't raise up the canard of Israeli technical innovation in weapons systems. Israel has long been highly adept at stealing U.S. military technologies by whatever means necessary - through official programs pushed through by her supporters in Congress or through espionage as may be required. There is plenty of both to be found in the public record.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 11:57 pm
Is Israel Worth the US Aid Given It

Israel and Egypt are the two largest recipients of U.S. aid. For its“participation” in the Gulf War, Egypt was forgiven its indebtedness of $9 billion. Israel pays its bills. It receives $2.8 billion every year. Of that amount, $2.0 billion is for military aid and $0.8 billion for economic aid. It’s fair to ask whether this is a good deal for the American taxpayer.

What are the Facts?

The only democratic country in the Middle East. Israel is the only genuinely democratic state in the Middle East. It is committed to freedom and equality, and the rule of law. It embodies the fundamental values that are in tune with those of America and that America has traditionally supported. Israel’s military and political importance in the Middle East and its strategic position stabilize the entire area, including the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. During the Cold War, it was America’s indispensable rampart against the inroads and expansionist ambitions of the Soviet Union. It is now a western bulwark against the aggressive intents of Iran and other bellicose nations that threaten the interests of the United States. It is a most reliable partner in the promotion of Western strategic interests and in the stabilization of the Middle East. Over 20% of its budget goes for defense, compared to 7% in the U.S. and less than 1% in Japan. Israel has one of the best armies in the world. Its navy and air force are the major deterrent forces in the eastern Mediterranean.

Israel effectively secures NATO’s southeastern flank, without having a single American soldier stationed in its territory. Still, the superb military installations, the air and sea lift capabilities, the equipment and food storage capacity, and the trained manpower to maintain and repair sophisticated U.S. equipment are instantly at hand in Israel. It is the only country in the area that makes itself available to the United States, in any contingency.

Only fraction of aid stays in Israel. There is no other country in the Middle East except Israel that can be considered to have a stable government or populace friendly to the United States. There is much danger that any military aid to Arab countries, and military equipment given or sold to them, will suffer the same fate as the untold billions of dollars and priceless military secrets that were lost to our enemies in the debacle of Iran. Is Saudi Arabia more stable? Egypt? Jordan? Kuwait? Judge for yourself!

Only a fraction of the aid given stays in Israel. By far the largest share remains with American defense contractors. Peter McPherson, former administrator of the Agency for International Development, estimated that every billion dollars of aid to Israel creates 60,000 to 70,000 jobs in the United States.

Compared to the $2.0 billion yearly military aid to Israel, the U.S. contributes more than $130 billion(!) every year to the defense of Europe and more than $30 billion to the defense of Japan, Korea, and the Far East. Over 300,000 U.S. troops are stationed with NATO and over 30,000 U.S. troops in the Far East. In contrast, not one single U.S. soldier needs to be stationed and put at risk in Israel. U.S. military analysts estimate that the U.S. would have to spend the equivalent of $150 billion a year in the Middle East to maintain a force equivalent to Israel’s.

There are many other benefits that the U.S. military derives from Israel. Israel is the only country that has gained battlefield experience with U.S. weapons. This experience is immediately conveyed to the U.S. Enormous quantities of captured Soviet weapons and defense systems were turned over to the U.S. military for analysis. Israel, in the light of its experience, continually modifies U.S. weapons systems. For instance, Israeli scientists have made over 200 improvements in the F-15 alone and similar improvements, mostly in avionics, in later-generation planes. It would be more in line with reality if military aid to Israel were classified as part of the defense budget, rather than as “aid”. Israel is truly America’s unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East. Former President Reagan put it well: “The fall of Iran has increased Israel’s value as perhaps the only remaining strategic asset in the region on which the United States can fully rely.” American aid to Israel is a two-way street. Aid to Israel is America’s greatest defense bargain.

--factsandlogic.org
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 12:06 am
@Advocate,
Glad to note that the standard script hasn't changed.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 08:05 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

There are also those, within and without, the Jewish community who assert that anything less than unquestioning support for whatever Israel does to suppress its neighbors and expand its territory is a sure indicator of anti Semitism.


There are also those in the Jewish community that could assert that those who are "concerned" about the U.S.A.'s relationship to Israel might harbor some personal feelings about Jews/Judaism. Sort of like being concerned about the U.S.A.'s relationship with an African nation. Small nations normally do not engender much attention from the U.S.A.'s citizenry. Perhaps, the mentally healthy attitude for non-Jews, in relating to Israel, is just to ignore them, and not empower the little country with more meaning than it actually has.

Similar to those that complain that American Jews have an influence in the U.S.A. disproportionate to their small numbers in the U.S.A., Israel seems to engender a disproportionate interest from some people, considering it is as large as NJ?

Is it not interesting that the peoples that have the most interest, world-wide, in Israel's supposed machinations, are monotheistic? It almost makes me wonder if two of the three monotheistic faiths are competing, on an unconscious level, as to who will be the only monotheistic game ultimately left in town, so to speak?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 10:45 am
@Advocate,
Wrong assumption; it is not the "only democratic country in the middle east." Israel is an apartheid state that continues to develop settlements on Palestinian lands. The Jewish states building of fences and check points within its own boundary is not a description of a democracy by anyone's imagination except by people like you.

Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 12:09 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Israel is more of a democracy than most other countries. It has a parlimentary system in which elected minorities, including Pals, are represented. You say there are checkpoints within its boundaries. I doubt this. If there are, they are temporary for security purposes, certain not aimed at citizens of Israel.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 12:11 pm
@Advocate,
It's not how the government is run; it's how the minorities are treated. Minority representation in any government doesn't have much influence; ergo, the US.

It's about legal property rights, freedom of movement, and the destruction of their means of income.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Mar, 2009 05:56 pm
All the Arabs have to do to be given back what was stolen by Israel from what the UN gave the Arabs, is grant Israel's right to exist in the territory the UN gave Israel, and simultaneously stop trying to steal more than what the UN gave the Arabs!
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 01:25 pm
Following is a well constructed summary of several various arguments in defense of Israel presented in this thread since its inception. I apologize for posting the whole thing, but there was no good place to edit and it is all pertinent. Admittedly it was targeted for the benefit of a highly partisan audience, but for those still fair-minded, a responsive chord or two might be struck here:

Quote:
Mar 19, 2009 9:49 | Updated Mar 19, 2009 10:01
I am not Jewish but...
By RUPERT MURDOCH

Over the years, some of my wildest critics seem to have assumed I am Jewish. At the same time, some of my closest friends wish I were.

So let me set the record straight: I live in New York. I have a wife who craves Chinese food. And people I trust tell me I practically invented the word "chutzpah."

Ladies and gentleman, I am humbled by the honor you have given me - because this award speaks more to your good work than it does to mine.

The American Jewish Committee started in response to the persecution of Jews in czarist Russia. And your response took a very American form: an organization that would speak up for those who could not speak for themselves.

In the century since your founding, the American Jewish Committee has become one of the world's most influential organizations. Yet though your concerns begin with the safety and welfare of Jews, these concerns are anything but parochial. The reason for this is clear: You know that the best guarantee of the security of Jews anywhere is the freedom of people everywhere.

Your good work has helped bring real and lasting changes to our world. Unfortunately, while some threats have been defeated, new ones have taken their place. And these new threats remind us the AJC's work is more vital than ever.

In Europe, men and woman who bear the tattoos of concentration camps today look out on a continent where Jewish lives and Jewish property are under attack - and public debate is poisoned by an anti-Semitism we thought had been dispatched to history's dustbin.

In Iran, we see a regime that backs Hizbullah and Hamas now on course to acquire a nuclear weapon.

In India, we see Islamic terrorists single out the Mumbai Jewish Center in a well-planned and well-coordinated attack that looks like it could be a test run for similar attacks in similar cities around the world.

MOST FUNDAMENTALLY, we see a growing assault on both the legitimacy and security of the State of Israel.

This assault comes from people who make clear they have no intention of ever living side-by-side in peace with a Jewish state - no matter how many concessions Israel might make. The reason for this is also clear: These are men who cannot abide the idea of freedom, tolerance and democracy. They hate Israel for the same reasons they hate us.

As I speak, the flashpoint is Gaza. For months now, Hamas has been raining down rockets on Israeli civilians. Like all terrorist attacks, the aim is to spread fear within free societies, and to paralyze its leaders. This Israel cannot afford. I do not need to tell anyone in this room that no sovereign nation can sit by while its civilian population is attacked.

Hamas knows this better than we do. And Hamas understands something else as well: In the 21st century, when democratic states respond to terrorist attacks, they face two terrible handicaps.

THE FIRST HANDICAP is military. It's true that Israel's conventional superiority means it could flatten Gaza if it wanted. But the Israel Defense Forces - unlike Hamas - are accountable to a democratically chosen government.

No matter which party is in the majority, every Israeli government knows it will be held accountable by its people and by the world for the lives that are lost because of its decisions. That's true for lives of innocent Palestinians caught in the crossfire. And it's also true for the Israeli soldiers who may lose their lives defending their people.

In this kind of war, Hamas does not need to defeat Israel militarily to win a big victory. In fact, Hamas knows that in some ways, dead Palestinians serve its purposes even better than dead Israelis.

In the West we look at this and say, "It makes no sense." But it does make sense.

If you are committed to Israel's destruction, and if you believe that dead Palestinians help you score a propaganda victory, you do things like launch rockets from a Palestinian schoolyard. This ensures that when the Israelis do respond, it will likely lead to the death of an innocent Palestinian - no matter how many precautions Israeli soldiers take.

Hamas gets away with this, moreover, because it does not rule Gaza by the consent of those it claims to represent. It rules by fear and intimidation. It is accountable to no one but itself.

This is the chilling logic of Gaza. And it helps explain why even a strong military power like Israel can find itself at a disadvantage on the ground.

THE SECOND HANDICAP for Israel is the global media war. For Hamas, the images of Palestinian suffering - of people losing their homes, of parents mourning their dead children, of tanks rolling through the streets - create sympathy for its cause.

In a battle marked by street to street fighting, the death of innocents is all but inevitable. That is also true of Gaza. And these deaths have led some to call for Israel to be charged with war crimes by an international tribunal.

But I am curious: Why do we never hear calls for Hamas leaders to be charged with war crimes?

Why, for example, do we hear no calls for human rights investigations into Hamas gunmen using Palestinian children as human shields? Why so few stories on the reports of Hamas assassins going to hospitals to hunt down their fellow Palestinians? And where are the international human rights groups demanding that Hamas stop blurring the most fundamental line in warfare: the distinction between civilian and combatant?

I suspect the answer has to do with the same grim logic that leads Hamas to provoke a military battle it knows it cannot win. Whether Israel is ever found guilty of any war crime hardly matters. Hamas gets a propaganda win simply by having the charge made often and loudly enough.

In this, Israel finds itself in much the same position the United States found itself in Iraq before the surge. There, al-Qaida realized that it was in its interests to provoke sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni - no matter what the cost to innocent Iraqis. That is the nature of terror. And what we are seeing in Gaza is just one front in this much larger war

IN THE WEST, we are used to thinking that Israel cannot survive without the help of Europe and the United States. Tonight I say to you: Maybe we should start wondering whether we in Europe and the United States can survive if we allow the terrorists to succeed in Israel.

In this new century, the "West" is no longer a matter of geography. The West is defined by societies committed to freedom and democracy. That at least is how the terrorists see it. And if we are serious about meeting this challenge, we would expand the only military alliance committed to the defense of the West to include those on the front lines of this war. That means bringing countries such as Israel into NATO.

My friends, I do not pretend to have all the answers to Gaza this evening. But I do know this: The free world makes a terrible mistake if we deceive ourselves into thinking this is not our fight.

In the end, the Israeli people are fighting the same enemy we are: cold-blooded killers who reject peace, who reject freedom and who rule by the suicide vest, the car bomb and the human shield.

Against such an enemy, I will not second-guess the decisions of a free Israel defending her citizens. And I would ask all those who support peace and freedom to do the same.

Adapted from a March 4 speech to the American Jewish Committee by the chairman and CEO of News Corporation on receiving its National Human Relations Award.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1237392665709&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 02:15 pm
Foxy, thanks for the excellent post.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 02:39 pm
@Advocate,
You're welcome. Just remember who wrote it the next time you are inspired to say something snotty about the GOP or the conservative point of view. Smile
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 11:04 am
Quote:
simultaneously stop trying to steal more than what the UN gave the Arabs!


This is a pretty stupid statement, no offense Ican. The UN hasn't given any land to the 'Arabs.' It never has come to pass; though I believe originally it was supposed to along side the creation of the State of Israel.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 11:31 am
@Foxfyre,
But you are so beyond the pale when it comes to politics.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 11:35 am
It's pretty ignorant to say that the UN did not offer land to the Arabs--land that was approximately the same area in size as that offered to Israel. We are speaking of a very small area in the world here. The Arabs however, have never agreed to anything less than having it all.

While neither side can claim the moral high ground or purity of motive in every instance, it is instructive to look at the whole history before drawing firm conclusions. For those who are interested, here is a pretty good concise history:
http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 11:38 am
@Advocate,
Perhaps. But at least I judge information, people, and policy by content, deeds, and results rather than by political or ideological affiliation. You might try that with an open mind and will find that on the issue of Israel that it will more often be those nasty Republicans and conservatives who more closely share your point of view.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 11:54 am
@Foxfyre,
Oh? "You judge information, people, and policy by content, deeds, and results?"

If that is so, what is your response to this article?

Quote:

War crimes in Gaza: Israel told to investigate
JASON KOUTSOUKIS IN JERUSALEM
21/03/2009 1:05:40 AM

ISRAEL is under mounting international pressure to begin its own investigation into possible war crimes committed during its January assault on Hamas in the Gaza Strip that killed at least 1300 Palestinians.

The renewed calls follow the publication of damning testimony from Israeli soldiers who took part in the war alleging that unarmed civilians were killed under loose rules of engagement, and detailing the wanton destruction of Palestinian property.

The soldiers' accounts have caused uproar across Israel and prompted an immediate response from the Israel Defence Forces' chief advocate, Brigadier General Avichai Mendelblit, who ordered two immediate investigations into the shooting of a mother and her two children, and the death of an elderly woman.

The allegations were raised by war veterans who were graduates of the Yitzhak Rabin pre-military academy and took part in a forum to discuss their experiences.

The Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, backed the military investigation, saying he was sure it would examine the matter with all seriousness. "We have the most moral army in the world," he told Israel Radio. " I have no doubt that every incident will be individually examined."

Israeli human rights groups expressed outrage at the testimony. In a letter sent to the Attorney-General, Menachem Mazuz, a coalition of 13 Israeli groups said it was time to stop whitewashing suspected crimes in Gaza.

"The Government's failure to establish an independent investigation constitutes a violation of Israel's responsibilities under international law," it said.

Michael Sfard, a lawyer for one of the groups, Yesh Din, said an extra-military body had to be established to investigate the numerous new allegations.

"Until today, about six weeks since the end of military operations in Gaza, not a single criminal investigation has begun despite hundreds of testimonies which raise suspicion about violations of international law and of war crimes," he said.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 12:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
My response is that it is unsourced and unlinked so I have no way of determining whether it is from any source with any credibility re objectivity.

My response is that Israel has never been engaged in any activity with the Arabs in which accusations of 'war crimes' have not followed or in which anti-Israel types have not accused Israel of improper or excessive or illegal activies..

My response is that war is ugly and hurts the innocent along with the guilty.

My response is that Israel should investigate valid allegations of improper conduct and deal with any who may have committed valid war crimes.

My response is that the accusations may or may not be valid and there is no way to make a judgment about that from the article.
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 03:46:32