Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

Palomar · 2003-06-07 15:09:17

*Adrian might zonk me this time. For the longest time I've been wanting to ask this in an internet forum where I feel I've gotten to know the regulars pretty well AND where there's an international presence.

It's -not- my intention to start a flame war or to provoke people into red-faced keyboard-pounding fits of rage. Please know that (I think you all know me fairly well by now, too). I prefer to stick to Mars, space exploration and moderate political discussion, but I'm going to get "daring" this time:

Why does the U.S.A. support Israel? What are we getting out of it? I've heard the explanation that we are "defending and protecting Israel's liberties and right to sovereignity." I'm disinclined to "buy" that simply because most, if not all, politics is NOT about feel-good smarmy deeds of niceness or some high altruistic/moral duty to others.

A few years ago I had an e-mail exchange with a person who is (supposedly, anyway) somewhat knowledgeable about Middle Eastern affairs. He said the current State of Israel was created in order to give "displaced" persons a place to live after WWII and the Nazi regime and that the Palestinians had, prior to this, been the legally recognized owners of said land. That's what this other person said; I don't know the validity of it.

It just seems to me such a strange spectacle all the way around. I don't see the benefit of us helping Israel (yes, I know there are strong religious elements at play in this, but I'm keeping this in a SECULAR vein). It's not that I hope or wish them ill, because I don't. But it seems we get more hell and heartache for having stuck our nose into their business in the first place...and just how did we get involved, in the first place? We haven't (thank goodness) actively gotten involved in the dispute between India and Pakistan regarding Kashmir...so why are we involved with the Israel-Palestinian situation?

I don't know. ::helpless:: I wish we would have just stayed out of it from the get-go.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-06-07 15:22:53

Why shouldn't we support Isreal?

I ask because your post, and apparently your viewpoint, assumes we 'ought' not to.

While the state of Isreal has behaved in some questionable ways, is it enough to warrant the US, a self avowed promoter and protector of Democracy and Freedom, to no longer support the ONLY democracy in the middle east?

Staying out is no longer an option. Isolationism is not an option.

There's no direct benefit in us helping the poor people in Bosnia or Hatii- should we have just let them suffer at the hands of those who wish to kill them?

Palomar · 2003-06-07 15:43:32

Clark: Why shouldn't we support Isreal?

*I asked first: Why do we?

Clark: I ask because your post, and apparently your viewpoint, assumes we 'ought' not to.

*Not quite. I think I made it rather clear in my first post that I wished the U.S. had stayed out of this matter, period. From the get-go.

Clark: While the state of Isreal has behaved in some questionable ways, is it enough to warrant the US, a self avowed

*Self-avowed...

Clark: promoter and protector of Democracy and Freedom, to no longer support the ONLY democracy in the middle east?

*Is Israel a democracy? I don't know. Some people claim it is, others say it is not.

Clark: Staying out is no longer an option. Isolationism is not an option.

*So let's get involved with EVERY squabble between 2 parties on Earth?

Clark: There's no direct benefit in us helping the poor people in Bosnia or Hatii- should we have just let them suffer at the hands of those who wish to kill them?

*Is it the same thing? And didn't I say in my initial post that I do NOT hope or wish harm on the Israelis? Yes, I did. Please don't twist this around.

I'm the one asking questions -- sincere questions. I posted for the purpose of getting viewpoints and answers. Please don't start side-tracking the issue.

State YOUR opinion, Clark. You're good at winging out the questions, but I'm not interesting in playing "Twenty Questions"...I want opinions, viewpoints, ANSWERS.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2003-06-07 20:22:41

Here's my two cents. What do we get from our support of Israel, besides frequent policy headaches? We get an ally in the Middle East (just mis-typed "Meddle East", hmm) although it is an ally that is not always desirable. They tend to be a little uncontrollable and uncooperative at times. We also get to sell them our new military equipment, which they promptly test against Palestinians in desert conditions. That provides useful data before our own troops have to take the gear into the field. Limited, but useful to a point. Other than that, we don't get a whole lot, idealogic obligations to support "democracies" not withstanding.

This seems to indicate that it is not in our interests to find a peaceful settlement, which is virtually impossible at any rate. But assuming we do want to end the fighting, we will have to withdraw our blatant pro-Israel stance.

Disclaimer: I am not anti-Israel or anti-semitic! I am sick of being called a Nazi by ignorant jackasses! Not that there are ignorant jackasses on this board. :;):

If we really want peace, we'll essentially have to say "we're leaving, we'll be back in a year to talk to the winner." Otherwise, not much will change.

In short, I agree with Cindy that it would probably have been best to stay out of the whole debacle from the beginning. But, since we're involved now we have four real choices:

Continues as we are, trying to broker an impossible peace, in which case we will eventually have to admit our own hipocrisy.

Take an active role in protecting Israel and maintaining order, virtually annexing Israel. Despite being an avowed Imperialist, I think this would be a horrendously bad idea.

Let them duke it out, with no regard for the death toll and atrocities that will be committed.

Make an honest attempt to truly achieve a peaceful sttlement, unlikely as it may be. This means we must truly appear to be un-biased. This means we will have to do things which may not be politically acceptable to many quarters in America. No more sending Jewish women (Albricht) to negotiate with Arabs, expecting them to believe that we aren't biased. Lieberman for President? Nope. No more fat foreign aid checks to Israel.

Quite the mess, and there are no easy answers.

RobertDyck · 2003-06-07 21:45:17

As I understand the complex issue, the U.S. did attempt to resolve the "Jew" problem in Europe by supporting an independent Jewish state. That was Israel. Adolph Hitler was not the first one to consider Jews a problem in Europe. I was told in grade-school history that during the middle ages Jewish financiers were called in by small European countries that had a collapsing economy. After the economy was straightened out, the Jews were made into a scapegoat and forced out of the country. Remember this was at a time of feudalism and state religion. At the time of World War 2, feudalism was long since over, but fascism was just as intolerant; the Jews were often still treaded as though they didn't belong. To prevent another holocaust, the U.S. supported a Jewish state.

After World War 2 the Soviet Union allied itself with Arab countries, so Israel was America's ally in the cold war, and often America's agent in a war by proxy in the Middle East. As I understand it, Palestine was destroyed in the process of creating Israel, so the process of creating Israel was far from perfect. The first Israelis fought amongst each other as well as against the Arabs, so they are also not a perfect example of freedom and democracy; however, they were an ally in a part of the world that exports so much oil.

Today the cold war is over. Fascism in Europe is dead, so the "Jew" problem does not exist. However, there are many people of Jewish descent in America, especially in New York. Politicians have to get their votes, especially in a place with as many votes as New York. With the world changing as it is, America needs allies, so throwing away an alliance with such a long-standing ally may not be prudent. However, the cost! The problems that America is dragged into are quite messy. Israel's behaviour has not been exemplary, in the last several years its treatment of Palestinians has been as bad as the suicide bombers. But despite the emotional hatred in the region, Israel's economy depends on low-wage Palestinian workers and Palestine depends on Israel for jobs. Even with all the fighting, they depend on each other.

So your question is a good one. Why should the U.S. get involved? Perhaps it is time to tell Israel to cease and desist the punitive strikes against Palestine, or the U.S. will wash its hands of it all. One friend of mine suggested U.S. troops in Palestine to stop Israeli forces, and Russian troops in Israel to stop Palestinian forces. He wanted to see the deliberate reversal to stop the fighting. I like that idea, but doubt it will ever happen.

One complicating factor in all this is nuclear weapons. Israel is widely believed to have nuclear bombs. One report claimed that when Israel started their nuclear program they sent intelligence service operatives to raid a U.S. ship carrying uranium. That uranium was used to build the first Israeli atomic bombs. When the U.S. found out who had taken the uranium, the government chose to do nothing about it. Other people feel the U.S. probably let Israel take the uranium and setup the "raid" to provide an excuse for deniability. Either way, you may want to remain close allies with every country you can that has nuclear weapons.

The whole situation is now a mess. I don't see any easy answers.

Josh Cryer · 2003-06-07 22:37:24

I'm not sure if you guys noticed, but there have been some promising moves towards peace there lately. Most likely due to the fact that the US ?got rid of? the last person to strike at Israel.

Ahh, politics.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that things look better now.

Josh Cryer · 2003-06-08 08:54:56

This is to clark and Cindy. But mainly clark. Because I know how Cindy would feel about invading a country where endless masscares are taking place.

clark would invade North Korea the first chance he got.

clark · 2003-06-08 21:52:28

Why do we support Isreal?

Simple. Because it is in our own interest that we do so.
I imagine...

A world in which the US withdraws support of Isreal. I imagine that the Arab nations, or their people, make good on their promise, and drive the Jews into the sea. I imagine Isreal, unrestrained, without recourse, turning to all available options to protect its integrity, and its citizens. I imagine the capitals of the Arab world in flames from low grade nuclear weapons. I imagine the Suez canal rendered useless. I imagine the vast oil fields of Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran all rendered useless in one form or another. I imagine nuclear fallout being carried on the winds to settle over the Mediterranian and southern Europe. I imagine global shipping in chaos, and the entire global economy brought to a standstill due to the inability to transport oil, or produce oil in the neccessary amounts. I imagine a famine of the first order in Africa because of this. I imagine world wide recession or depressions, which lead to a spiral effect causing massive economic upheveal as the capital markets collapse. I see this, don't any of you? ???

And Josh, North Korea is another issue, and invasion would be disastourous. There are no good options there, so we have to wait.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-06-09 06:17:45

Israeli people are carrying a lot of baggage from centuries of persecution - persecution against which they were effectively impotent. The most recent episode in this tragic saga was played out in Europe, the hub of modern civilisation, and its memory weighs heavily on the hearts and minds of jews everywhere.
But things are very different now. The jews have a homeland and they have a nuclear-armed military. They're never going back to being the world's punching bag, no matter what! For these reasons, I think Clark is essentially correct. Israel will be defended against arab forces with whatever means are available ... including, if need be, the unleashing of atomic destruction against arab countries. And, as he says, the world is far too small a place these days for such a disaster to pass unnoticed by the rest of the world. The consequences could be severe.

Perhaps as long as America is seen to be there, holding Israel's hand, antagonistic arab countries will be circumspect about risking another attempt at the invasion and annihilation of the Israeli state. Without U.S. support, some of the regional hotheads might just think they have a shot at the brass ring and be tempted to try for it.

I was brought up in an English/Irish household. The arguments about the shortcomings of the British and their empire - in particular their treatment of the Irish people - were neverending and, of course, fruitless. The situation in Northern Ireland, which exploded into senseless violence and appeared on our TV screen every night through much of my teen years, was the subject of some pretty heated debates.
What I learned was the futility of retaliation but also its inevitability. A protestant father sees his son murdered for no reason (other than his non-catholic status). Mindless with grief and bent on revenge, the father helps plant a bomb in a catholic bar. The relatives of those killed or maimed in the explosion, though up to that point peaceful and law abiding, now see protestants as less than human. Guess what happens next?

It's exactly the same in Israel/Palestine. Each side believes absolutely in the justice of their own cause and in the heartless inhumanity of the opposition. If you listen to an aggrieved Israeli for ten minutes, you can see her point of view and start to imagine the Palestinians as animals. Ten minutes with an aggrieved Palestinian, and you can't imagine why the butchering Israelis should be allowed to live!! They're both right and both wrong all at the same time! It's a nightmare.
The only way it's ever going to stop is if one side decides to turn the other cheek and pursue peace even while still under attack from the enemy, because there will always be some reason to stop the peace talks and resume the ceaseless cycle of retaliation. At some point, someone somewhere has to swallow the pain and say: "No! I will not retaliate!", and stick to that decision in the face of all provocation.
I regret to say my model of human nature tells me that can't happen - for the same reason that socialism doesn't work and crime is always with us. The average human is stupid, childish, and self-centred and, what's worse, lacking in self-discipline. (If you don't believe me, tune in to Jerry Springer once in a while ... I don't!! )

As for the original question (apologies Cindy! ), I don't think it can be disentangled from religion. I don't know enough about American demographics to be sure of this, but my impression is that the U.S. has a substantial jewish population. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Another of my impressions is that, by and large, jewish people place great importance on education and are often very talented. Again this is anecdotal in nature since I have no statistics, but if it were true it would help explain some of the historical animosity toward jews - jealousy is a powerful driver of malice.
If my impressions are accurate, such a population, in a meritocracy like America, should quickly rise to positions of responsibility and wealth and become quite influential. If so, would this not at least partially account for U.S. leanings toward protecting Israel?

Having said that, I've heard that almost all the arab countries surrounding Israel still have an unspoken policy that she must be destroyed completely. Given the opportunity, these nations would carry out that policy without hesitation and without mercy. Not that they would be interested in helping the Palestinians, by the way! As I understand it, the Palestinians would be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire if they were thrown back on the tender mercies of their brother arabs.
If all this is true, the Middle East is indeed a Pandora's box of evils. Even two thousand years ago, as the Roman province of Judea, it was a hotbed of religious turbulence which caused the empire more than its fair share of problems.
I wonder whether 'Judea' will prove equally troublesome for today's 'Roman Empire'? ???

RobertDyck · 2003-06-09 06:41:45

So if Arab countries attack Israel, then Israel will cause so much damage it will harm the entire world including the economy of the U.S. So the fact that Israel holds this threat over then head of the U.S. is the reason for the U.S. to remain allied with Israel? What other country could get away with threatening the economy of the U.S. to retain an alliance? This argument does not sound good. From that standpoint, the U.S. would be better of sending a strike team to take away Israel's nuclear weapons. There is precedent for this: the U.S. didn't like the fact that one of the former Yugoslav countries had a university experimenting with relatively high-grade uranium, it was 10% U235. That university intended to develop a commercial nuclear reactor with it. Even though no one had any intention of developing weapons, since it had a potential of being used for a nuclear bomb the U.S. sent a strike team to go steal it.

The history of the region is complex. The Ottoman empire ruled from 1517 until 1917/1918. Administration was left to Arabized Palestinians. According to Encarta:

In 1880, Arab Palestinians constituted about 95 percent of the total population of 450,000. Nevertheless, Jewish immigration, land purchase, and claims were reacted to with alarm by some Palestinian leaders, who then became adamantly opposed to Zionism.
Aided by the Arabs, the British captured Palestine from the Ottomans in 1917 and 1918. The Arabs revolted against the Ottomans because the British had promised them, in correspondence (1915-1916) with Husein ibn Ali of Mecca, the independence of their countries after the war. Britain, however, also made other, conflicting commitments. Thus, in the secret Sykes-Picot agreement with France and Russia (1916), it promised to divide and rule the region with its allies. In a third agreement, the Balfour Declaration of 1917, Britain promised the Jews, whose help it needed in the war effort, a Jewish ?national home? in Palestine. This promise was subsequently incorporated in the mandate conferred on Britain by the League of Nations in 1922.
During their mandate (1922-1948) the British found their contradictory promises to the Jewish and Palestinian communities difficult to reconcile. The Zionists envisaged large-scale Jewish immigration, and some spoke of a Jewish state constituting all of Palestine. The Palestinians, however, rejected Britain?s right to promise their country to a third party and feared dispossession by the Zionists; anti-Zionist attacks occurred in Jerusalem (1920) and Jaffa (1921). A 1922 statement of British policy denied Zionist claims to all of Palestine and limited Jewish immigration, but reaffirmed support for a Jewish national home. The British proposed establishing a legislative council, but Palestinians rejected this council as discriminatory.
After 1928, when Jewish immigration increased somewhat, British policy on the subject seesawed under conflicting Arab-Jewish pressures. Immigration rose sharply after the installation (1933) of the Nazi regime in Germany; in 1935 nearly 62,000 Jews entered Palestine. Fear of Jewish domination was the principal cause of the Arab revolt that broke out in 1936 and continued intermittently until 1939. By that time Britain had again restricted Jewish immigration and purchases of land.

I have also been told that Jewish factions engaged in terrorist attacks against British occupation during their rule. These claims state that Israelis see that terror is an effective way of gaining independence and land in the region; that is why they fear Palestinian terrorism so much. If that is so then there is no ethical "high-ground", both sides are using the same tactics.

Although Palestine has been given the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Israel keeps creating settlements to claim land and take it back. The 1993 accord was supposed to bring a 5 year transition government which would result in Palestinian self-rule. Israel still hasn't recognised Palestinian autonomy or sovereignty, and that is part of the problem. Many Palestinians continue to demand all of Israel and commit terrorist attacks on Israel. Israel has been acting as an occupying conqueror; Palestine has been making unreasonable demands. Both sides continue to attack civilians, killing people who just happen to be on the street at the time of the attack.

I'm not calling for a strike against Israel, but let's stop and think before blindly supporting one side.

clark · 2003-06-09 08:33:46

So if Arab countries attack Israel, then Israel will cause so much damage it will harm the entire world including the economy of the U.S.

This isn't about the global economy, or even the US economy itself. It's about global stability. It's about preventing situations where the unthinkable becomes rationale.

If you doubt me, remember, many still see the dropping of Fat Man and Little Boy as very rationale acts during the end of WW2.

So the fact that Israel holds this threat over then head of the U.S. is the reason for the U.S. to remain allied with Israel?

Isreal is not holding a gun to our head, at least not so by choice. Their situation requires that they take extreme measures to ensure their security. And like anyone, they will take whatever steps neccessary to protect themselves and their way of life from those who would seek to destroy it.

Wether or not we are involved, this situation dosen't change. This is their reality. We can either sideline ourselves, thus removing our ability to affect an outcome, praying that others have the good sense to make the right decisions- or we can be involved, and try to effect an outcome that isn't any of the myriad of nightmares that the region promises to be.

And the idea of taking away Israeal's nukes is a fantasy at best. No such option is available, and even if it did exsist, would only destabilize the situation further.

RobertDyck · 2003-06-09 08:52:36

They have big weapons, we can't take away their big weapons, and we are scared of them using their big weapons. Even if those weapons are not pointed at you, this is not a good reason to do anything.

I still think the threat of pulling out and leaving Israel to the mercy of the Arabs is an excellent bargaining chip, and should be used. The Israelis must be made to stop their attacks on Palestine. Of course, Palestine must be made to stop their terrorist attacks on Israel as well. As Shaun pointed out, if the West (not just the U.S.) completely pulls out of the region the result would be the end of both Israel and Palestine. One would think they would be motivated to behave. If they continue to behave as they are, perhaps abandoning them is a good idea. Palestine did petition the U.N. once for support, that constitutes a request for help. If help is conditioned on the end of all violence, they might consider it. The Palestinian government must be held accountable for all Palestinian terrorist groups. If they can't prevent their own people from attacking another country, they don't deserve to be the government. Likewise, Israeli assaults must end, along with their over-flying Palestinian territory with military jets. If both sides are unable or unwilling to behave themselves, perhaps the best recourse is to pull out and leave them to suffer the consequences.

dickbill · 2003-06-09 09:07:22

Palestine did petition the U.N. once for support, that constitutes a request for help. If help is conditioned on the end of all violence, they might consider it. The Palestinian

If the UN was a credible, strong and respected organization, as it should be, then it's a job for UN peacekeepers soldiers, to interpose between.

clark · 2003-06-09 09:21:43

I still think the threat of pulling out and leaving Israel to the mercy of the Arabs is an excellent bargaining chip, and should be used.

Why? I certainly fail to see the wisdom in such an act. We pull out from the region, thus reducing the security apparatus that all parties rely on to maintain some semblance of peace, and all hell will break loose. Isreal, smaller, outnumbered, poorer, will be threatened with invasion. Isreal will have no choice but to rely on it's strategic arsenal of nuclear weapons as a detterant. This will ultimetly fail though due to radicaized funadmentalists who will press the issue. Martyrs WANT to die. A nuclear weapon, as a deterrant, loses it's value. It's only value then is an actual military assesst used to achieve some sort of victory or stalemate.

In order to ensure long term security, Isreal will be tempted to obliterate the oil reserves of it's enemies. This is the source of their funds used to threaten the security of Isreal.

Are you starting to see where this is going?

If both sides are unable or unwilling to behave themselves, perhaps the best recourse is to pull out and leave them to suffer the consequences.

Except we, and all our children, will suffer the consequences of our inaction.

Bill White · 2003-06-09 09:37:23

Why does the U.S.A. support Israel?

IMHO:

(1) Israel is the closest thing to a Western style democracy in the Middle East and Israel's security forces allow the US to monitor the other Arab states without "our" hands getting too dirty. I tend to think Israeli intelligence does a certain number of "favors" for the CIA etc. . .

(2) The mutual hatred is so great that if we did not maintain a balance of power, there are Arab factions that would prefer to drive all Israel into the sea. And right wing Israelis that would drive all of the Palestinians onto the east bank of the Jordan.

For better or worse TV images of Caucasians being massacred as Arab tanks rolled through Tel Aviv would upset Americans more than all of Rwanda or Bosnia. Combine that with 100+ Israeli nukes unleashed to incinerate a hundred million Arabs.

(3) Related to (2) - by giving Israel AND Egypt billions in foreign aid the US retains significant control and influence over the behavior of both countries.

(4) The religious factors also influence US electoral politics. Any politician who proposed to abandon Israel to its fate would be doomed come re-election time. cindy, surely you now the ultra Christian right strongly supports Israel for "Rapture" related reasons. Without the support of this faction, George W. Bush would not be President.

There are many more reasons, IMHO, and I believe US support of Israel is "overdetermined" meaning there are layers of linked and overlapping reasons that cannot be isolated into a single thread of cause and effect.

A possible cynical reason (a minor reason?) --> US defense contractors who make big $$ selling weapons to Israel donate heavily to political campaigns. Hence - US tax dollars are given to Israel and Egypt who use those $$ to buy weapons from US contractors who then donate $$ to US politicians. :-)

But don't forget aid to Egypt as an integral part of US aid to Israel. Basically, the US is buying peace.

RobertDyck · 2003-06-09 09:52:08

Why? I certainly fail to see the wisdom in such an act. We pull out from the region, thus reducing the security apparatus that all parties rely on to maintain some semblance of peace, and all hell will break loose.

That is the point. When someone fails to see the wisdom of acting rationally, and fails to understand no matter how many times you explain it, the only way to make them understand is a good hard kick to the head. But a deliberate act by the U.S. or any Western country would be seen as another threat and they will fail to learn their lesson. For Israel to learn its lesson you must stay out of the way and let them get hurt by the consequences of their own actions; in sort, let all hell break loose.

If the UN was a credible, strong and respected organization, as it should be, then it's a job for UN peacekeepers soldiers, to interpose between.

If the U.N. is to become a credible, strong and respected organization then its decisions must be adhered to. It is most important to obey its decisions when the U.N. makes a decision against you. That means when the Security Council says you don't go to war against Iraq, you don't go to war against Iraq. No democracy can ever be a democracy if its ruling body is forced to obey the dictates of its most powerful member. If the U.N. is to have any credibility it must occasionally act against the United States. When the current U.S. government accused the U.N. of not being a credible body because it didn't authorize a motion the U.S. desired, it really stated that the U.N. is not a credible puppet of the U.S. But the U.N. is not supposed to be a puppet of anyone. The Iraq issue was a great opportunity for the U.N. to become credible but for a variety of reasons involving all members of the Security Council, the U.N. failed.

Bill White · 2003-06-09 09:57:32

In short, I agree with Cindy that it would probably have been best to stay out of the whole debacle from the beginning. But, since we're involved now we have four real choices:
Continues as we are, trying to broker an impossible peace, in which case we will eventually have to admit our own hipocrisy.
Take an active role in protecting Israel and maintaining order, virtually annexing Israel. Despite being an avowed Imperialist, I think this would be a horrendously bad idea.
Let them duke it out, with no regard for the death toll and atrocities that will be committed.
Make an honest attempt to truly achieve a peaceful sttlement, unlikely as it may be. This means we must truly appear to be un-biased. This means we will have to do things which may not be politically acceptable to many quarters in America. No more sending Jewish women (Albricht) to negotiate with Arabs, expecting them to believe that we aren't biased. Lieberman for President? Nope. No more fat foreign aid checks to Israel.
Quite the mess, and there are no easy answers.

Letting them duke it out is not a viable option, for humanitarian and strategic reasons.

Nor for electoral reasons. :-)

To be non-partisan about this: Rich Jews donate heavily to US political campaigns (traditionally Democrat) while the ultra-Christian right is vehemently pro-Israel. Neither the Dems or the GOP could advocate walking away from Israel and maintain viable national political support (i.e. funding).

*IF* the US keeps up the pressure on Israel for a viable two state solution maybe option 4 can come true. Otherwise its option 2, more or less forever.

Robert Dyk, please don't forget the US also gives billions to Egypt as part of the package.

If the U.N. is to become a credible, strong and respected organization then its decisions must be adhered to.

And, this is so - - ahem - - Canadian!

Not that I disagree, mind you, however I fear that given current US sentiments your proposition and $2.75 will buy a nice cup of coffee inside the beltway.

clark · 2003-06-09 10:06:28

When someone fails to see the wisdom of acting rationally, and fails to understand no matter how many times you explain it, the only way to make them understand is a good hard kick to the head.

Modern parenting, by Robert Dyck.... :laugh:

Okay Robert, we have people acting irrationaly. These irrational people have nuclear weapons. These irrational people, with nuclear weapons are being threatend by other irrational people who do not fear the nuclear weapons.

Is it rational for us to leave them to their own devices?

Is it rational for us to stand aside and wait and watch the inevitable implosion of two competing factions that see absolutely no room for comprimise?

Is it rational for us to allow the possibility of our very own security and stability to be threatened by the actions of irrational parties?

I have no problem with people having fist fights- as long as said fist fights happen far from my home, family, or possessions.

Shrugging our shoulders and saying 'enough' is tempting, but not an option. We don't live in that world anymore, and frankly, we shouldn't even consider it.

Bill White · 2003-06-09 10:15:11

Shrugging our shoulders and saying 'enough' is tempting, but not an option. We don't live in that world anymore, and frankly, we shouldn't even consider it.

George W. Bush began his administration vowing to stay out of the Meddle East (thanks Cobra for that one!) yet now even he sees that the US has no choice but to get involved. The Bush roadmap is essentially the Clinton plan with muscle added against Sharon and much more muscle applied against Arafat.

If the US can maintain even a decent illusion of impartiality (pressure Sharon to dismantle settlements) then this latest roadmap for peace may have a chance. I am not a big fan of Bush yet I owe him proper respect for the attempt - if he stays the course.

Palomar · 2003-06-09 10:51:45

*In what year and by what governing body were the Palestinians given the right to settle the land and claim it as their own?

Israel became a legally recognized nation in 1947 or 1948 (can't recall which at the moment).

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2003-06-09 11:04:16

Modern parenting, by Robert Dyck....

Why treat the other countries of the world as children that you must parent? If you see a friend from high school mismanaging his money, what do you do? If you see him screwing up his job and get fired, con a relative into giving him an old van, then when the van breaks down beg you to pay for a tow truck and repairs, do you pay for it all? Do you try to be a parent and spank him? I do have a friend who did all this. I just refused to help when the van broke down. I would give him a ride somewhere, and when he got the vehicle back to his own garage I offered my humble service to help tinker with it, but I did not pay for anything. If a friend is to learn how to be an adult, sometimes he must be responsible for himself. If you treat someone as a child, they will continue to act as a child; if you treat someone as an adult, they will learn to act as an adult. One of the secrets of parenting (especially teenagers) is to give them just a little more responsibility than they are ready for; then let them grow into it. When dealing with someone who is a peer and not your child at all, often the best thing you can do is nothing, just let them learn from the consequences of their own actions. What I'm trying to say is don't try to "parent" the planet.

Palomar · 2003-06-09 11:04:53

As for the original question (apologies Cindy! ), I don't think it can be disentangled from religion. I don't know enough about American demographics to be sure of this, but my impression is that the U.S. has a substantial jewish population. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

*I'm unsure of the statistics. I do know, however, that a sizeable segment of the evangelical/"born again" folks in the U.S.A. loudly and vocally support Israel and its cause (based on their belief that the Children of Israel are the "Chosen of God," and that the formation of Israel as a nation was the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and thus indeed their land...and the Pals need to obey God's will and get out). It's their right of religious freedom to believe this, of course, but it certainly serves to provoke and antagonize Arabs into feeling they are being discriminated against, i.e. it's Christianity and Judaism versus Islam.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-06-09 11:09:50

The "right of law" is a joke in this situation. It can be legitiamtely invoked by either side for a myriad of reasons, based on a myriad of historical evidence, depending on which you allow, or disallow, recognize, or not recognize- and don't foget which langauge it is 'officaly' written in, and what the 'translation' implies or dosen't imply.

Besides, the issue is moot beyond the first generation born into Isreal.

Children have no choice, they are born into the world as it is. Yet any solution would punish the children of the people who made the choices, and is ultimelty unjust and unfair since it punishes those who have done nothing more than be born.

A pragmatic, and ugly solution, worthy of Solemn perhaps is to threaten all sides with termination.

An invasion of Isreal by any foreign nation will result in the immediate disintigration of their capital. A refusal to comply with terms of a third party mediated settlement of hostilities between Isreal and Plastenians will result in economic and military sanctions on the Isrealies. Any use of nuclear weapons by Isreal will result in the disintigration of Tel Aviv.

The Palestianians will not get a military. they will become an occupied territory of a nation state, similar to what happened in Germany, Japan and now Afghanistan and Iraq.

All Middle East States will recognize Isreal and will reduce funding of terroism. Failure to do so will result in nuclear obliteration of their capital if any evidence is found demonstrasting that the nation state is funding terroist related activites.

Any effort by OPEC to turn off or reduce oil production will be treated as an act of war, and will result in military conflicts. The ability of OPEC to circumvent this policy is greatly reduced with Iraq under US control.

This is a solution to the mess, but it takes us to the brink.

RobertDyck · 2003-06-09 11:38:31

*In what year and by what governing body were the Palestinians given the right to settle the land and claim it as their own?

The Middle East Accord of 1993 was supposed to give Palestinians the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It established an interim government that was supposed to be replaced by permanent self-rule in 5 years. What "self rule" meant was a point of disagreement. Israel continued to expect Palestine to be under the authority of Israel, while the Palestinians expected it meant they were a sovereign country. Of course, Arafat continued to demand Jerusalem (as if that will ever happen!).

Bill White · 2003-06-09 12:07:14

As for the original question (apologies Cindy! ), I don't think it can be disentangled from religion. I don't know enough about American demographics to be sure of this, but my impression is that the U.S. has a substantial jewish population. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
*I'm unsure of the statistics. I do know, however, that a sizeable segment of the evangelical/"born again" folks in the U.S.A. loudly and vocally support Israel and its cause (based on their belief that the Children of Israel are the "Chosen of God," and that the formation of Israel as a nation was the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and thus indeed their land...and the Pals need to obey God's will and get out). It's their right of religious freedom to believe this, of course, but it certainly serves to provoke and antagonize Arabs into feeling they are being discriminated against, i.e. it's Christianity and Judaism versus Islam.
--Cindy

My children have a VeggieTales video --Josh and the Big Wall -- which makes precisely this point.

God "gave" all of the promised land to Joshua's people and therefore the people of Jericho had no choice but to leave. The people of Jericho (peas speaking with a French accent) are told to leave by Larry the cucumber. Their reply "We have a wall, and you do not!"

As a kid's video its amusing until you draw parallels with current events, then its really rather scary. But then if you view the video "as if" it were political satire, it is hysterically funny. (Well worth the VHS price even for adults, IMHO, or try your local library)

Sample dialouge --

Larry the cucumber and the children of Israel bump into the walls of Jericho. The French accented peas say:

"Who bumped into our wall?"

"My name is Joshua and these are the Children of Israel"

"Ohhh, Hello children. Nice to meet you. Now go away!"

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-06-07 15:09:17

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#2 2003-06-07 15:22:53

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#3 2003-06-07 15:43:32

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#4 2003-06-07 20:22:41

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#5 2003-06-07 21:45:17

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#6 2003-06-07 22:37:24

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#7 2003-06-08 08:54:56

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#8 2003-06-08 21:52:28

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#9 2003-06-09 06:17:45

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#10 2003-06-09 06:41:45

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#11 2003-06-09 08:33:46

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#12 2003-06-09 08:52:36

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#13 2003-06-09 09:07:22

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#14 2003-06-09 09:21:43

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#15 2003-06-09 09:37:23

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#16 2003-06-09 09:52:08

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#17 2003-06-09 09:57:32

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#18 2003-06-09 10:06:28

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#19 2003-06-09 10:15:11

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#20 2003-06-09 10:51:45

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#21 2003-06-09 11:04:16

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#22 2003-06-09 11:04:53

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#23 2003-06-09 11:09:50

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#24 2003-06-09 11:38:31

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#25 2003-06-09 12:07:14

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

Board footer