A few days ago I was listening to a local show on talk radio here in the Tampa/St.Petersburg area and the host had a caller on who wanted to talk about Israel and the Middle East.

His basic premise was that the good of the many outweigh the good of the few. He believed if the Jewish State of Israel were to be removed by the surrounding middle eastern countries(Syria,Jordan, Iran) that it would put an end to the many years of violence in that region. And to this he suggested the United States remove all of its support for Israel and let the natural order of things occur there.

The host was quick to admonish the caller and did not give him much air time there after.

But I wanted to see the opinions and have a debate about this very topic.

Questions for debate:

1. Would allowing the eradication of Israel put an end to the violence in the region?

2. If the United States removed all support for Israel would countries like Iran and Syria no longer have a reason to call the U.S. enemies?

3. Do you believe that Israel is the sole reason for much of the violence in the middle east?

1. Would allowing the eradication of Israel put an end to the violence in the region?
What does Israel have to do with Dafur? Or Morocco's genocide campaign against the Berbers? Or the Islamic civil war in Algeria? Or the Iran-Iraq war? Syrian's take over attempts of Lebanon? Or when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Or the fighting going on between Yemen and Saudi Arabia? In short almost none of the violence in the Middle East has anything at all to do with Israel.

2. If the United States removed all support for Israel would countries like Iran and Syria no longer have a reason to call the U.S. enemies?
Syria started calling the US enemy long before the US gave Israel any support. They do not like what the US stands for, our support of Israel is just an excuse.

3. Do you believe that Israel is the sole reason for much of the violence in the middle east?
I just proved above that 95% of all the violence in the Middle East has nothing to do with Israel. The reason for violence there is the Arab xenophobic reactions, not the existence of Israel.

1. Would allowing the eradication of Israel put an end to the violence in the region?

No.

2. If the United States removed all support for Israel would countries like Iran and Syria no longer have a reason to call the U.S. enemies?

No.

3. Do you believe that Israel is the sole reason for much of the violence in the middle east?

Hindsight is 20/20, placing the state of Israel where its at under the conditions it occurred in my opinion was a horrible idea giving the scope of human ignorance. I blame those people the most, next I blame the people that basically accept the reality of that situation and feel its all ok. Then I move on to hate on the people that think one side should destroy the other, and so forth and so on.

Overall I feel that the state of Israel does indeed add to the fires of Islamic extremism, after all one day the people of Palestine, I know they did not have a flag or a nation the west created for them, had to accept a new reality or die fighting it. Overall I don’t think it helped end any of the problems brought about by ignorance.

1. Would allowing the eradication of Israel put an end to the violence in the region?
I think I can safely say that the eradication of any country in any time in history would not put an end to violence per say.

2. If the United States removed all support for Israel would countries like Iran and Syria no longer have a reason to call the U.S. enemies?
If the US ceased support for the illegal occupation of the post 1967 territories I think it would go a long ways toward providing a path for peace between Israel and its adversaries. Israel then would have to carry the burden of the West Bank Settlements alone which would make that colonial policy less attractive. Would that help improve our relations with Syria and Iran? I think our support for Israel's present policies are a real thorn in our relations. I think resolving the occupation matter would go a long way toward improving things, although I'm not naive enough not to recognise that there still would be other problems.

3. Do you believe that Israel is the sole reason for much of the violence in the middle east?
No, no more than any country is the sole reason for anything. I do think Israel's intransigence in maintaining and extending its illegal occupation and Settlements is a source of anger and instability in the region. One can point fingers at Hamas but they were democratically elected, which American and Israeli officials kept insisting was needed in Palestine and the rest of the ME. Haven't heard that chorus much lately have we? In any case, if Mahatma Gandhi was the Palestinian representative Israel would still refuse to negotiate a peace based on the internationally agreed basis for a solution, UN Res. 242, which has as its principal feature an Israeli pullback to the 1967 armistice line.

1. Would allowing the eradication of Israel put an end to the violence in the region?

Eradication of Isreal sounds like someone is wanting some genocidal action here- no, I am not for that- for ending Isreal as a JEWISH ONLY STATE- yes, I am all for that. They should have to allow Palestenians to buy all the land they wish, at fair market value, that any Isreali can buy, and even restricted Isrealis can buy, have a true power sharing goverment, not allowed to ban anyone from a freely elected goverment, and deal with it if they end up out of power in thier elections. And protections given t all races and religions equally. They should have to integrate thier military with non-jews and palestenians.

One thing Isreal should have NEVER been allowed is to make it a jewish "homeland" when someone else was already living there! And to top it off, had never a country for 2000 years!

We need to be consistant with our approach to ALL ME countries- sabre rattling against Iran for the prospect of nukes and allowing Isreal to have lots of them, well, that is just nutty and no wander folks think we are beholden to all Isreal decisions, and biased against all other countries outside Isreal. Isreal exists because American and Britain, while pretty much the sole powers in the UN, MADE them exist- otherwise- it was a little second rate nation with a quirky mono-theistic religion 2000 years ago.

They CERTAINLY have no real right to that land as a birthright anymore than a native Indian in the US has a right to my house since his family 100 years ago might have walked over where it sits now.

So- yes, if we eradicate "Isreal as we know it as a goverment"- I do think it would stop SOME unrest- but, also, Loreng is not wrong- the ME arabs are highly xenophoic and will continue to start stuff with each other just as well.

2. If the United States removed all support for Israel would countries like Iran and Syria no longer have a reason to call the U.S. enemies?


nah, they would find other reasons. - America has had a pretty bad foriegn policy towards other nations for abourt 50 years, and alot of poeple were tortured to death and had family members disappeared because of the US interference, and that doesn't just go away by itself, after one righteous act!

3. Do you believe that Israel is the sole reason for much of the violence in the middle east?

No, but it is a flashpoint- the rest of the stuff Loreng said too.

How can you have fair elections when you require part of that government to made up of a certain type of people?

Short answer- you can't. That is why in my other post on the question close to this subject- at some point, we are going to have to force that country into being multi-ethnic power sharing goverment- even if it takes a generation- but the blind stupid loyalty for no good reason thang we have been doing is not doing anyone any good.

The problem is that there are those that have said we should not force democracy onto Iraq or other countries, so those same people would have a problem with this... If they are consistent

This is true- that is why the ME is so freakin' screwed up- we are STILL dealing with the after-effects of the ottoman empire- the US and Great Britain have really mucked up the whole area- the creation of Israel didn't help things a bit- since there were already folks living there and all - I am more for going ahead and letting Iraq split into three countries personally- along natural ethnic dividing lines, then they can negotiate country to country- whatever form thier goverment takes.

Israel is an artificle construct that just throws an even BIGGER monkey wrench into the works.

My inner reactionary that gets exhausted with the conflict (over decades of money and talks and constant bullcrap, to no avail) says, pull out every dime, every diplomatic talk and let them slaughter each other in bloody warfare, because that is ALL they want, until there is only a few hundred of them left to pick up the pieces. And maybe, just maybe they will get it, eventually. So I understand what you could possibly say on the radio, but its not really feasible when discussed intelligently, is it?

Talking about Israel is a pandoras box, we are now going to have another thread noone can keep track of as it goes on and on for 15 pages, like all others before it.

Of course you cannot eradicate Israel. But before everyone from every corner of the globe rehashes here the rights and wrongs done to Israel by the Palestinians, who had no homeland and were ousted by all arab nations, made war and lost, didnt accept treaties, Israelis retaliated with undo force and all thier injustices, theft and barbarities, barbarities on all sides lets say, a solution IS in order, which IS going to have to be mutually accepting.

But even as I type it, I have NO hope. Watch as this thread goes berserk, and noone will have hope, no solution, just a bone to pick.

So perhaps letting them slaughter each other until theres few left, IS the only solution I dont know, the best minds, tacticians, diplomats in the world have worked on this problem and they get nowhere.
It certainly does give reason to the idea to abandon irrationality to its own devices.

I don't buy that there isn't a solution. UN Res. 242 as internationally recognized boundary accompanied by a comprehensive agreement that gives full recognition to Israel and a Palestinian state is a basis for normalization of relations. But it will never happen as long as America keeps subsidizing Israel's illegal and ultimately self-destructive occupation policies.

I also don't agree that Israel has to give up its Jewish majority character as unfair as it has been to so many Palestinians. Most states, I believe, come into being as a result of killing and transfer of an indigenous population. The Palestinian Authority signed on to the 2002 Palestinian agreement which accepts the Jewish character of Israel as part of a broad agreement which involves a major pullback to the 1967 armistice line. If they can live with it, I can. There are 46 Muslim majority countries, some of which are listed as 100% Muslim. The world can handle one small Jewish state.