No what I said that even an organization as anti-Semitic as the UN is not as racist as you are. How does it feel to be to the right of the Nazi's and the KKK?

Notice Israel has given land, made concessions and the response to each has been violence, violence and more violence. Have the Arabs ever made a single concession? Have they ever fulfilled a single obligation?

You have repeated accused Israel of racism, and apartheid like actions. Perhaps with your vast experience and knowledge you could provide us poor ignorant souls with at least one law that is racial or religiously based? Since this seems to matter so much to you. Just a small challenge if you will.

If the world spent 1/1000th as much effort on Arab genocide maybe the Berbers in Morocco would not be facing extinction or the fact that more people have been murdered in Dafur every day than have died on both sides in Israel and Palestinian in a year. Or maybe the ongoing civil war in Algeria, or even Iraq for that matter. Given all those actions without any Jewish involvement I wonder who might be the real aggressors?

As for your pride in your lack of spelling it speaks volumes about ignorance in many matters.

What are you talking about "not budging an inch"? Israel has caved time after time after time. And what was their reward? Talk of "wiping them out", rocket attacks by Hamas, suicide bombers?

They gave up "land for peace" and got neither.

THe problem is WHO they are dealing with. And you just can't equate a liberal democracy of Israel with the neo-fascists who surround them.

I ask again, do you distinguish between violence of aggression and violence of self defense??

For the umpteenth time, what "instability" is happening around Israel? Where? The Palenstinian terrorists are being fought in defensive battles, big deal. No aggressive wars with other nations have threatened world security since 1973. For the middle east, that's pretty stable.

I keep listing reasons, and you keep not rebutting them, yet you keep saying this, which is untrue. I'll try one more time. Since I'm trying, could you please choose one:
a - refute my argument and provide evidence, OR
b - STOP asserting that there is "not one single thing Israel has done to help US interests"

Here's one more since you missed the first bunch. About 8% of the world's cargo passes through the Suez Canal. If, instead of Israel, you had some palestinian state, there would be perpetual warfare and potentially no shipping as a result. This happened in '56 and again 67-73. Israel now has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Those treaties stick because the US supports Israel. This contributes to peace in the Eastern Mediterranean, despite the wishes of fundamentalists in Egypt and Jordan. How can you keep denying this?


This statement is absolutely sick, and just goes to prove the second "D" in loreng's link. There were 10 or 20 million people displaced by World War II. About 600,000 of them were arabs who left the land that became Israel, and about 100,000 of those snuck back in from '48 - '56, and another couple hundred thousand never left Israel at all.**

Another 600,000 displaced persons were Jews that were kicked out of Arab lands. (Not to mention the 6,000,000 Jews "resettled" eastwards from Europe who no longer needed homes) At least a million people were left homeless, including lots of non-Jewish Eastern Europeans like the Poles, Hungarians, etc., who couldn't go back to their Soviet-occupied homelands. After Potsdam, 16 million Germans were repatriated from Eastern Europe, causing a couple of million civilian deaths in the process. For God's sake, it was a freaking World War.

- When you only focus on the displaced arabs, and not the displaced jews, that is a double standard.
- When you question the legitimacy of Israel and no other nation, that is a double standard.
- When you obsess over a "Jewish Homeland" but not an "Italian homeland" or "Japanese homeland," that is a double standard.
- When you select the jewish state of Israel (oh, and the Vatican )and say NOTHING about the 40 or 50 muslim states, that is a double standard.
- When you try to justify your hateful double standard with "I also condemn the Palestinians and China and Libya and (of course) the USA" that means nothing.
- The above is called anti-semitism. Sorry.


The 40 or 50 muslim nations don't care if you support them. They are establishing their religious empire whether you support it or not. Historically, they have done it and done it well. Western civilization is really just a blip on their radar, and they plan on re-taking and holding their land well beyond your lifetime. They are currently outbreeding Europe, and the results are not likely to be pretty.

Just curious, how do you think all of these countries in the world came to be? Do you think that someone planted an "English" tree and all of these English people appeared? They were invaded by Normans, Scots, Romans, French, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Vikings... If we applied your logic, there would be no nations, because every nation caused the displacement of someone somewhere. In the good old days, they just killed the inhabitants. In the 20th century, the arabs just up and left and were promptly screwed by their arab brothers who still won't grant them citizenship.

Last point - the "ethnic cleansing" you speak of involved, for most of the Palestinians, a move of what, 15 miles? Cry me a river brother. Like moving to the suburbs. And yet every time the news pick up the story, we see those sad Palestinians with the "key to their homes" supposedly stolen by Israel. What a load of crap. The smart Palestinians are in Europe or here in the USA getting rich. Oh yeah, and more than a million of them live in Israel.

**edit - I defer to loreng59 on the exact numbers of who went where, and can't believe I forgot about the Indian / Pakistani partition at this same time.

on edit, just noticed this addition:
You want to take one of the 30 or 40 richest countries in the world, a thriving Western democracy and staunch US ally, a multicultural nation rich in art, technology and culture, and turn it into a UN-governed backwater of undetermined future status? Great suggestion. Only the UN could administer such a brilliant solution as that.

To moderators:

I understand the rules of debate, but this question is essential to this debate for clarification?

Loreng... or anybody

What race is a Jew?? When did their become a Jew race?? How can someone be a racist even if they did hate Jews??

There is no such thing as a "race". It's an invention by people to magnify superficial differences.

Only the "unenlightened" among us cling to those ancient and obsolete artificial differentiators between people because they find it in their own best interests to do so.

Whether it's gaining an advantage professionally or in getting into college or just simply shaking down businesses based on pseudo-scientific "statistical" demographics, it's a bunch of hooey when one cuts through the crap.

There was once a time when people really believed in the concept of "race" and felt other "races" to be inferior. Science has disproved such bunk. Yet, the true believers remain since they can continue to justify their resentment, their hate, and their excuses for their own individual shortcoming which are projected to those who "look like them".

Race is a concept that should be stamped out of existence and not a moment too soon.

Then we can get to the heart of the human condition which is individual behavior, choices, and patterns of the same.

Until we get through the old fashioned "race game" we're really stuck in a morass of anti-progress.

Thanks for the update oh mighty Zen-Master-Helmet... care to answer the question philosopher-extraordinaire??

Because I've seen a couple of anti-israel people called racist, yet I never knew Jews were a race... I always thought it was.. I don't know... a religion. I mean a Christian isn't a race of people, and a muslim isn't a race of people... How'd the Jews get so lucky??

I'm probably not the best person to ask, but here goes.

Here is the deal from wikipedia. Basically the Jews migrated from Palestine and the middle east into parts of Europe, and then many migrated back. Many jews can actually trace via DNA their descent from Aaron, a Levite from the original 12 tribes. I'm pretty sure that other Jews trace back to Judea, but I'm not sure what the right words are for this geneticism.



You may also find this interesting.

droop224 - The answer is yes. Sorry I am trying to be serious. We have been around for nearly 6,000 years and all during that time we have been dealt with as a race apart. Apart and yet among at the same time.

Since anti-Semitism is the most common hatred on the planet and we have been among but not part of the communities of world we are a race, a religion and a culture. Unique among all civilizations. We do not consider ourselves to be superior to anybody, just different.

Ok, so you've argued that Jews are a race.

You and others have argued that Israel is a multi-ethnic country.

So how is being "anti-Israel", this multi-ethnic country, make me a racist? Furthermore, how is being opposed to a country's policies make them a racist? Am I Anti-Chinese or hate the Chinese because I don't agree with China's policies? Being "Anti-Israel" because you think they should return to the '67 borders (or the '48 borders) or being Anti-Zionist is not the same as those that think Israel should be pushed into the sea just because they're Jews. Jews opposed the creation of the State of Israel remember? Are they anti-semetic too? Or were they those rare crackpot Chomsky-esq self loathing Jews?

My suggestion: Get back on topic and start a thread on Anti-Israel vs. Anti-Semitism if you guys care that much.

My point is this. Israel was founded in a fashion that basically gave the natives of that land little to no say on it. Since then, its just been really some situation pot marked with war and gore. So then I ask was it a good idea. Has it gave any actual peace to the people which practice the Jewish religion. I would say no, but that’s just my opinion. Going on from now, what we have with the existence of Israel seems to be a repeat of yesterday, with different names in regards to the players being the only real change. So to me, no, I don’t see the nation of Israel being any kind of a positive success when it comes to peace, or the end of racism towards a particular faith.

As far as Jewish being a gene, well then I guess you would have to have that removed or added if you wanted to join or leave such and say be a Buddhist or vice versa. So really I do have a hard time on that note buying into that idea. The other idea that this race if you will evolved all on its own has no connection to a common ancestor that everything else living seems to hold.

Then we have actually the warfare. One week while I was deployed the IDF killed I think over nine children while raiding refugee camps for "terrorists". Then of course you have the terrorists blowing up civilian clubs and other targets. This nasty self perpetuating disaster if you will does not end, it simply has relative height marks on who is committing what atrocity at any giving moment, such as blowing up a building full of civilians with smart munitions because some terrorists were in it, but don’t talk bad about that, Israel can do no wrong.

And that my friends is what it comes down to. Israel really cant do no wrong, because if you say they do, 9-10 times you will get slapped with what has happened to Jewish people, and that you are a racist and of course it seems Israel has a get out of jail for free card pretty much for eternity then.

I have gone to plenty of sites to see the glorious progress that is the ME in the large. I have read up on plenty of the history from many different sites, and of course notice that fact that there is large amounts of bias in that history in different directions depending on who you read from.

I am no racist. I read and appreciate the works of a great many people that happen to be Jewish, Christian, Muslim and so on. I don’t see however the point of debating on Israel when the reality of it is that for in the large Israel really cannot do no wrong in a great many peoples eyes because they are Jewish, and for many times that is how it comes off to me, then again I could be wrong. The other idea of this is then, what can you debate about Israel, or really is it everyone else’s fault, and again Israel has done nothing but right in the world. Is this issue something people have gotten scientific with, or is it a hot button issues loaded with emotion and pretty much judged by such perpetually. I do love religion though, many great blessings.

I would like to point out that Israel actually coming back under control of the Jewish faith was an action to be committed by god, I think that is where the separation between Zionist followers and Orthodox ones split, though I could be wrong. I don’t blame the Zionist sect giving the holocaust, but I will not allow for the holocaust to excuse all actions of Israel. More so when the forced migration or creation of Israel again to me appears to be simply an abuse of power that has done nothing but bring the world and humanity in general more misery. Personally if I was in control I would have tried to offer them Florida really, I at least would have tried is all.

So then, what can you debate then about Israel with no fear of being called a racist?

I think that anti-semitism is the most whined about hatred, but I am pretty sure America does pretty well against the blacks, and the Korean hate the Japanese etc etc- the uber-victim role is a little over-played as well- man has been inhumane to man every since we figured out we could hit the other guy on the head with a stick- hatred is so easy for man, getting along so much harder.

So many things to respond too- so little time- as usual- when your position is so tenuous on Israel's creation- you call folks racist that disagree with that notion.

Okay- do you dispute these facts?

1) Jews were the minority prior to 1948

2) The minority was given a country, and given rulership of that country- and those that disagreed with wanting that goverment it was, as you so kindly put it "tough luck"

3) The end result is that the minority displaced the majority, and now has rulership of that land, and there is no 'right of return" for those that were "deported" (remember, that is what Slobodon did to the Kosovars- they were told to get up and get out- they were "deported")

No, I am not big on any theocratic goverment that demands a state religion and creates ANY human as a second class citizen those that do not make of that ethnic group or religious group- so, if Iran persecutes it's Jews or Christians because they are not muslim- then yes, I condemn them with equal language, and they SHOULD have sanctions and such for that behavior- just as Israel should for similar behavior.

Just because one country is bad doesn't excuse another country from doing the same thing.

Yes, there are other bad poeple on the earth- so this makes what Israel does right as well? Just because others are doing it, they should be allowed too?

Loreng- is Israel a "Jewish homeland" or not? You seem to be of a mind that it is a Palestenian homeland as well- correct?

Okay- after wading through partison site after partisan site- this is what I have gleaned- correct me if I am wrong Loreng- because ALL sites seem to be 100% Pro- Jewish or 100% Pro-PLO- with darn little commonality in between-

only about 6% of the Land in Israel can be called "Private"- correct? over 90% of the land in modern day Israel is owned by the goverment- and then leased back to (mostly, but they do have laws about equal access, too equal to the Bedouins apparently- thier affirmative action is in a court case now from what I understand) -

So how in the world did Israel come to own all the land, and how did all those Palestenains that lived there get moved out, and thier ownership ignored?

Seems like a series of events- starting with the turks- which the Palestenians resisted as well.

This site is probably biased, probably has some infactual account- but like I said- every single site has obvious bias, and it is very, very hard to figure out who is telling the truth- but this site seems to mimic what Wikipedia and pro-Israel sites say, even if there are different reasons for this or that- but this site seems to boil it down pretty well on land ownership in modern-day Israel.

http://www.ap-agenda.org/nasser/nasser3.htm

The site starts off with the fundamental difference in land ownership prior to 1907 etc at first- you need to read that first- but then the highlights below:

With the establishment of the state of Israel on May 15, 1948, these lands were regarded as Israeli state lands. As Israel took control of all the territories that were allocated to the Jewish state in addition to nearly 50% of the territories allocated to the Arab state under the 1947 UN partition plan, a total of 15,025,000 dunum were considered state lands. These lands include the lands that were classified as forest by the British Authority and any other lands that were not titled to individuals i.e. village lands (Jiryis, 1973). The state also implemented measures and passed various laws that were employed to transfer land ownership to the Jewish agencies and settlements.

On May 13, 1948, two days before the declaration of independence of the state of Israel, Ben Gurion summoned the administration of the Jewish National Fund, offering to sell to the agency two million dunums of the lands under Jewish militia control at a price of half a Lira per dunum. The Jewish National Fund rejected the deal but accepted it after the declaration of independence (Jiryis, 1973).

As a result of the 1948 war and the armistice agreements Israel reached with Egypt and Jordan, Israel controlled 20.5 million dunums of the total land of Palestine, representing 78% of the land. The vast majority of these lands were owned by Palestinian residents who were evacuated from their villages or who fled their homes during the war.

In September 1948 a Trustee on Absentee Properties was appointed by the state of Israel and the state issued measures to organize the seizure and the allocation of these properties. On March 15, 1950 the Israeli Knesset passed the Law of the Absentee Properties Law #5710. This law considered, among other factors, the Trustee on the Absentee Properties as the legitimate owner of these properties and gave him the authority to sell and transfer ownership of such properties to the Israeli Department of Construction and Development (Jiryis, 1973).

In September 1953 the Trustee on Absentee Properties executed a contract with the Israeli Department of Construction and Development whereby he transferred ownership of all the lands under his control to the department. The price for these properties was to be retained by the Israeli Department of Construction and Development as a loan. At the same time, the Trustee on the Absentee Properties transferred the ownership of the houses and commercial buildings in the cities to Amidar, an Israeli company set up to settle Jewish immigrants (Jiryis, 1973).

Three months before this transfer of ownership to the Department of Construction and Development, the Jewish National Fund had executed a contract with the Israeli Department of Construction and Development whereby the department would sell a total of 2,373,677 dunums of state lands and lands of the department to the Jewish National Fund. The deal was completed after the department completed its transaction with the Trustee. Following this transaction, the Jewish National Fund "ownership" totaled over 90% of the total territories that fell under the control of the state of Israel. These properties are referred to as the "nation's land" limited to the use of Jews (Jiryis, 1973).

The third phase of Israeli land acquisition in Palestine was the confiscation of the lands of the remaining Palestinian villages in what is now Israel. The Israelis used military, acts of ethnic cleansing along with legal maneuvers to confiscate these lands.

Ethnic Cleansing and Land Confiscation

The ethnic cleansing campaign started in the 1948 war where by the Jewish militias ethnicly cleansed 418 Palestinian villages, seized their properties and depopulated 11 Palestinian cities and took them for their own use. The 1948 war was not the only cycle of ethnic cleansing, between October 1948 to November 1949, the Israeli army evacuated the villages of al-Safsaf, Iqrit, Kufr Biram, Kufr 'Anan, Khasas, Jau'neh, Qayttiyeh, al-Ghabasiyya, al-Majdal, and al-Battat and later seized all of their properties. In 1951 the Israeli army evacuated 13 villages in the triangle area and seized their properties. In October 1956 the Israeli army forced the Palestinian Bedouin tribe al-Bakara to cross the border into Syria. In October 1959 some Bedouin tribes in the Negev desert were forced to cross the borders into Egypt and Jordan. The lands for all these villages and tribes were confiscated after their cleansing (Jiryis, 1973).


Okay- another site:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_israel_land.php

Special case of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) land
JNF land, even when managed by the Israeli government, is restricted by the formal charter of the JNF. The purpose of the JNF was to purchase land for the settlement of Jews, and this has been interpreted to mean that JNF land should not be leased, at least on a long-term basis, to non-Jews. The agreement that placed the JNF land under government administration incorporates the restriction.

In practice, however, JNF land has been leased to Arab citizens of Israel, both for short-term and long-term use such as leases on a yearly basis to Bedouins for use as pasture. In other cases, JNF land has been traded for other, unrestricted, land so it can be leased to Arabs.

TO BE FAIR AS WELL- THE ISRAELIS ARE FAR, FAR MORE ACCOMODATING TO ARABS LIVING IN ISRAEL THAN JEWS LIVING IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES- - just to be clear- okay-

That being said- the bottom line is- the palestenians living in those areas were forcibly relocated- ethnically cleansed if you will, and jews moved in and placed in those areas- or some other slieght of hand tricks as well-

From Wikipedia:

There was violent incitement from the Palestine Muslim leadership that led to violent attacks against the Jewish population. In some cases, land purchases by the Jewish agencies from absentee landlords led to the eviction of the Palestinian Arab tenants, who were replaced by the Jews of the kibbutzim. The Arabic speakers before World War I had the status of peasants (felaheen), and did not own their land although they might own the trees that grew on that land. Because most of these Jews were familiar with the European tradition of land-ownership, they did not realize that they were purchasing only the land, not the trees that grew on that land. This was often a source of misunderstanding and conflict. The olive tree is particularly important as it can remain productive for more than one thousand years.

Okay- from Same wikipedia reference:

Year Total Muslim Jewish Christian Other
1922 752,048 589,177(78%) 83,790(11%) 71,464(10%) 7,617(1%)
1931 1,036,339 761,922(74%) 175,138(17%) 89,134(9%) 10,145(1%)
1945 1,764,520 1,061,270(60%) 553,600(31%) 135,550(8%) 14,100(1%)


And of course- turns out the settlements were on "private land"-

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20061...01321-1011r.htm

A West Bank settler leader denounced an Israeli settlement watchdog group that said yesterday that government maps indicate 40 percent of land incorporated into West Bank settlements is owned by Palestinians.
The report by Peace Now is an embarrassment to Israel's government, which has claimed throughout the years that the settlements had been established on public lands.
The finding that as much as 80 percent of some settlements lie on private property could make it more difficult to hold onto these settlement blocks in any negotiated settlement.
It's also likely to further erode public support for the settlers.
Pinchas Wallerstein, chairman of a regional settlement council in the West Bank, countered the Peace Now report by insisting that ownership of the land in dispute had been legally transferred to Jewish hands.
"The next stage is that Peace Now will come and say that all of the kibbutzes are built on Arab land," he said. "Peace Now, the PLO and Europe see the state of Israel as a conqueror without rights to the land of Israel and therefore, everything is private land."
The report comes at time when settlement activity is expanding throughout the West Bank despite Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's original platform of unilaterally withdrawing from dozens of West Bank settlements.
Israel promised the United States that it will not build beyond already built-up neighborhoods in existing settlement. It has also waited three years to implement a promise to dismantle dozens of unauthorized hilltop outposts.
Over the decades, Israel's army has routinely requisitioned Palestinian land, citing security reasons. The report says the use of requisitioned land for settlement activity defies a landmark Israeli Supreme Court decision from the late 1970s.

Gotta love that word "requisitioned"- a very nice word for "steal"

Okay- Loreng- sure, muslim countries are worse than Israel- big whoop. Bottom line is- Israel isn't doing what is right either- and carved themselves a homeland not all that different from the way they went in the first time, couple thousand years ago- by ethnically cleansing the locals out of there- but today- we don't, or rather- arent' supposed to- think these things are okay-

and allowing one ethnic group that has a history a couple thousand years ago to a land- well, that brings up a whole lot MORE recent claims.

And CW- you can claim all you want that somehow Israel is a stabilizing force in the ME- but you would be dreaming. I am sure there are other reasons for man to fight man- but moving in millions of foriegners into a place where there is already tensions = well yeah, more than a little distabilizing, and pretty much makes sure and keeps the whole region in war.

Yes, lets look at facts. There are some very good reasons to why the Jews were the minority in the region. The one and most explicit, of course, is the continual persecution of the jews which, through time, have been kicked out of their homes. Examples:

131 AD = Roman Emperor Hadrian renames Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina and forbids jews from setting foot there again.

315-337 = Roman Emperor Constatine makes it illegal to convert from Christianity to Judaism.

550-700 = The Byzantine empire slaughter thousands upon thousands of Jews in Israel.

700-1250 = Many Jews migrate back from Europe and Asia minor to Andulia and North Africa due to Christian kings intolerance of Judaism.

1099 = Jerusalem is captured by European crusaders and tens of thousands of Jews are killed and or expelled.

1290 = All Jews are expelled from England.

1306-1394 = Jews are repeatedly expelled from France and readmitted for a price.

1343 = Most of Europe expels many of the Jews but Casmir the Great of Poland invites the Jews in but mandates a law that Jews must where special clothing to identify them.

1492 = 200,000 Jews are expelled from Spain

1516 = Ghetto of Venice is established, a safe haven for persecuted Jews.

1648-1655 = Ukrainian Cossacks raid Poland gentry killing 65,000 Jews.

1720 = Ashkenazy Jews are rounded up and expelled from Jerusalem.

1799 = Napoleon attempts to create an independent Jewish state in Palestine but was unsuccessful due to the besiegement and failure to take Acre.

Just a brief overview of the continual persecution the Jews have gone through and continue this day to go through.





The Israeli government tried and tried to involve the Palestinian people both in government as well in social. The Palestinians just wanted all Jews exiled.



You forget your history. Palestinians had free rein in all of Israel. They were able to work, live and be part of the government. It wasn't until the constant suicide attacks that the Israeli government finally had to segregate themselves to protect their citizens.

So Tim- you didn't dispute that the area was "ethnically cleansed" to make way for Jews- so, are you saying it is okay for a little ethnic cleansing as long as the Jewish poeple do it, and NOT anti-semitics?

Though do you dispute that the real change in population was the 1948 declaration of independence of Israel? I would say kicking all those palestenains off thier farms in 1948 predated the suicide bombers by a fairly large margin.

OK everybody, this is all very interesting, but we are not debating the existence of Israel, nor the ethnicity of the Jews, nor whether any of the many population shifts of millions of people after WWII were "ethnic cleansing" or not. We now have other topics for some of these issues, and you are all free to start new ones. Many here have said our support for Israel was religious, and that there was no other rational reason for our support.

I have offered at least one rational reason for US support of Israel.



CruisingRam in particular stated that "pretty much EVERY one of our issues in the middle east deal with the issue of the creation of Israel- the "war on terror" has just about everything to do with that issue."

In post after post, in addition to asserting that the creation of Israel was a mistake, you continue to assert that our support is completely due to religion.


I have provided evidence several times that Israel is a stabilizing force in the Eastern Med, and this is a good reason for our support. You have disagreed, but not rebutted that argument or even acknowledged that you have read it. Anyway,

To be debated - What is the primary reason for US support of Israel?

Theres nothing to dispute because its factually wrong. The pre 1949 borders were not established by the Israelis, but the UN. The Palestinian exodus happened because the Palestinians thought the Arabs would prevail in the fight against Israel while many were evicted due to Arab tention but for heavans sake, no ethnic cleansing occured during that time.

Transjordan and Egypt controled Gaza and the West bank following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The war for independance was won by Israel, if you recall.

Some Palestinian leaders set a bad example by sending their own families abroad (Gelber, pp. 76-77). The Arab Liberation Army embarked on a systematic evacuation of non-combatants from several frontier villages in order to turn them into military strongholds (Gelber, p. 79). By the end of March 1948 around 100,000 Palestinians had fled to other parts of Palestine such as Nazareth, Nablus and Bethlehem or had left the country altogether (Morris, p. 67) to settle in Transjordan or Egypt. Many of these were Palestinian and Arab leaders, middle and upper-class Palestinian families from urban areas. Around 22 March the Arab governments agreed that their consulates in Palestine would only issues visas to old people, women and children and the sick (Ibid, p. 134). On 29-30 March the Haganah Intelligence Service (HIS) reported that 'the AHC was no longer approving exit permits for fear of [causing] panic in the country' (Ibid, p. 137 quoting Haganah Archive (HA) 105\257).

The "war for independence" of Israel was primarily a minority defeating the majority- and no matter what mechanism you want to blame for it- the minority's actions forced the majority into exile, deported, refugees, no matter what you want to call it- it is basically rationalizing that a minority population moved in and expelled the majority.

And CW- your comment about "sales to Israel of military stuff"- it is a losing money proposition for the US (though, I am sure a boon to pork barrel military companies- I mean, they get money from the guv't)

As far as destabilizing- oh, they haven't went beyond, oh, Lebonon I guess in thier aggressive moves outside thier borders lately - but regardless- they are the flashpoint for pretty much every conflict we have in that region that directly impacts the US- and muddies our already muddied relations with Islamic countries.

To say that Israel is any kind of "stabilizing force" in the Middle east is fantasy, at the least. The very existance of the suicide bomber is because of the establishment of Israel, the PLO came into being because of Israel- I mean, a large part (though, admittedly, not all) of the conflict in the middle east comes about because Israel exists as a Jewish homeland,

Look- I have said it once, and I will say it again- I do not have much respect for the entire middle eastern Muslim population, I think it is an oppressive and very corrupt culture, that establishes a forced theocracy on the model of middle ages Christianity fuedalism, and is brutal to it's citizens and not much justice to be had-

and, in comparing the "liberal democracy with some racial issues" of Isreal to, oh, say any "muslim democracy" is laughable- Israel is head and shoulders more ethical and moral than any of those nations- I don't deny that one bit- but we ALSO need to put a check on Israel as well- It is no angel, and needs to be called on things like- OH NUKES MAYBE- do you doubt, for one minute- that pretty much, if all the Arab countries had American level armies, and got together and started beating Israel in a conventional war that it wouldn't start hurling nukes? I bet pakistan would start throwing some nukes back Israel's way, and there goes the planet!

It is NOT that I hate Israel, or Jews, and think that they do deserve a place of peace- but really- that place seems to be the US more than anyplace else. And our inconsistant policies towards persecuted poeples of other ethnicity isn't twisted by our religious ideals- like, oh, the Kurds, or our own Ameircan Indians and on and on. It is our religious beliefs that taint our dealings with Israel- and, to some degree, to a large degree actually- they work in tandem- the religous right, and the Jewish lobby exploits those Christian beliefs. Jews in the US don't make such a huge voting bloc as the Christian, and that is how the Jewish lobby does so well in the US- not because of altruism toward the Jews in the US and Israel, but because of the religious bent of the citizens of the US Interests blend well with the Jewish lobby interests, at least on foriegn policy- look at teh liberal Joe Lieberman's very hawkish views towards the ME and you get a very clear picture of this.

CruisingRam:

How do any of your posts in this topic lend support to your assertion that US support of Israel is entirely based upon religion?

If we chose to base our foreign policy on religion and not (as I voted) pragmatism, why do we give money to Pakistan, or Egypt or Saudi Arabia or any of the dozens of other Muslim nations we give money to?

What possible thread exists between Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 42 that makes them all beholden to Israel because of religious reasons?

Where's the evidence to back up your position?

Ok for those of you who believe it's pragmatism tell me why it is in our best interest, nearly without fail, to veto every resolution that is against Israel. In every single instance it just so happens to be just in the USA's best interest, and SO important, that we can't just vote No, we have to VETO it. Or oh wait, it's because the UN is anti-semetic right. Please seriously show me what's in our best interest because I haven't come to a conclusion as to why we throw away money when we can't provide our own soldiers with the proper equipment and why we have such a tight relationship with Israel.

A history of veto-ing resolutions against Israel is not in and of itself proof of anything other than our support of Israel. It does not prove or even attempt to prove the reason behind that support.

Can you honestly say that we have gotten no practical benefit from our relationship with Israel? They kept Saddam from having nukes by destroying its reactor. That's worth billions right there. The stability of Israel-Egypt peace has kept the Suez Canal functioning. (Note how we support both sides of that possible dispute?? Could there be a pragmatic benefit to doing so?? )

Amlord- because there is NO logical explanation for our BLIND suport of Israel. They are a money and man power pit, with no good return for a logical investment.

The Suez Canal is a "what if" NOT an explanation. We have spent trillion on Israel at this time- we HAVEN'T got trillions back.

No Israel, there might have not been a Saddam either- you can't say that one didn't create the other- you can't disprove it one way or another- our dealings with the middle east post WW2 is driven by our policies towards Israel first, then oil after that- they are interconnected- you can't seperate the two- the ripple effect of the creation of the state of Israel taints every dealing we have in the middle east to this day.

And your evidence of this is ... your gut instinct?

How can one assert "blind" support? Did the US veto SC 242 or 338? Did Carter not broker the Camp David Accords which led to the withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank (indeed, on several fronts)? Has the US not advocated land for peace in the past, including the Oslo Accords? How do these positions "blindly" support Israel?

And trillions? Surely you are joking.

Psyclist, it seems I remember you've indicated before that there are numerous resolutions againt Israel...more than, say, Iraq. Is this correct? This would indicate that the US has not vetoed every (or nearly every) resolution against Israel. Resolutions don't pass if they are vetoed, only drafts or resolutions proposals can be vetoed.

I'm not sure if I said that or not. Regardless of if we've vetoed every resolution or not it's still a lot but that's not the point. What I want to know from those that say it's pragmatism is what self interest/benefit did we have in vetoing those resolutions? I want you to prove to me that it's pragmatic.


That's what I want. The reason behind the support. If it is pragmatism, then there would be a pragmatic reason for each veto of each resolution correct? If there's no pragmatic reason for the veto well...

The US vetos about 25% of the resolutions against Israel. The fact is that 25% of all the resolutions in the UN have been directed at Israel. Not a very impressive figure to support an ally 25% of the time. Especially considering the fact that they vote with the US 98%, which is far higher than any of our other allies. The Saudis vote with us 8% of the time, Kuwait 12%.

The US has given aid to Israel since President Nixon. Prior to that were loans which were repaid. For each dollar in aid that we give Israel we give the Arab countries 4 dollars. That was before the Iraq War, now it is around 10 dollars to the Arabs for each dollar that goes to Israel.

As for benefits, well you might consider that we would not be reading these emails without Israeli technology. They have been designing most of the computer chips in the world for the past 30 years. None of our aircraft would be in the air without Israeli technology. The two nations have been exchanging technology on the environment, medicine, and energy for decades. And for the billions in aid to the Arab nations, what have we ever gotten? Can you tell us one single benefit we have received for 4 times as much aid?

I have seen many figures, that put the number at 3 trillion dollars since 1948.

http://www.lovearth.net/therealcostofussup...israel.htm#cost

Our support of Israel vs the arab states started the embargo- DEFINATELY a big deal to the interests of the US citizen and US economy- a definate BIG LOSE in the W L coloumn when it comes to US interests.

McArthur's article, "A Conservative Tally of Total Direct U.S. Aid to Israel: $97.5 Billion - and Counting" tallies the hidden costs, such as interest lost due to the early disbursement of aid to Israel and funds hidden in other accounts. For example, Israel received $5.45 billion in Defense Department funding of Israeli weapons projects through 2002, McArthur says.

I think I can say with some confidence that since 1948 Israel has been a sinking money pit the entire time- with a big red giant, red check in terms of straight "pragmatic" accounting of how much Israel has cost us (as an investment) vs the return.

A good rebuttal with it is "well, they are our friends, and we support them at any cost"- fine- but you get out of that "pragmatism" argument real quick by doing that

Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid
Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)

Foreign Aid Grants and Loans
$74,157,600,000

Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)
$9,047,227,200

Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments
$1,650,000,000

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200
Total Benefits per Israeli
$14,630
Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.
Aid to Israel

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200

Interest Costs Borne by U.S.
$49,936,680,000

Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$134,791,507,200

Total Cost per Israeli
$23,240

Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan. U.S. policy since 1984 has been that economic assistance to Israel must equal or exceed Israel's annual debt repayment to the United States. Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest.

Well, the US vetoed one the other week: U.S. Vetoes Security Council Resolution Assailing Israel for Attacks



Israel is to be condemed for a response to an attack, but the original attack was not mentioned in the first draft. Then it was mentioned, but no blame was assigned. How very balanced.

And CruisingRam: assigning the entire economic cost of the 1973 Oil Embargo and the Strategic Oil Reserve onto Israel is a bit harsh, isn't it? It's a good thing the Iraq war hadn't started when your article was written, because the author would have blamed the entire Iraq war on Israel.

"Lately" indeed. What conflict specifically in the past 30 years has been because of Israel as a flashpoint? How has that conflict or conflicts directly impacted the US?

Also, your dollar figures don't jive - you list $97 Billion, $134 billion and $3 Trillion. Which is it?

Expelled is an absolute fabrication of reality and you know it. Yes, there were some exiled but the majority of Palestinians left on their own persuasion.

Based on your thesis then, the US was also a horrible mistake. A minority defeated a majority and created an independent state.

And so it benefits us how to veto the resolution?

Vote No or abstaine like Britian did. Why the show of favortism? I get that we didn't like the resolution because it was one sided and we had a problem with the words but the resolution isn't condeming us so, who cares? Where's the self interest? Or is it that we're looking out for Israel's self interest by vetoing the resolution?

So the US votes no, the resolution passes and Israel is condemned for the attack without acknowledging the original perpetrators of the rockets launched from Gaza.

This helps the peace process by :

a. emboldening those not held accountable for their actions (the rockets)
b. slapping Israel for defending itself


Not every action has a direct tit-for-tat. The Middle East peace process is a goal of US foreign policy. This resolution would not help that process. It was one sided and hurtful to US foreign policy.

I don't see why we should allow a resolution to pass that we have a major fundamental disagreement with. What is practical about that? And a 'no' vote from the US is a veto for all practical purposes. If the US votes "nay" as a permanent member it blocks the passage of the resolution. The only option is to abstain (in which case, as Amlord indicated, the resolution would pass).

So we had a fundamental problem with all of these resolutions? We have a problem with condeming Israel for building buildings in Occupied Territory? In land that IS NOT there's? The UN says Israel you have here these (the 48) boarders. And then when Israel occupies and builds on land that is outside those boarders we (the US) have a problem with that. Why? It's pretty cut and dry if you think about it like that. Some of you love to rip on how worthless the UN is so why do you really care if this apparently worthless organization writes a strongly worded letter telling Israel to stop doing what they shouldn't be doing. If we have a problem with the fact that this resolution didn't mention rocket strikes fine...pass the resolution that condemns Israel for shelling a home, they shouldn't be doing that. Then, write up a resolution that condemns the Palestinians or whoever for shooting rockets into Israeal, they shouldn't be doing that.

Tell me, was the veto worth it? Let the money flow in! The veto just caused the flush with cash GCC to undermind our position! How beneficial for us!!

Will a veto help Israel? No.


Will it help the image of the US? No.



Sorry, not seeing a pragmatic reason.

Have you read any of the long list of actual UNSCR passed during that timeframe? They do include condemnation for exactly that. Like this one

Yes indeed, the above (along with the rest) was permitted to pass by the United States. Resolutions are usually more than a page long. They cannot be assessed in one sentence descriptions like the link you provided. There were likely good reasons to veto confined to the small print that isn't mentioned on that overtly biased site.

Yes I've read them some of them more than once...fun times at 4am when you have to debate with former IDF volunteers the next day...

As for the overtly biased site, I wasn't looking for text, I was looking for a number of resolutions.

And yes, you found a counter example. But you didn't address my question as to what benefit was brought to the US or the Middle Eastern peace process by vetoing those resolutions.

Vetoing = not helping in this situation or the US = no pragmatic reason for support.


My guess is playing an even hand would be much better than appearing pro-Israel all the time. And before anyone tries to show an even hand (have fun with that) remember that perception is nine tenths of the law.

First, you indicated that nearly every resolution ever proposed against Israel has been vetoed by the US, and were proven to be categorically wrong. Then, you produced a list of resolutions which were vetoed and asked, "what's wrong with condemning this and that?" and I showed you that the list wasn't accurate. If I had the time I've sure I could dissect that list and check corresponding UNSCRs to disprove nearly every point on it. You've simply dismissed all of this as irrelevant?

I guess I'd say that there is an underlying practicality to treating friends decently. There is an underlying practicality to supporting the only true western style democracy with all its associated freedoms and vastly more regard for human rights than you'll find elsewhere in the middle east. There is simply no comparison, and you believe we should vote the same as China and Qatar to "get along" and throw Israel out to dry why exactly?

Let's see who voted in favor of this resolution: Argentina, China, Congo, France, Ghana, Greece, Peru, Russia, Qatar and Tanzania. List of winners there. I'm sure they were only voting their good conscience to ensure a true peace in the middle east. God knows none of them would ever respond to a rocket attack.

If it makes you feel better, I'll recant my "almost without fail" statement. As for the list being inaccurate, as I said earlier, I wasn't going for the text, I was going for a count. Which I have found here.
Now, out of those 30 resolutions, I'm going to assume there was a pragmatic reason we vetoed those resolutions. Well that leads me to wonder why the US is the only country to have voted no in each of those resolutions. You would think that if there was a pragmatic reason for us to vote no, there would be a reason for at least some other country to vote no as well correct? I mean, if we really think that resolution X should be vetoed because it's counter productive to the peace process, at least another country would think that too right? Why are we the only ones who think that these resolutions are bad? But instead in all those resolutions the US cast the only No vote. They could've just as easily abstained. I'd agree that there is "an underlying practicality to treating friends decently". However, you have to hold your friends accountable when they mess up and that's what we're not doing. By vetoing these resolutions and backing Israel we never hold them accountable which is counter productive to the peace process and futhermore causes unneeded backlash against the US. This backlash is the exact opposite of pragmatism.

I look at this entirely differently than you do. If you look at the number of resolutions . There have been 1462 resolutions since the Yom Kippur War in 1973 (amazing how the world was able to exist with only 338 resolutions in the whole thirty years prior ). If you search through them, you will find an unbelieveable amount of these resolutions regard Israel. Loreng said 25 percent, which wouldn't surprise me. Let's assume it's less than that...20 percent. If so, that would make over 290 resolutions regarding Israel, as compared to, for instance, two regarding North Korea during that timeframe. By this measure, our 30 rejected resolutions don't seem so very significant to me in the broad sceme of things.

Now, I can't tell you precisely why we vetoed them, but to answer you question which I'll infer to mean, "Could we have been making the right decision when everyone else was making the wrong one?" Yes, we could be making the right decision for us while everyone else was making the wrong one for us, but right for themselves. And we couldn't "just as easily abstain" if an abstention would mean an unfavorable resolution would pass. Consider that other abstentions are also based on politics. If a nation is confident of a US veto of a proposal, it can easily simply abstain rather than encounter the unpleasant political side effects of a 'no' vote.

Here is an interview that captures Israel's problems quite nicely. If you, even for a second, thought that Al Jazeera might be a neutral, honest broker of information, it should provide an interesting read into their mindset. But the relevant quote to this topic is as follows. He is lamenting the situation in the Middle East -- lack of democracy and progress, corruption, etc.



So, if Israel would just go away, schools in Morocco would improve. Unbelievable. As Charles Johnson noted, in this part of the world, blaming all your problems on a super-powerful fantasy opponent is called “mental illness.” Remember this the next time you hear of Israeli "super weapons" or mysterious injuries from so-called radioactive ammo, prompting another one-sided UN resolution. The Arab nations are voting against a race of monsters, and we should veto every single one for that reason alone.

this an absurdly untrue and extremely bigoted claim. it sheds much light, imo, on its author's attitude toward Israel.

"García Cárcel estimates that the total number processed by the Inquisition throughout its history wa