Since 1948, when Harry S. Truman made the USA the first country in the world to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation, various administrations of both parties have generally supported Israel. The support has been decidedly more pronounced since the 1967 and 1973 Arab/Israel wars. We continue to support Israel both financially and diplomatically, indeed Israel has been our largest recipient of economic aid (outside of Iraq) since the 1970's. My question is why do we do this.

To be debated - What is the primary reason for US support of Israel?
I'm sure that I missed something obvious, but just to clarify the poll responses, here is what I meant.

1 - Self-Interest / Pragmatism - Democracies are natural allies, and spreading democracy in the Middle East is the stated goal for the USA. A strong Israel keeps the Egyptians, Syrians and Jordan in check, much as Israel provided a bulwark against the Soviets and their Arab client states in the 70's / 80's.

2 - Religious Reasons - Israel is also the Holy Land promised to the Jews by God, per the Torah / Old Testament. Some Christians also believe that a war in Israel is a precursor for armageddon, the rapture and Christ's second coming.

3 - Many suggest that the Israeli lobby in the USA, via AIPAC and other organizations, is so strong that it makes the US act against our own interest in support of Israel. See "The Israel Lobby" by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

4 - We sell a great deal of military and civilian goods and services to Israel. Could this be the primary reason to support them?

5 - While of course the Europeans (Germans mostly) carried out the Holocaust, we could have done more to stop it. This guilt could be the primary reason for our support of Israel.

Here is an academic summary of the key issues in this debate.

We have occasionally tackled bits and pieces of this issue in many threads, but I would love to take a dispassionate look at the US interest in supporting Israel. Please let's try to be civil, stay focused on the US foreign policy interest and, as always, offer sources and analysis for our opinions.

What is the primary reason for US support of Israel?

Although all of those reasons have some impact, the overwhelming issue is the pragmatic one: we support pro-American democracies around the world.

We support Taiwan, South Korea for similar reasons.

Look at the top ten foreign aid recipients (this is the 2004 list): Iraq, Israel, Colombia, Jordan, Pakistan, Peru, Bolivia, Turkey, Sudan, and Indonesia.

See anything strange? Six of the ten are Muslim countries. Five are in the Middle East. Only three are in our hemisphere. We use our foreign aid to project our power, not to reward lobbyists.

We have very pragmatic reasons for supporting Israel. It is a democracy in the Middle East. It has a successful, western economy. It has a military that will stand up in situations that we don't care to (Iraq's nuclear power plant, for example).

Yes, the other factors do play a small role, but the main reason is the pragmatic one.

I'm going with "other," specifically a combination of several factors:
Guilt over the holocaust is a big one, but the pro-Israel lobby working in conjunction with dominionist Christians makes up a huge portion of our public support for Israel as well.
I don't buy the pragmatism explanation simply because we have supported and withdrawn support from so many other countries in the region, yet support of Israel remains no matter what they do.


Personally, I believe that the history of persecution demonstrates a clear need for a Jewish homeland, but that doesn't mean every action Israel takes is automatically justified. It always amuses me when certain right wingers insist that anyone who opposes any action taken by the Israeli state is anti-semitic while they co-operate with dominionists who genuinely are anti-semitic. I'm willing to bet just about every liberal posting here knows an ethnically Jewish person who has been called an anti-semite by right wingers over such things. I know I do.

What is the primary reason for US support of Israel?

Like all other nations, we act out of our own self-interest. Not Holocaust guilt, not 'dominionists,' not the Israel Lobby. I must admit I had never heard of the term "Dominionism" until Grendel72's post. Not impressed.




Can you elaborate on this a bit? The one nation that we consistently support is not based on pragmatism, but oscillating support of other nations in the region is pragmatic? I don't follow.

Are you denying the existence of religious fundamentalists pushing to have their religious views made the law of the land, and to influence international politics? I don't care what you choose to call them, though dominionism is a name they have given themselves.
We support other nations based on their actions, we support Israel whether they are acting in accord with our own particular interests or not.

Here's my beef. Secular liberal types influencing politics to make their views law of the land are "idealists" or "progressive," but if adherents to a religion attempt to influence politics there is always some sinister plot or "fundamentalism" attached. Substitute "God" for "Earth" and Al Gore would be the biggest fundamentalist on the planet. Why is a religious ideology automatically worse than a secular one?


I would suggest that lending and withdrawing support of nations on a short-term basis is the absolute opposite of pragmatism. Withdrawing support for Israel would strengthen her enemies, which would harm our self-interest. How many wars have taken place since 1973 in the Eastern Med? Egypt, Saudi, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan have been de facto neutralized thanks to a strong Israel. Contrast this with, oh, Iraq / Iran, or the Horn of Africa.

A strong Israel, allied with the US, is in our interest. Weakening Israel to retaliate for some "action not in our interest" would be myopic in the extreme.

Not really. We support plenty of nations that don't act according to our interests at times. Turkey would be the best example I can think of at the moment. We have consistently supported that country with multiple billions in spite of some rather major differences, and we do so because of their location, and the fact that they are the most democratic of the Muslim states.

Furthermore, our policy with Israel is far from consistent. It has changed with each administration, and the most Christian president we have ever had (Carter) was also the least pro-Israel.

Per the topic, I picked pragmatism because it fits the best, but I think most of those reasons have held some sway through the years, some years more than others. Number five, guilt, for instance likely played a large part in the initial push for a Jewish state since our immigration laws had prohibited accepting Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust.

The difference being that secular types promote changes based on observable data that actually effects us all no matter what our beliefs. I don't quite believe that people who are also funding breeding a red heifer to sacrifice can be believed to be acting rationally.
True, but carter was a Christian, not a Christianist.

Uhh, ok. Religious "dominionists" rely on feelings and God, while progressive liberal types rely on hard data and facts. You betcha. Riddle me this - What "observable data that affects us all" propelled the civil rights, women's sufferage and anti-slavery movements?

While you're at it, you can give me the hard facts and observable data on gun control and the minimum wage, not that progressives would ever legislate on irrational feelings over data.

Lastly, while you were scouring the wires for tales of animal sacrifice, the Israeli supreme court legalized gay marriage. Those crazy fundies. Given that observable data, do you suppose that Queers for Palestine will moderate their anti-Israeli stance or continue to support the medieval thugs who terrorize Israel?

While many in those movements were in fact religiously motivated, the idea that allowing every member of society to achieve the full extent of their potential is good for society as a whole does not require religious belief. It's a pretty reasonable logical argument if you ask me.


Well, I happen to disagree with gun control personally, but those who argue in favor of those two things generally present facts and statistics that can be argued for or against.

Good for Israel. I don't see what that has to do with their US allies, many of whom are the same people making explicitly anti-semitic (in the true meaning of the word) screeds about "war on Christmas" and the like.


And allow me to just note for the record that Mrs. Pigpen has made some strong arguments which I cannot disagree with. I do think that many Israel supporters in the US base their support on religious extremism, but certainly there are those whose support is more pragmatic. It is possible I'm viewing things from a skewed perspective, living in the Bible Belt as I do. I certainly hope I'm wrong.

Sure is. Or, paraphrasing Martin Luther King Jr. - A just law is a man-made code that squares with the law of God.

Reasonable logical argument and observable data told the progressives of the 70's that we would run out of food, minerals, fossil fuels and many other resources by now. Paul Ehrlich and Denis Hayes assured us that, not only were we doomed, it was "too late to stop it," that "hundreds of millions of people will starve to death" every year for decades. The past 30 years have had less famine and more prosperity than any other time in human history, yet the "zero population growth" cause is still alive and well even though they have re-named their organization.

Even the UN is getting wise, re-authorizing DDT to stop African children from being targeted for genocide via preventable malaria by the new religion of environmentalism and its bible of observable data. Sorry, if environmentalism doesn't fit every definition of religiosity, I don't know what does.


That's the second time you've said this and I still don't get it. Do you have a personal definition of anti-semitism that we should know about?

I'm glad you noted at least partially the merits of the argument for pragmatism. Think of it this way. Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactors, setting them back 20 years. Let's say that this cost the US $3 billion times 30 years of support, or $90 million. Contrast that with the cost in dollars and lives for our current Iraq policy. Maybe supporting a strong Israel is just cheaper for us?

Prejudice, hatred and bigotry against Jewish people.
"You have a predominantly Christian nation. You have a federal holiday based on the philosopher Jesus. And you don't wanna hear about it? Come on, [caller] -- if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then. I mean because we live in a country founded on Judeo -- and that's your guys' -- Christian, that's my guys' philosophy. But overwhelmingly, America is Christian. And the holiday is a federal holiday honoring the philosopher Jesus. So, you don't wanna hear about it? Impossible."- Bill O'Reilley

Well, based on the rules of our forum, I don't have to defend anything that Bill O'Reilley says.

But since you have made the statement, how exactly do "anti-Semitic" people like Bill O'Reilley account for the US support for Israel? Some sort of self-hatred or what?

Millennialist insanity. They support the Jewish homeland because they believe it will bring about the end times.

Actually if you want to get technical with it, anti-semitism is does not apply only to the Jews. It also applies to Arabs and North and East Africans. It wasn't till the 19th century that the misnomer of applying it only tho the Jews came about.

More info here...

As for the topic of the OP, I'll have to get back to you on that as the reasons for our support for Israel can't be just layed out in one simple poll option IMHO.

Unless you know something I don't about a certain Australian cricket player, Bill O'Reilley is a Catholic populist who supports the teaching of evolution (and not creationism) in our schools. Not exactly an end-times prophet. Where are you getting this stuff? Who are "they" and would you kindly present a source or some evidence of how "they" have influenced our policy towards Israel? Moreover, that it has gone against our nation's national interest?

I voted for religious reasons, mostly because it's so much fun watching carlitoswhey dance around this issue.

The first question to address is why Israel was created in the first place. Why not Semiteland? What's so special about the name Israel?

It's in the Bible. That means religion.

As far as being strategic, the presence of Israel has caused more problems than advantages. As far as economics, can't think of a single thing that Israel produces that we can't get along without or already have major suppliers elsewhere. Maybe it's to promote democracy, but that's not usually a real reason to do anything internationally. It's part of the spin.

Yep, has to be religious reasons. Don't ask me how these minds work either. It's always amazing to me what kinds of stuff come from them because some guy in the desert decided to write something down.

I can think of a major reason to stay friendly to Israel. The country has nukes and the will to use them. Now who gave them those things? I guess it was US. Why?

Self-fulfilling prophesy? The world's supposed to go out in fire this time (as opposed to water). It's in the Bible. You know what that means.

[EDIT] For some reason I'm not able to get this link to work. Click here: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0420,perlstein,53582,1.html
"The e-mailed meeting summary reveals NSC Near East and North African Affairs director Elliott Abrams sitting down with the Apostolic Congress and massaging their theological concerns. Claiming to be "the Christian Voice in the Nation's Capital," the members vociferously oppose the idea of a Palestinian state. They fear an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza might enable just that, and they object on the grounds that all of Old Testament Israel belongs to the Jews. Until Israel is intact and Solomon's temple rebuilt, they believe, Christ won't come back to earth.
...
Three weeks after the confab, President George W. Bush reversed long-standing U.S. policy, endorsing Israeli sovereignty over parts of the West Bank in exchange for Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip."
Dominionists do not support Israel out of any love of the Jewish people. They do it out of childish superstition. While most reasonable people want peace in the Middle East, they want war. Because terrible things are prophesied, they want to bring those things about. You don't find that scary?

Hmm. Land for peace. It seems that I've heard that somewhere before, and it didn't take some loopy end-time Christians to sell the idea. Are you now going to explain how support for the Gaza disengagement and annexation of parts of the West Bank is against the US national interest? Against the Israeli national interest, I'll buy maybe for Gaza, but against the US national interest to withdraw from "occupied territory" in Gaza and annex some suburbs in the West Bank? Seriously?


You seem very upset with words and things people say. Have you noticed the life in Israel is already a war? It really doesn't matter what some churchgoer in Tulsa says about it, they lob rockets into Israel every single day. Why not focus on that for a while, and worry about the apocolypse some other time?

Do you spend any time at all worrying about the actual death cult involved in this conflict? The one that straps bombs to their bodies and blow themselves up, that brainwash their children to become 'martyrs' from the moment they are born, that swears the destruction of free, Democratic Israel is their goal?

PS - there is a palestinian state, you know. It's called Jordan.

I voted religious- to deny it is just plain silly. Israel has never been anything but a religious boondoggle for us- there was absolutely NO reason other than the bible for re-establishing the Jewish homeland. No, I am not against Jews, I don't want to see them killed or wiped off the map or anything else- but the very fact that it is a "jewish homeland" that immigrants can't migrate to that AREN'T jewish in the same numbers as jews makes it a racist nation that is xenophobic and practices racial cleansing.

There was already a majority of non-jews living there when it was "made" into a Jewish homeland. They have laws in place to make sure another ethnic group doesn't get the same power as the jews in the land- making it a racist-aparthied-light state. If non-Jews can migrate to that country, buy land as freely as jews, vote themselves into power equal to the jews that live there- I will change that statement. Can you imagine a "homeland for white europeans only- oh, you can live here, but don't try to have an equal spot in goverment!" - oops, they would call that "south africa light".

I don't see us displacing folks in another land on the same scale and re-establishng a homeland for anyone else- the ONLY explanation is religion.

We should have forced the Germans to deal with thier Jewish population after WW2- creating Israel is one of the single biggest mistakes in all of history- it has created SO many more problems for the US than it any benefit we have seen. It just is a HUGE de-stabilizing factor in the ME.

If I were emporer, and had a magic wand- I would confiscate all thier weapons, especially the nukes, and set up some power sharing goverment that forced sales of land to all ethnic groups in the region that had money to buy it. I would not allow big blocks of land to go to any single ethic group, and would create holy sites that no one owns.

The jews that are first or second generation now, that is thier homeland now too. They need to be able to live in peace as much as anyone else. But religion kicks up it's ugly head in that land over and over, and no power has the base to force the changes that are needed.

ALL of our relaitons with Israel are pretty much religious oriented, and there is very little to do with our own self interest, if there EVER was any interest in Israel that co-incided with ours.

It isn't a simplistic "good vs. evil" fight there. Israel needs to defend itself against attack, and I've never said they shouldn't. Expansionism, indiscriminate attacks and the like are not the way to peace, though.
Talking about "death cults" is no way to achieve peace or stability. Terrorists need to be stopped, I don't see how attacking civilians in their midst is going to do that.
In case my various comments affirming that I think a Jewish homeland is a necessity haven't been clear, I certainly think Israel should be supported by the US I just question the nature of a lot of US support for Israel.

Actually, I would posit that the conflict over Palestine is the closest thing to "good vs. evil" that we have on the planet. You apparently disagree, which is fine.


While I stifle my "talking points" yawn, you are perhaps going to enlighten me as to the "indiscriminant attacks" perpetrated by the IDF? As opposed to, say, launching rockets into civilian areas, which of course prompts a military response. Again, these rocket attacks happen every day of Israel's existence. Every single day. And not into the 'occupied territories' but into Israel itself.

But dismissing some orthodox religious believers as "millenialist insanity" is a step in the right direction. One side employs missles, suicide bombs, ball bearings and gunfire. The most violent act by the religious people you fear was sending post cards to the white house. If the Palestinian "culture" isn't a death cult, I don't know what is. The average age in the territories is 15; you tell me how many of these children are going to make peace with the Jews. This has been going on since the 60's.


But it is the terrorists that attack civilians. From behind and among civilians. Are you really this naive? Palestinians raise their children like this. Do you really doubt that they accept and even encourage civilian casualties among their own people in order to make a larger point?

How can you believe that the 'end times millenialists' would accept short-term war for long-term paradise in heaven, but deny that the Palestinians employ similar logic every single minute of every single day. The key difference being that they are murdering people and attacking a Western democracy and ally.

Gotcha. The thing is, to support them, we have to support their right to exist and defend themselves, and they are fighting something that really is evil. I hate to bring it up, but 60 years ago, we denied that the thing attacking the Jews was evil. It really is.

Of course, the fact that no wars have been fought by Israel (other than the Hizbollah thing) in 33 years means that a strong Israel is a stabilizing force, not a destabilizing force. So, other than wishing the Jews away and being 180 degrees wrong on history, do you have something else to offer here? It's 2006 and Israel exists. It was created by the UN in 1948. Your point is a moot one.

By the way, while you rail on about "white european" example think about this. Jews weren't considered "white europeans" EVER by the "white europeans." When the pogroms and even the holocaust targeted those Jews they were considered JEWS. Not "white europeans." Just some food for thought - now that they have a country in the middle east, occupied by mostly non-white, non-europeans, some people are comparing them to "white europeans" and apartheid. I, for one, find this to be racist and obscene.

How nice. And who would die to defend this land, or would it be a utopia that no one would target for any reason?


Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao killed more people than religion ever will, but don't let two-by-four in your eye keep you from finding the splinters tucked in the pages of the New Testament.

Um- Catholic church, crusades etc killed far more than those dudes- just harder to count "back in the day"- the inquisition alone killed more-

CW- you didn't address at all the fact that SOMEONE WAS ALREADY LIVING THERE when we, and britain, created Israel- you didn't adress that at all- yes, I am completely aware of pograms, the Spanish and catholic inquisitions, the mass burnings at the stake, a history of anti-semitism- yes, the world has treated Jews very, very badly- but that doesn't make them any less European when they started immigrating to Israel- and it doesn't make them any less of a destabilizing influence- 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.

Yes, it is a nation now, but our blind loyalty, our ability to let everything that Israel does to US (spying on us- Pollard case anyone?, bombing our ships (USS Liberty- killing 34 servicemen) , worst of all- NUKES)- yet, to even suggest that Israel doesn't deserve a race based nation - is considered racist? It is hard to think of a nation that can say "this homeland is for this race only"- like Israel. No other nation is allowed to keep thier nation via ethnic cleansing like they do.

We absolutely need to force Israel to allow ALL races to buy and settle in Israel, and stop this nonsense of a "Jewish nation" - any more than we would allow, oh, South Africa to say "this is a white nation, and blacks can't buy land here"

There are no "good guys" in the ME CW- they are all pretty much ready to shoot anyone and anything that doesn't conform to thier ideas of "who this land belongs too"-

any time you go back a few centuries, or, in this case TWO MILLIENIA- you have a big problem in creating a nation.

Do you think, say, giving all of Texas to the Ameircan indians would have say, a oh, slightly destabilizing effect on the region? Especially if those Indians said the US citizens couldn't own land there, oh, sure, you can vote, if you belong to a party they haven't banned, or don't vote for poeple they don't like, and you can hold a job, but they can decide to restrict your movement, and on and on. There is no rational explanation for the creation of Israel, it is a profoundly un-stable place to begin with, even without Israel, and addding it to the mix only makes it worse. We have the three most violent religions on the planet right there in that area, and any footprint made there ripples out into violence. Without the Christian backing back in 1948, without the hard core beliefs in the US at the time- there would be no nation of Israel today, Israel, to exist, needed both the anti-semitic leanings of Britain, and the wish for the Brits to get jews out of Great Britain in the 1900s, and the fanatical Christian political factions of the US to make it happen.

Just a small aside (sorry) for historical relevance. Technically, CW was correct, Hitler, Stalin and Mao together did kill more than the Christian crusades, but only in absolute numbers. Keep in mind that the population of planet earth was 2 billion in 1930, but was only 360 million in 1300. And thats the world, not just Europe.

So If you presume Hitler, Stalin and Mao (Throw Pol Pot in there for good measure) together killed around 75-90 million people, that would have been almost the entire population of enaissance Europe.

In terms of absolute numbers, the 20th century despots have certainly killed more. But in terms of deaths related to percentage of the population, the Religious killings, crusades and strictly religious wars of dark ages, reformation and counter-reformation certainly killd more.

Um - Wrong. By the way, why do you compare my 20th-century examples with hundreds and thousands of years ago?

By the way, can you please just quote the relevant portions of a post if you are responding to them. It's kind of tedious to tell what you are referring to otherwise.


I did address it. Let me try again. It's 2006 and Israel exists. It was created by the UN in 1948. Your point is a moot one.

As for the "war on terror," can you please tell me what Israel has to do with the Islamic terrorism in Indonesia, Thailand, Phillipines, India, China, Russia, Georgia, Dagestan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and the other dozens of countries where Islamists have conducted operations? You really think if Israel went away, they would all just stop? Israel has EVERYTHING to do with that issue? Really?


See, when there is only ONE nation in the world that has people like you from other countries telling it who to allow to immigrate, that is where I question your motives. What effort have you lent to reforming Saudi Arabia, Iran, the emirates or heck, Japan's immigration policies? Why is Israel the only country in the world that can't control its immigration? As for races, the hundreds of thousands of black Israelis would probably laugh at your statement.

There are good guys indeed, and them being trigger-happy doesn't preclude them from goodness in the least.

You know- all those third world countries you mentioned are third world country- and it is fair to say that there is a degree of instability in any country that has lots and lots of impoverished poeple with nothing to live for, and thier only hope each day is thier prayers to god that the next life or afterlife will be better. I have been to those countries, many of them you spoke of, and stayed in muslim homes- and there is a gulf in difference between a middle easter islamic male and a islamic male or female in Indonesia.

Isreal is a flash point in an area that already has lots and lots of tension from generations of corrupt foriegn goverments- from teh ottoman to the Euros- and are ready to explode at any time.

Isael's creation was a horrible mistake, a flashpoint in the middle east, and as long as it is a "jewish homeland" instead of a multi-ethnic goverment of equals, it will continue to be a destabilizing issue in the ME- that can only lead to genocide for one side or the other. One side has grandmothers with nine children and 40 grandchildren blowing themselves up in order to kill Isrealis. The other side has nukes. No good guys- and as long as america sees this as a good vs evil type war- it will continue to chew up US resources and the human cost of our soldiers, and continue to make us a target for our blind, lap dog support for Israel. Even the mildest rebuke for thier behavior is out of bounds to the US it seems. No sanctions of any real import towards them, and we get no real benefit whatsoever from massive billions we spend on that country.

The only explanation for our blind loyalty for Israel, is the religious fanaticism explanation- because there is NO logical explanation- only the explanation of the fanatic.

Certainly our strong support for Israel is the primary driving force behind the hatred for the US. All you need to do is listen and read what is said and it comes out clearly. IMO many of the reasons listed are correct. Once we got behind the jewish state there was little hope of turning back. IMO the political and economic power of Jews in this country has much to do with this. One needs only to watch TV to see this. Whenever there is criticism of Israel American politicians (especially Dems) rush to the podium to declare that we are behind Israel 100%. Needless to say the Muslim world, which by in large hates Israel, hears this clearly.

I find all the reasons posted in the poll to be true to a certain extent. And while the US have supported Israel through and through, I reckon that each administration has done so in a different tone.

As a foreigner (and a US resident), I suppose my opinion takes a lot of from what I was taught and told when I lived in Europe. A lot of French people do not understand why the US are so willing to support Israelis with their policies, especially when they systematically violate UN resolutions in Lebanon for instance or when they kill civilians in the Gaza strip. Personally I don't understand when the USA are vetoing UN resolutions against Israel.

The day will come when an Israeli F15 flying the Lebanese airspace will be taken down by the UN peacekeeping force. Then, I'd like to know what will happen next - what will America do?

I am still amazed at the level of racism that many people here express.

CR's Is a total load of racism period that is the only word that can explain it. Israel is a multi-ethnic government of equals. There are no ethnic laws in the entire country, but still the claims are there.

A Jewish homeland seems to be the problem, but the fact that there are over 100 other countries that have 'state religions' is not? That is racism pure and simple. England is suppose to be a democracy and has a much smaller multi-ethnic government ratio than Israel, yet nobody is demanding they change their state religion, why? Greek is suppose to be where democracy began and is considered a democracy, but they too have a state religion. Going to demand they change? I bet not.

Israel was not set up by the UN nor Great Britian. The movement to re-establish the State of Israel started in the late 19th Century. When the Ottoman's welcome the capital improvements and money that the Jews from Eastern Europe brought in to join with the Jews that were already living there as they have for 3,000 years.

The San Remo Treaty of 1920 and the Convenant of the League of Nations formalized this movement. At the same time provided Arab Nationalism with their first countries. When those same treaties established countries that had never existed prior to then. Countries like Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Since the UN voted to end the Mandate Israel became an independent state. Most of it's citizens are neither white or European. In fact some 70% of the population would be considered Arab stock since a vast majority of their ancestors came from Arab countries and not Europe. Something near 65% of the population are at least 3rd generation, how many generations do they need before they are considered native?

There Muslims in all levels of the government including the Supreme Court, IDF and Knesset. Yet this does not seem to matter.

The US somewhat supports Israel. They have on many occassions either abstained or voted against Israel. For every dollar of aid going to Israel there has been 4 dollars going to those countries that attack it. The reason that the US does provide some support is two fold. First off the rest of the world seems to be bent on nothing less than another round of genocide and the fact is they are the only country that does support us in the Middle East.

loreng59,

I don't know if your comments are directed at me, but I'd like to add that Jordan, Turkey and Egypt are allies of the USA. The United Arab Emirates are too. With the exception of Turkey, they are not western-styled democracies, but I would still count them.

No I do not consider you to be a racist. I may not agree with you but at least you have not shown a side that could be called that.

If you think for one second that they are allies, better get some new ones in a hurry. The likelihood of all of them being Islamic theocracies in the next 5 years is about 80%. Turkey is not a western-style democracy and the European Union is blocking the only stabilizing force there. They will be the first government to fall, unless of course Mubarak dies, then they will be first.

Anti-Israel and Anti-Zionism is not the same as being racist. You're attempting to throw the debate off course by attacking the messenger and expecting CR to defend himself from being labeled anti-semitic. If you feel otherwise feel free to start another thread on Anti-Israelism but for now leave the Hasbara Handbook propaganda techniques to the high school "advocacy groups".

This is why its hard to debate anything about Israel. More often then not most people that do not sit in some form of absolute agreements with policy put forth by Israel or anything to do with such like the history of Israel is typically more often then not called a racist.

You know, I dig on my own country harder then I do on Israel because I fear being called a racist if I say something out of line, I will probably be called a racist just for saying this too.

When a person has an 'issue' with Israel being a 'Jewish' state that is racism pure and simple and if CR wants to defend himself over that I could care less.

If you want to claim the single most multi-ethnic government in the world treats it's citizens as "jewish homeland" instead of a multi-ethnic government of equals then the issue becomes one of racism. I have found that the more extreme one veers to either the left or the right the closer the stance of the two become.

I give you Natan Sharansky and his 3D test of anti-Semitism



CR's comments make two out of the three D's first Israel alone is singled out for it's state religion and the rest of the world's state religions are ignored, and the third D Israel's fundamental right to exist is challenged then that makes his comments equal to those of the KKK.

As for saying things against Israel, I do that myself on a daily basis especially the leadership of the country. Every democracy needs and deserves to be tested daily. But when the rest of the issue becomes only one nations actions while the rest of the world gets a pass for the exact same actions or much worse then I will stand up and state the obvious.

Now gordo where in there did I call you a racist? Did I imply it?

psyclist as for the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism well guess we need the definition of Zionism to start with. Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland period. And you are against Jews living in their homeland? I would state that is exactly the same as the third D.

This type of thinking boggles me to this day. The Jewish culture has been attacked and demonized since the Exodus and has gone through relentless persecution for well over 3000 years. Saying that Israel's creation is a horrible mistake is no better than saying the Jewish culture is a horrible mistake.

Remember, the Israelites are one of the original settlers of that region that shared the land with the Canaanites. Historians have traced the Philistines (sea people) from Greece and were continually attacking the Kingdom of Israel as well as many other countries in that region. Ramesses III was nearly defeated by the Philistines but was able to fend them off because of the Philistines defeat to King David.

The Jewish people have as much right to the land as anyone there and in the past have been willing to share. Even if there was no state of Israel, there would still be carnage to this day.

Right. Every presidential administration since Johnson has been blinded by religious fanaticism. Two Baptists, Two Episcopalians, A Methodist, Presbyterian and a Quaker.

Or, you could consider that in fact there is a logical explanation. Israel has actually provided stability in the Middle East. Their peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan have ensured that the Eastern Mediterranean and the Suez Canal have been essentially conflict-free since 1973. If a democracy like Israel existed in the Persian Gulf there never would have been an Iran-Iraq war, or two US invasions.

It's funny, you advocate that Israel cease to be a Jewish state and become "multi-religious" (even though it already is), and seem not to notice that Lebanon and Iraq are presently being torn apart by their Christian-Sunni-Shiite tensions. Why should the kurds have a state and not the Jews?


We should stand by Israel against UNIFIL, notably the French. I would actually consider enlisting if this happened. In the IDF, that is. For a UN force to sit by, hiding in their forts while Hezbollah re-arm, again reinforces the need to re-work the UN. George Bush's Condi Rice-led State Department will have a lot to answer for if this happens.


Yeah, you have no fear of what other people will say when you "dig on" the USA, bro. As your quote says, ignorance begets confidence.

Zionism is a form of racism just like the KKK or Nazism or anything else- any movement that holds thier race supreme over another "god's chosen poeple" would be a racist statement, whether made by a white or a jew-

I condemn China, Syria, Lebonan, Iraq, Turkey, USA, Cuba and ANY other nation that has human rights abuses- just like Isreal.

Whenever someone challenges the notion of firing back up a nation that hasn't existed in 2000 years, was the minority in the region when created, and the end result was an ethnic cleansing of the area from ethnic group to place a different ethnic group with notions that they are "god's chosen poeple, god gave us this area"- well, that is racist, ethnic cleansing with notions of genocide- THEY are called racists- when the real racists are those that performed those very actions- don't try to turn it around Loreng, NOR continue the same old zion-fascist propaganda. I don't buy whites only signs on cities in the US, NOR do I promote a "whites only " homeland- like with South Africa- nor do I buy a Jewish homeland, nor do I support ANY state sponsored religious or ethnic homeland, anywhere. ESPECIALLY when another ethnicity or religioun has to give up thier land to do make way for that minority to take over.

By your way, we SHOULD have let the Serbs run Kosovo like Isreal runs Gaza- the analogy is very close- Serbs have a very recent, much more recent claim to Kosovo than Jews have to, well, any part of Palestine- yet, we intervened when they started ethnically cleansing the area- we don't do the same for Israel.

There is not one single thing Israel has done to help US interests- they are a money pit for the US which has no end.

I will never support the idea of a religious homeland for ANY group, Jews, catholic or otherwise. I don't support the notion of the Vatican either, and think it's status as a nation should be revoked immediately, NO nation should be soveriegn as a religion, rather than a secular state. As long as non-catholic officials can't buy land in the Vatican, then the Vatican is a theocratic goverment that needs to be toppled. The pope should NEVER be given the same powers and diplomatic immunity as a true head of state.

Until all the palestinian refugees are allowed to buy all the land they want in Israel- then it is a form of aparthied light, and needs to be forced to allow those poeple to settle in Israel proper, and hold the same high goverment office as anyone in the land. Any country that has a war criminal like Sharon in charge should be treated just like Serbia and Slobodon Milosivic and arrested and taken to stand charges in the Hague.

But we have this silly hands off Israel does no wrong policy in the US, and it is extremely de-stabilizing in a region that is already known for it's instability.

You can cry racism until the day is done Loreng- all it shows is the same old tired defense that Israel has used everytime it's policies are challenged "it's because you don't love us anymore" kinda crap- Israel is a racist, aparthied light state, and needs to be called in it, and needs to have the same sanctions we would place against Serbia, or Iran for Nukes, or China for human rights, or Cuba for human rights etc- we need to stop using religion as an excuse for Israel's behavior.

I don't believe Israel is WORSE than the PLO or Hamas- just the equal in bad behavior, and needs to be called on it equally.

And I see no end to it allowing Israels current policies OR Hamas current policies leading to ANYTHING but genocide for one side or the other. There are no 'GOOD GUYS' in this equation- only equally bad guys.


I think the "big D" thing is pure bunk- there is no historical basis for giving a homeland to a poeple that hasn't been a nation in 2000 years. There is better historical claim for the American Indian to claim all of the US. Consider the very RACIST beginnings of the early Jewish-Zionist feelings towards those ARABS ALREADY LIVING THERE:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

The Jews who already lived in the region of Palestine had a long and complex history of interaction with their Muslim neighbours and rulers, which was complicated by the relationship between Islam and Judaism.

Outside of Jerusalem, Safed, and Tiberias, Arabs and/or Muslims constituted the overwhelming majority of the population. The early Zionists were well aware of this, but claimed that the inhabitants could only benefit from Jewish immigration. They also were inclined to settle in uninhabited areas, such as the coastal plain and the Jezreel Valley, thus avoiding conflict with the Arabs. Within Zionist literature, the Arab presence was largely ignored, as in the famous slogan "A land without a people for a people without a land." This slogan is often attributed to Israel Zangwill, but its original form, "A country without a nation for a nation without a country," was penned by Lord Shaftesbury.[13] Generally such statements were propaganda invented by leaders who did not foresee the subsequent conflict with the Arabs and thought of them as allies against the big empires whom they viewed as the main obstacle. Agreements with the Ottoman authorities, or with Arab rulers outside Palestine were their main concern and concerns of the local Arabs were overlooked.[23]

One of the earlier Zionists to warn against these ideas was Ahad Ha'am, who warned in his 1891 essay "Truth from Eretz Israel" that in Palestine "it is hard to find tillable land that is not already tilled", and moreover,

From abroad we are accustomed to believing that the Arabs are all desert savages, like donkeys, who neither see nor understand what goes on around them. But this is a big mistake... The Arabs, and especially those in the cities, understand our deeds and our desires in Eretz Israel, but they keep quiet and pretend not to understand, since they do not see our present activities as a threat to their future... However, if the time comes when the life of our people in Eretz Israel develops to the point of encroaching upon the native population, they will not easily yield their place.
Though there had already been Arab protests to the Ottoman authorities in the 1880s against land sales to foreign Jews, the most serious opposition began in the 1890s after the full scope of the Zionist enterprise became known. This opposition did not arise out of Palestinian nationalism, which was in its infancy at the time, but out of a sense of threat to the livelihood of the Arabs. This sense was heightened in the early years of the 20th century by the Zionist attempts to develop an economy in which Arabs were largely redundant, such as the "Hebrew labor" movement that campaigned against the employment of Arabs. The severing of Palestine from the rest of the Arab world in 1918 and the Balfour Declaration were seen by the Arabs as proof that their fears were coming to fruition.


Zeev JabotinskyA wide range of opinion could be found among Zionist leaders after 1920. However, the division between these camps did not match the main threads in Zionist politics so cleanly as is often portrayed. To take an example, the leader of the Revisionist Zionists, Vladimir Jabotinsky, is often presented as having had an extreme pro-expulsion view but the proofs offered for this are rather thin. According to Jabotinsky's Iron Wall (1923), an agreement with the Arabs was impossible, since they

look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile.

The solution, according to Jabotinsky, was not expulsion (which he was "prepared to swear, for us and our descendants, that we will never [do]") but to impose the Jewish presence on the Arabs by force of arms until eventually they came to accept it. Only late in his life did Jabotinsky speak of the desirability of Arab emigration though still without unequivocally advocating an expulsion policy. After the World Zionist Organization rejected Jabotinsky's proposals, he resigned from the organization and founded the New Zionist Organization in 1933 to promote his views and work independently for immigration and the establishment of a state. The NZO rejoined the WZO in 1951.


OH- and Loreng- don't keep throwing the propaganda that all those Jews living in Palestine today have been there for centuries- Israel isn't called a country of "immigrints" for nothing- there has been a series of "Aliyah's" for decades, starting with the late 1890s, and REALLY getting it's steam on with the immigration of Russian Jews in the late 80s/early 90s. I am sure you remember those- don't you?

Nothing like bringing in poeple from all over the world to do a little ethnic cleansing eh?

I have several friends and family that came to the US or Israel in the Russian Aliyah- so, please, don't go repeating the same old propaganda over and over- whether refugee, or straight up immigrant, Israel is a nation of new immigrants, no different than the same problems we have today in the US- accept, that, in the US, we don't have the goverment say WHICH RACE is allowed to buy large amounts of land once they immigrate LEGALLY.

First off, it's "Israel".

Second, I don't recall Israelis strapping on bomb vests, walking into crowded Arab businesses, and blowing themselves up!

There is a fundamental moral difference between violence associated with self-defense and violence of aggression against innocents. Therefore, your premise that "both are equally bad" is ludicrous. Israel's violence has been to protect itself. Don't you see the distinction here?

There was a difference between the US firebombing of Germany and Japanese cities and the action of those countries in China, S.E. Asia, and most of Europe.

If you see them all as the same, then your moral compass is not calibrated.

Israel is *not* a racist state. But they ARE under attack from Arabs who refuse to let them alone and who refuse to act in peace.

Israel is a de-stabilizing force? That's ridiculous. The REAL de-stabilizing force in that region, a region filled with hate-ridden people who historically have been battling each other for decades, was de-colonialization. When we left the Arabs to govern themselves, and when we sold out pro-American leaders like Shah (by that feather-head Carter), the region become "de-stablized".

Sharon was "war criminal"? By who's definition? For what?

Israel is our friend in a region filled with lunatics, fanatics, and apocalyptical mad-men. They are the beacon of democracy, freedom, and rights for all. They are surrounded by those who do not believe in freedom, democracy, or rights for women and others.

What I see in the world today under the umbrella of "anti zionism" is a resurgence in anti-semitism. It's ironic that the anti-semites used to be found on the "far right". Now they are found on the far left in their alliances with anti-Israel, pro-Islamism, and anti-US groups and nations.

Throwing Israel under the bus would be immoral and counterproductive to the interests of the US and of free people everywhere.

I agree with a portion of what you have said LH- if you wish to have a heart attack now- go ahead LOL- no, all I want is the same right of return for non-jews as jews in that area, the abolishment of the idea of it being a "JEWISH homeland"- I do NOT want genocide for EITHER side. Technically- I could emmigrate there with my family under JEWISH law, and right of return, since my children are Jewish, I would not be denied citizenship with my children and I could "return" to Israel.

It is the notion that it is a "Jewish homeland" that allows pretty indiscriminate, as long as you fulfill the law that you are "Jewish" that creates the problem there- if it were a "homeland for anyone that has lived in that region for a couple hundred years" and had the same rights of citizenship- wouldn't have a problem with it

And just becuase one side has tanks and the other side has suicide bombers- well, you are just describing one having better and more efficient arms- not one side being better than the other.

Like some have said- Israel is a done deal, it is not going anywhere, and at this point, we have millions of Jews who were born there- and, that alone, gives them right to live there IMHO. So what to do? Well, we do the same as we did with South Africa- force them to accept the Arab-palestenian population's right of return and land ownership the same as the Jewish laws. We stop allowing it to be recognized as a "Jewish homeland" (meaning for one religion/race paramount over the others) and force it to behave like we did with South Africa or Serbia.

BOTH sides are guilty of ethnic cleansing- and it should be dealt with accordingly-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

The Nakba or Palestinian exodus, in which the substantial majority of Palestinians (approximately 700,000) in the areas of Palestine that became part of Israel fled or were deported by Israeli forces during the Arab invasion igniting the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.[25][26][27][28]
Jewish exodus from Arab lands, in which the substantial majority of Jews (approximately 800,000) from Arab countries fled or were deported by Arab governments between the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Six Day War in 1967. The major populations affected were in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco.[29][30][31]

Sharon WAS a war criminal, and there was an attempt to bring Sharon to justice by Belgium- another one of our blind loyalty things to Israel instead of calling a war criminal a war criminal and making him face the same justice as Slobodan:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

the brutal massacre of 2,000 Palestinians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla, Beirut, in September 1982. The prosecution, working on behalf of the relatives of some of his victims, alleges that Sharon bore responsibility in his capacity as minister of defence of the occupying power, which under international law was in charge of the overall safety of the population and was party to an agreement to protect the Palestinians. It also holds Sharon responsible for the direct role the Israeli army played both in the massacre and the subsequent internment, torture and disappearance of many of the camps’ inhabitants.


Basically- as these camps were completely surrounded by IDF forces- SOMEHOW these kick butt forces 'DIDN'T SEE" the Christian militian go in a massacre and torture the whole 3500 poeple- curious that eh?

The issue is not the effectiveness of the arms. It is the "intent" of those arms.

Do you not distinguish between violence of aggression and the violence of self defense?

Do you believe that the "suicide bombers" are acting in self defense? If so, of WHAT?

How can you equate the violence of Israel and the violence of the anti-zionist, anti-Jewish, pro Islamist fanatics in that context?

I see the palestenians defending themselves against a better armed opponent, yes. Both sides kill just as indiscriminantley- and it is the bias towards Israel that makes most Americans see the palestenians as terrorists and the Israelis as good guys. I don't buy the whole Israeli defense of thier "homeland" because it is the same as the white south africans defending themselves against "black" terrorists trying to buy thier freedom.

Oppression leads to desperate measures- and Paletenians don't wake up and want to be poor and have thier children and grandmothers strap bombs to themselves to see how many Jews they can kill- it is because of thier fate in history that makes them be this way. Fat and content poeple don't make good suicide bombers

it takes two to tango- and both sides have a never ending list of wrongs

CW- I couldn't agree more- but the deal here seems to be that "the Isrealis can do no wrong, it is those dirty arab terrorists rag monkeys that are the problem"- ANY claim otherwise must be "racist".

I see two sides bent on genocide of the other- they are both far radicalized from the pre-ottoman fall when ALL poeples in the region were considered "semite"

I firmly believe we would have a more BALANCED set of policies towards Israel if it werent' for the religious aspect of the politics.

In what way are the Palestinians "defending" themselves? The Israeli's have not attacked them unless it's in self defense.

The Jews have been in that region as long as the Palestinians have. And besides, they WON their territory after numerous wars tried to eliminate that state from existence.

Per your logic, do you believe that Native American Indians are justified in killing the "invaders" of their "homeland"?

Would our law enforcement attacks on them in response be "just as wrong"?

Where do you draw the line on aggression vs. self defense?

I am amazed you would even place the US in the same category as China, Syria and Turkey. We, as a nation, continually strive to improve and make attempts to right our wrongs while the other nations you listed refuse. I also notice you do not place Russia in that category. Is that because of its socialist



The only reason it hasn't existed in over 2000 was for the fact that each and every place the Jews have gone, they experienced genocide and expulsion. They were once a nation of free people and even today, people are trying to deny their existance.



Ethnic cleansing???? Are you refereing to the 6 day war to where many of the Arab nations tried to eliminate the Israelis?




How is this even analogous? Matter of fact, your analogy is border line ludicrous.




Done nothing? Provide a stable ally in the region is not supporting US interest?



Israel has no religious mandates nor does it dictate what religion is required. There is absolute freedom of religion so your theory of a religious homeland holds no water.