I found this on a Netanyahu web site. Surprisingly and chillingly candid, unlike the usual apologetics for Israel that you hear repeatedly on chat room forums and in other pro-Israel venues.

http://www.netanyahu.org/ismorleg.html

Some excerpts.

Doug Casey

The way a country is founded and the principles of its founders have a real effect on the way it evolves. And Israel's founding presents some real problems, especially in view of the current hysteria about terror. Terrorism was an integral part of Israel's founding, although the Israelis are forced to deny it. As far as I can determine, terror was used by all three Israeli military groups that later became the Israel Defense Forces – in ascending order of guilt, the Haganah, the Irgun and the Stern Gang. I hate, of course, to accuse anyone of terrorism because the term is so ill defined, so overused, and so fashionable. Entirely apart from the fact it has always been an integral, effective and accepted part of warfare, at least until very recently.

The situation came to a boil at the time of Israeli independence in 1948, with the Deir Yassin incident. In Deir Yassin, a village of about 1,000, roughly 250 people were massacred by elements of the Irgun and the Stern Gang. Menachem Begin was quoted as saying (although possibly not apprised of how bad it was) "accept my congratulations on this splendid conquest … As at Deir Yassin, so everywhere, we will attack and smite the enemy." This understandably caused widespread panic among the Palestinians, and roughly 650,000 left their land, and emigrated as refugees. Those people, and their descendants, feel the Jews effectively stole their land.

Israel has been in a more-or-less constant state of war from its founding. The underlying causes of the conflict are fully intact. In fact, as the Muslim population keeps growing, and as generations of young Palestinians grow up fighting, it's likely to get worse. Here's a certainty: The Israelis can win every battle and every war, but that's not going to win peace. And if they lose only one war, they'll cease to exist. So an Armageddon of some sort seems almost inevitable – simply a matter of time.

the fates of America and Israel are, at this point, almost inextricably intertwined. If Israel has a serious problem, it becomes America's problem. If Social Security is the "third rail" of U.S. domestic policy, then Israel is its equivalent in U.S. foreign policy. And it's not just because of the Jewish lobby in the U.S. government, although that's not to be underestimated. Especially since there's no countervailing Palestinian lobby.

Americans have a well of sympathy for the fate of the Jews in the Holocaust, and believe they deserve a homeland. American media tends to give a pro-Israeli slant to whatever reporting they do. Israelis fight with hi-tech weapons like Americans – they needn't conduct suicide attacks. Americans are traditionally sympathetic to the outnumbered and the underdog, which (at least in some ways) is how the Israelis are perceived. Scores of thousands of Jewish Americans have lived in Israel, and millions of Americans have traveled there – very few have any real experience of the Arab world. And that's absolutely true of Bush and his advisers.

This is a good.

Governments based on religion are dangerous. They are a danger to any not of that religion. This will be a constant source of conflict and turmoil. The history Casy has cited and the religious state problem will keep Isreal in a state of war forever. Isreal will have to change if they wish peace.

I don't think Israel alone will have to change for peace. Gray Seal's same point could and should be applied to Islamic state's that have pledged war against The Jewish nation, Jews around the world, and Americans because of their alliance with Israel.

I cite the 1998 peace agreement that almost was, where Arafat was offered nearly everything, and turned it down. Compromise has to be made on both sides.

My observation does indeed apply to other governments. However, the change needed in Isreal to treat all citizens the same regardless of religion is one independent of other governments. If Isreal is no longer a Jewish state, it has a chance to end the turmoil. Compromises with other governments will not solve this.

And, yes this observation applys to all governments. There are reports that Iran may change from a religion based government towards a secular one. We shall see if this results in a more progressive country. I predict it will.

Dingo.

A most interesting dialog this site presents.

It is interesting to note that countries that have evolved over many hundreds of years and developed a system of Government based on experience are perhaps a little more mature, and stable, than those who were founded and adhere to a set of written rules.

I have no respect for Israel and the way it conducts itself in as much as I have no respect for America for condoning and aiding it.

It scares me.

Regards.......Alan

This is a tuffy because Israel was founded by Zionists who wanted a homeland for Jews. You would have to change the whole raison d'etre of Israel coming into being.

I haven't resolved this issue in my mind. It's unfair, obviously, that a Jew from New York or Russia has "the right of return" although he has no family connection to the region while a Palestinian Muslim who was driven out and may have family going back 6 generations in Israel has no right of return.

On the other hand the purpose of Israel was to provide a homeland for the diaspora Jews who had been persecuted for 100s of years by more powerful ethnic and religious groups. It's hard not to sympathize with that purpose.

America's role is a strange one. The average American would be rejected if he should wish to immigrate to Israel but he is forking over a fairly heavy chunk of his tax money to keep her afloat.

Dingo.

Americas role is a strange one.

NO........not strange more like obvious.

Regards...........Alan

Alan,

Outside of being strongly influenced by proIsraeli lobbying groups I would say it's very strange. Countries at a minimum are suppose to act in their own self-interest. It seems to me we have fallen below that minimum.

So please, explain to me what is so obvious about our policies toward Israel. What would be the self-interested rationale?

America will continue funding Israel.
It will also continue protecting it from unsavoury UN condemnations.

The apparant rational for these actions appears to be........

The continuation of a well equipped, friendly army in a strategic area which, in time of war, would ease the burden on the American military.
In other words....Pay someone else to do it.

If it should happen that this friendly army is also used to persue its own egregious ends.....so be it.
This accounts for the apparant hypocracy evident in American policies.

It may be worth a look at just how powerful the Jewish influence is within American corridors of power.
I did, and it was disturbing.

Regards.......Alan

I'm not aware of any instance where Israeli forces have acted on our behalf. In fact the drain of resources to Israel arguably undermines our military and creates greater challenges due to the hostility we engender because of that support.



Jews, both in Israel and in the US, are leading much of the opposition to Sharon's expansionist settlement policies. Tom Friedman is Jewish, a Zionist and the leading figure on foreign affairs for the NY Times and he very much opposes Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Perhaps the most powerful figure supporting Israel's present policies is the Christian evangelical Pat Robertson. A lot of Christian fundis in this country think the restoration of the state of Israel is the prelude to some great rapture foretold in the Bible. It's very strange but millions of Christians believe this stuff and are often more avid supporters of the state of Israel than their Jewish brethren.

There is a mixed bag of folks on both sides of the issue so I take some exception to you making it strictly a Jewish thing. I have Jewish friends and neighbors who are all over the landscape on this subject. Check out www.tikkun.org if you want to get a different Jewish perspective.

Mr. Wood, I appreciate your opinion, and I'm glad that people like you are out there to highlight the debate on this issue. In America, the people in power have the exact opposite of your ideas, thus we help our friend Israel and stand up to the cowardly Muslim world. You live in Australia where it seems the biggest threat to life and liberty is Paul Hogan doing another Crocodile Dundee movie. But in our world, where decisions of life and death must be made, countries must be protected, and allies are supported, Israel is understood to be the one beacon of light in a region that is darkened by evil regimes from Iraq to Iran, evil individuals, like any terrorist from the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Queda and the like. I'd be curious to know what exactly you do respect.

To diminish domestic issues in Australia to such ridiculous levels serves no other purpose than to incite foreigners to hate America. (Which can be explored here: Anti-American, what's it mean?)

You seem to condone American arrogance and imperialism, HeatherRob, but I will not assume that is true about you unless I hear otherwise.

Jaime, if someone hates me for making an amusing comment, then they are simply looking for an excuse to hate me. I reject the idea that America is imperialist(THis is 2003, not 1953). Where in the world are we "empire building", the latest nome de riguer of the liberal crowd. No one in the world wants to do anything about anyone. Everyone but America's leaders wants to sit on their hands and twiddle their toes. That's classic liberalism. Status Quo, don't rock the boat. THat strategy was blown up by Ronald Reagan as he defeated communism by peace through strength. Bush is merely continuing that excellent policy. There are no more undiscovered lands in the world. Imperialism is like amateurs in the Olympics, leaded gasoline, Walter Mondale. It is not relevant, it is an anachronism. I want you to give me examples of American imperialism.

A few smilies would have helped... (See? ) (We had a bad experience once with a guy, now banned, who kept baiting Alan because he was Australian. I'm glad to know you don't have that intention)

Anyway, I'm suppossedly working so I'll have to you get back to on the American Imperialism. It shouldn't be too hard. I'll post a link to it in the appropriate thread since this is obviously not it.

Give the Jews a third of Montana and let the Arabs go back to killing themselves over Palestine.

Let me qualify that, we would be safer and we would save a lot of money if we found the Jews a homeland within the continental US. Yes, we would have to give up some federal lands and probably force some individuals to sell. These small costs pale compared to the benefits, a nation relatively free from the threats of terrorism, billions of dollars a year saved. We would have a safer country with a lower military budget.

I am betting however Isreals current neighbors, who have attempted to take "Palestine" before, would make a Palestinian state unlikely.

AHHHH!!! Hugo - qualify that! Or put some smilies in so we know you're joking.

So long as they know you'er making an amusing comment - with some people around here (like me), it can be difficult to tell sometimes. The irritating little smilies do help.


I'll wait and see what Jaime comes up with in the appropriate thread.

Actually, that sounds like classic conservatism to me. Maybe you should expound on this new twist on the liberal/conservative dichotomy in the So you're a conservative, eh? thread.

Ronald Reagan had little, if anything, to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union (if that's what you mean by the defeat of communism - seems to me, if one has ever heard of China, that communism is fairly thriving these days). But that, too, is the stuff of another thread.

Getting back to the current topic, what is Israel if not an outpost of the American Empire?

We should start another thread on who was most responsible for defeating communism, come on we all know it was Reagan. Israel is our friend. Friends usually help each other, especially when our friends are surrounded by enemies whose goal is their total destruction. Especially when our friends face states whose leaders are no more than terrorists. Especially when our friends are the only democracy in the area. Funny how I don't see liberals calling the PLO a puppet of Iran, which it is. Funny how I don't see the hypocrisy of Arabs calling Sadam Hussein their great anti-American hero when 12 years ago he invaded an fellow Arab country, remember Kuwait.

In an interview with the Dutch newspaper "Trau" (March 31, 1977), PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said,

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."

The above quotation reads to me like a failed attempt to revive pan-Arabism. The most successful pan-Arab leader to date was the Englishman T.E. Lawrence.

How did Hussein get most of his conventional weapon? Didn't President Reagan have something to do with that?

Wasn't Iraq under Hussein seen as an important ally at least four years into the Iraq-Iran War.

Solution? Sell arms to Iran to illegally fund the Contras in Central America so the war can be prolonged and Iraq doesn't emerge from the war too powerful because it appears we have been funding and supplying an aspiring Middle East emperor.

I am going to try to start that end of communism strand.