It seems appropriate to raise the question in the holiday season about how America became so involved in the affairs of Israel. The Jews began to return to Israel in 1880 just 15 years after our Civil War to an almost population free land. Some Arabs then moved to assist in labor during a peaceful period living together. After WWI & WWII France and Great Britain were the key players in the neighborhood.

After WWII the Jewish people lived across northern Africa and Israel in peace with Muslims and Arabs. It was not until the United Nations created the state of Israel and Palestine, before just a people, with UN Resolution 181, did the problems start.

For all practical purposes the UN created an Indian Reservation for the Israeli’s people in their homeland after an extreme separation period living across Europe to Russia and America.

The questions for debate are:

Why is why is America considered the key player in resolving the Israel-Palestine situation?

Why didn’t the UN compensate the local residents when they created the reservation and allow for peace to exist from the very beginning?

Below are some links I found helpful to find some of the answers:


Ancient history of Israel http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook06.html

The Qur'an says that Allah gave the Land of Israel to the Jews http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/endtimes.html

HISTORY of Israel & "Palestine" http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

UN resolution 181 creating Palestine and Israel http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7f0af2b...53?OpenDocument

While trying to avoid a long drawn out discussion which has been done to death many times here, let me just correct your mistake.


From the BBC:


The whole conflict is about whether the descendants of the people who have lived on the land prior to the Jewish invasion, for roughly 1400 years according to the BBC, have any claim to live there. Their land was taken from them with no say and they turned to violence.

Information below the second map 1917-1922 at link: http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html provided in original post contradicts the BBC account and while only one may be correct you claim higher ground. You say “let me just correct your mistake” while it appears the information provided by you or I is incorrect.

You also say “long drawn out discussion which has been done to death many times here” which would lead me to thinking the questions offered for debate have been answered in the past. Could you please provide me a link, which answers the questions asked for debate presented in my original post, or offer the answers with reference to fact, as they seem to remain unanswered.

Rev DelFuego seems to specialize in quoting the BBC as though they had any knowledge of the Middle East. I rather doubt on a good day they could even find the place.

The First Aliyah was from 1882 to 1903 and some 35,000 Jews immigrated to Israel during that time period establishing the towns of Rishon Lezion, Rosh Pina, and Zikhron Ya'akov. Any good book on the subject will acknowledge that, and there are hundreds available.

Why is why is America considered the key player in resolving the Israel-Palestine situation?They are considered a key player because they are the sole remaining superpower. They however are not a key player, the more they push for a resolution, the less likely there will be a true resolution. Until the Arabs finally agree that Israel is not going to go away there will continue to be conflict.

I know many will disagree, but the truth is that the Arab world continues to demand the destruction of the only Jewish state in the world. As long as this goal remains their focus peace is not possible.

Why didn’t the UN compensate the local residents when they created the reservation and allow for peace to exist from the very beginning?Because they never expected or really wanted Israel to survive. The UN fully expected and supported that 300 million Arabs would utter crush the 0.5 million Jews in short order.

Then UN could cry crocodile tears and say, well we gave them what they asked for and it killed them. But things didn't turn out that way exactly. Nobody including the United States thought that Israel could hold out at 600 to 1 odds.

Besides the Arabs in the area were given a second state in the resolution. If they had accepted that resolution they would have had a place to migrate to. In the end they got neither.

You make a significant point of the US being the remaining superpower for being the reason of our involvement. However, with the cold war looming security of the region should have been at the top of the list for all of Eastern Europe.


I find this logic odd. FDR had started the UN in 1941 with commitment with the signing of the Atlantic Charter after the failure of the League of Nations, which America had not been a member. He was pro Jewish state along with his VP, Truman who took presidency at his death. Before the echo of Hiroshima stopped the USSR started the cold war causing the creation of NATO in 1949, communism spread across Eastern Europe. USSR was involved in support of guerrilla war in Greece and regional separatism in Iran. Some thought WWIII was on the horizon and all actions the UN initiated must stand fast! Consider the resolve the UN displayed in Korea in 1950 requiring the Turks to support the US in resolving the conflict. I remain in wonder if the UN could deploy the Turks to Korea Conflict why didn’t they send a mission into Palestine-Israel?

Hate to burst your bubble, but FDR pro-Jewish, not a chance.

Not only did FDR keep out nearly all the Jews fleeing from Germany, he made sure that those that made it to countries like Cuba were sent back as well. He also would not allow the Air Force to bomb the concentration camps.

As for Truman, well he supported the creation and then did absolutely nothing. He placed an embargo on the sale of weapons to the Middle East. The Arabs were buying from the French and British, and left Israel with no place to turn, except Czechoslovakia.

Besides it was the UN that voted to divide the mandate for a second time not the US and the other members had even less concern for the fate of the Jews. Most wanted the Arabs to finish what Hitler started. The UN voted to support South Korea only when the USSR walked out of the Security Council, an act that they never repeated.

As for US involvement now, the US thinks the Arabs hate them because of their support for Israel and the US is attempting to gain favor in their eyes at the expense of Israel. The truth is just the opposite, the Arabs hate Israel for it's support of the US. Arabs hate us for being their opposite - tolerant, rich, industrious, and educated.

Sorry about that I was reading a link http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovern...tml#anchor11844 trying to figure out where the BBC got their information for Rev DelFuego that went into a lot of suspicious detail about FDR and the Jewish folks. I did read some personal letters from Truman speaking of the Jewish State last year on another research. I also read much to the connection to FDR and Truman in association as to why the majority of the Jewish community supports the Democratic Party.




I can find no fact to disprove your statement. There was peace before 181 and hostilities after 181, so unless someone else chimes in …one question down.


Well, Japan had occupied the Korea’s and had the UN and US not stepped in the Koreas would have retaliated on Japan while it was weak and probably have won…a different world and Far East than supports Toyota’s today.

I still feel the UN is responsible for their reservation since there was peace before and hostilities after they took action with 181. When I see the French and Great Britain influence it the neighborhood to include Kuwait, the basis for our current war in Iraq I find it near impossible the US had no opinion of the hard fought over sand after WWII finished

Well here
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...emograhics.html

http://www.war-times.org/issues/2art4.htm

And yes I would trust the BBC over MASADA2000 because the BBC doesn't intentionally claim to be bias by saying:

From Yahoo search results
"History and Geography of Israel and Palestine
from a pro-Israeli viewpoint which argues for the explusion of Palestinians from Israel."

Why is why is America considered the key player in resolving the Israel-Palestine situation?
Our government has has a very big reason to resolving the conflict, AIPAC has given Congress, Senate, and the Executive branch roughly 40M reasons since 1978. In addition if you open your mouth against the Israeli aggression they have a tendency to label you anti semitic which can and has ended political careers.

Why is America considered the key player in resolving the Israel-Palestine situation?
I would say it was mostly because the USA is the primary bank-roller of the state of Israel, and the primary protector of Israeli interests in places where Israel has no direct voice, like the UN security council.
Many countries around the world support or have strong influence over the Palesinians, and many more are broadly neutral, but only the USA has significant influence over Israeli policy (via the significant monetary support that the US gives).
The USA also supports other countries in the region, most notably Egypt, but nobody else supports Israel the way the USA does, for whatever reason.

I'd also say that this special influence is at least as much because the Israelis do not really trust any other country as much as they trust America, than because of any special wisdom or insight of American policy - that's not meant to sound like a put-down to America, I'm trying to get across that America's special status in the situation is driven by how Israel feels about you, rather than by how you feel about Israel (though of course the two are linked).

Now, clearly, influence is not the same thing as control - both the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves have to want to change their behaviour so as not to sustain the violence before it will end. Very few external parties (outside the Arab world, anyway) have much interest in continued conflict, yet neither France (who broadly support the Palestinian position) nor the USA (who broadly support the Israeli position) nor the UK (who support elements of both) have been able to stop the bloodshed.

Why didn’t the UN compensate the local residents when they created the reservation and allow for peace to exist from the very beginning?

Simple short-sightedness - the law of unintended consequences in action.

I don't altogether buy the reservation analogy - Indians were offfered reservations on largely empty land nobody else wanted which had no special significance to them, spritually. The Jews were offered similar land in sub-Saharan Africa by the British Empire and turned it down, instead preferring (undertandably perhaps) to congregate in their spiritual homeland and to attempt to eject the occupying power (the British) by means of terrorism. After WW2 the newly formed UN formally recognised their right to stay and form a religious state, at least in part because they felt guilt and shame at the cruelty visited upon Jews during WW2, many of whom died in concentration camps because the free world refused them access - not understanding or appreciating what that meant. (Law of unintended consequences - again!).

For the Indian analogy to have fully hold, the Jews would have taken up the offer of East African land, or the Native Americans would have been offered their old lands back, rather than hunks of desert or wasteland nobody else really wanted.

So, the Irgun did what... handed out cookies? And the Arabs never rioted or formed feyadeens in Palestine prior to Resolution 181; they just merely gathered in groups and sang campfire songs?

Resolution 181 was supposed to be an answer to the UK's desire to get out of the Mandate and the hostilities happening at the time -- which were part of the reason the UK wanted out of the Mandate. So, your second question makes no sense to me.

As to the first, the US has a vested interest in Israel, it is a democracy in the Middle East and a US ally.

Why is America considered the key player in resolving the Israel-Palestine situation?

Because Israel is able to control the USA, and it is in Israel's interests to maintain the illusion of US influence in return for the vast sums of money and military resources by which the Israeli's have managed both to maintain their military edge over their neighbours and to become one of the worlds major arms manufacturers and dealers.

Thanks to French cooperation during the fifties (and despite American opposition) Israel was able to build nuclear weapons at the underground nuclear reactor at Dimona in the Negev desert near Beersheba. Israel has managed to hold the USA hostage for several decades by using its (then) secret nuclear arsenal as a counter balance to the powerful Arab nations of Saudi Arabia and Egypt and any pressures they may bring to bear on the USA by means of their vast oil wealth. In order to placate both sides and stablise the region, the USA has been forced to provide both sides with extensive military aid. More info on this can be read here.

In the mean time, Israel has carried out a strategy of under selling its principal weapons supplier for own gain by often passing on US military technology to undesirable nations (like China) demonstrating how little true influence the USA has over Israel.

I doubt Israel actually wants peace with the Palestinians... after all, they're winning. They maintain the illusion of desiring peace because its not fashionable to talk about getting rid of the Palestinains and they do not wish for world, or more specifically, US popular opinion to turn against them. In the mean time however, they continue to use hard military power against the Palestinians (who don't really want peace either) with the aim of gradually squeezing the Palestinians totally out of their own land.


Why didn’t the UN compensate the local residents when they created the reservation and allow for peace to exist from the very beginning?

Because the UN had no means to do so.

Thanks for the participation. I had a former debate on the same subject on an international debate site with a Palestinian and Jewish participant and failed to be compelled to do much research as now. I'm overwhelmed by false information on the subject and must find a reliable information source. I will offer the two sites below for your review.

Again, I can only verify there was hostilities after 181 at this point. The US was not a member of the League of Nations, which would indicate some of the first link might possess truth. I will have to verify before conceding to any view. I acknowledge the Jewish community has historically supported the Democratic Party and the Bush family has connections with Saudi Arabia. In the first link it was reported FDR had the connection with the Saudi King fearing WWIII not to displace the Palestinians. Then in the same reference Truman broke FDR’s promise causing the vote connection and the hostilities requiring the UN to involve itself. I wasn’t there and will seek out some truths that are more verifiable and post sources and what I found. The second source is just very hard for me to take seriously.

http://www.mideastweb.org/us_supportforstate.htm US Support for Israeli Statehood

Jewish Assets in FDR's New Deal
Decision-Making Apparatus http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovern...tml#anchor11844

SAY WHAT?!??! Since when does Israel control the US? That is a base canard usually fomented by people claiming that Jews control the world, etc.

Pure off topic bunk. Spouting anti-Israeli off topic propaganda does nothing to enhance the exchange of ideas.

Actually Israeli technology with no US involvement and the US is providing advanced US weaponry that was developed with Israeli assistance to hostile Arab regimes.

Lets look at this logically. Israel has the strongest military in the region, and since 1967 has been more than capable of defeating all of their neighbors. If Israel wanted to destroy the 'Palestinians' they would be dead already. Instead they have attempted to live in peace with them. Israel is very capable of taking them out, taking the Saudi oil fields, taking Damascus, etc. So they didn't truly desire peace, why don't they? With Saudi oil, they could well afford to do without the US, but still they don't.

It is not a lack of ability, it is a lack of desire.


Since when? They change the rules to suit themselves on a regular basis and have the means since it was formed

Loreng



I'm failing to see where my post was 'anti Israeli'

Are you suggesting that Warner Farr, (LTC, U.S. Army) of the Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base is not to be trusted?

...or are you just suggesting that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?

An opposing argument would be appreciated.

Claiming that Israel is somehow in control of the United States and/or it's government and that the only reason that Israel does not destroy the 'Palestinians' is to appease the US and that is not anti-Israeli propaganda. Sounds like something the UN or Saudi government would spew.

As for LTC Farr, don't know a thing about, have no opinion of him.

As for Israel having or not having nuclear weapons. First has nothing to do with the subject, second has not been proven to date, and third, who the heck cares, they haven't signed the NNPT so they can do as they feel. Unlike Iran which did sign it.

Well, google the words Irgun and Lehi and Arab riots and 1920's. You will see that hostilities existed long before Resolution 181.

Here is some information on that topic:

Arab Riots of the 1920's

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...story/lehi.html

There are some links regarding violence occuring before Resolution 181.

As for the Indian Reservation analogy, it is a bit absurd. Native Americans were forced to live in small regions in the United States by the government. Jews were never forced to live in Israel. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

The Mandate for Palestine was never intended to exclude the Arabs. It was never intended to, in and of itself, create a Jewish State. The goal was to create a state that would be a national home for Jews AND respect the beliefs of the Arabs, kind of a melting pot. The violence against both the British and the Arabs by Jewish terrorist organizations and against Jews (and I believe the British) by Arab terrorist organizations seems to me to be a key factor leading to Resolution 181.

Have you heard of the great uprising? BOTH Jewish AND Arab hostilities existed before 181. The British believed that the Arab nationalists and Jewish population could come to some sort of agreement, in spite of completely conflicting WWI promises to each. They were wrong.

After reading some history on Encarta Encyclopedia on Israel, WWI & WWII I’m tending to agree with Loreng 59’s post #4 on Dec. 28.

Moif you seem to have a very strong feeling toward the Jewish state and people. Perhaps your bias is based on something other than facts? Then again, if you have some factual sources relating to the questions for debate please provide them.

My research indicates there were hostilities between the Jews and Palestinian People post WWI to 1939. However, these clashes were resultant to Great Britain poor management of the Mandate authority granted by the League of Nations. In fact when the Jews first returned to the mandated homeland the land was near a vacant lot that Russian, Polish and German Jews improved. Many Arab Muslim and Christian’s came searching for employment in a time of world recession.

Resultant to WWI and WWII much of the old Arab empire was mandated by the League of Nations because the Ottoman empire was on the losing side, Hitler’s side, so many people were displaced as new lines were drawn in the sand by the victors. So, by mandate GB has eased direct control on Israel and the Arab counterparts allowing them to set up their own governments. As a result Israel controlled immigration that got out of hand just before WWII with persecution in Germany. GB tried to please both sides and limit immigration but didn’t act effectively.

Regardless all hostilities were attributed to an international body the League of Nations (minus the US) that tasked GB to establish the Israel Homeland and manage the Palestine sector as France managed another sector in the neighborhood. Confrontations cannot be blamed on the Jews to the point of the UN taking over since the L of N’s authorized the Mandate. In fact if you look at the link on post one of the topic for UN res. 181 the mandate was continued until formal governments and security forces were in place for both the Jews and the Arabs. The UN actually created the borders of the two peoples and recognized them officially. Here is where I come into agreement with Loreng 59’s post #4, shortly after the Jews accepted the state authorized by the UN a coalition of Arabs attacked Israel without UN interference. But instead of Israel getting wiped off the earth Israel won and took more land from the Arabs.

Enter the problems Gen. Marshall (Truman’s No. 1 trusted Gen.) had with hundreds of thousands of displaced Jews in Germany. My guess is Truman agreed to eliminate his problems in Germany at the wishes of Marshall since the UN was blind to happenings in Israel by the time. Based on this research I’m guessing much of the first link I provided in my last post is correct. It portrays Truman as a reluctant liberal and distrusting of the Jews in thinking of their majorities origin from Russia prior to WWII would turn Israel into a communist state. We were deep in the cold war with Russia and then Korea happened leaving Israel to fester.

loreng59

How can Israeli nuclear weapons have nothing to do with the question of 'why is America considered the key player in resolving the Israel-Palestine situation?'

Perhaps you didn't read the page I linked to? If not let me quote the penultimate concluding paragraph from the document:




Ol Sarge

Because, of course, any one who disagree's with the policies of the state of Israel, must have an ulterior agenda right?

How can Israeli nuclear weapons have nothing to do with the question of 'why is America considered the key player in resolving the Israel-Palestine situation?One does not have to do with the other, in fact I see zero correlation between them. Just because so Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army claims, number one that Israel has nuclear weapons, and number two that they would use them on the US or at least threaten to use them does not make it a fact.

After reading the stuff you linked from LTC Farr, I would question why he is not in a mental hospital. Israel has repeatedly denied having nuclear weapons, and so far no credible proof has been presented. Also Israel and the US have good relations, and if Israel ever threaten the US that would immediately end, so that too has not only not been proven, but just the opposite. I can only conclude that LTC Farr is a nut case and will not ever waste anymore time on anything he ever writes again.

Since you have and continue to make wild accusations against the State of Israel that more than stretch the limits of credibility I think that Ol Sarge has a valid point of your bias.

Somehow all the problems are Israel's fault, Israel controls the US, Israel threatens the world with nuclear weapons, etc, etc. When does it end?

Moif, I think this is a war college research paper. Warner Farr was a student at the War College, not an instructor. He is a surgeon, not a foreign policy or counterproliferation expert. They probably do these sorts of papers in staff school. From your link:

loreng59

There's no need to exagerate. I've never made the claim that Israel is solely to blame for all the problems in the middle east. Nor have I made any claim that Israel threatens the world with nuclear weapons. I asked you for an opposing argument. Not arrogant dismissal and thinly veiled insults.



Mrs Pigpen.

And thats cool. Maybe Lt Farr is indeed talking from his fundamental orifice, who can tell?

But one thing is certain; Being told that I'm 'anti Israel' or worse, or that Lt Farr is an insane liar, simply on the basis that Loreng59 and Ol Sarge disagree with me, does not make for any evidence of anything. After all, they'd have us believe that America is Israel's ally merely on the basis of Israel's democratic status.

If that were so, then why did the USA help to overthrow the democratically elected government of Chile? Are we to assume that Americans just love Jews but have scant regard for Chileans? Are we to accept that Israeli democracy means so much to the USA that it is prepared to pay 12 million dollars a day to sustain it? Well, I'm sorry but I don't believe that for one moment, and even if it were true, then how can the USA possible justify supporting one state on the basis of its democracy whilst actively seeking the over throw of democratically elected governments elsewhere?

And really, what possible difference does Lt Farr's status within the USAF have on whether or not he is telling the truth? The fact is, he is NOT in an insane asylum, and Israel HAS imprisoned Mordechai Vanunu for revealing the existence of Israel's nuclear arsenal.

So... a simple question was asked, and I gave a simple reason and now I'm 'anti Israel' as well as 'anti American'. Its amazing how 'hate' filled I am become after I've dared to have an opposing point of view to the acceptable conservative global world vision!

My point of view is very simple. Israel is not some weak little state that is unable to defend itself, and has not been so for a very long time.
It is the worlds fifth largest producer and seller of weapons. It has a per capita GDP comparable to Holland's and yet, is still the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It operates one of the worlds largest intelligence organizations and has been caught using other nations passports in order to operate murder teams in foreign countries. It regularly uses armoured vehicles and high calibre munitions against largely civilian targets. It is a state founded through terrorism and ethnic cleansing, and yet any one who points this out, is 'biased'.

Right...

There is no exaggeration is needed, just stating what you have claimed. You have stated that Israel controls the US, threatens the US with nuclear weapons, founded on terrorism and has committed ethnic cleansing, etc, etc. Not only is not a single one of those ever been proven, but each has been proven to be a lie, yet you continue to claim them. No country in the world has done more to avoid the civilian population, but why confuse you with the facts. Biased, you biased? I will let your words speak for themselves.

Yes Israel has become a fairly successful nation, despite of having to fight 5 major wars, and endure hundreds of thousands of attacks from 300 million Arabs for past 57 years, and yes the US has furnished aid for the past 30 years. We also give about 11 million dollars a day to Egypt and they have nobody threatening them.

We all know what a great democratic nation Egypt is, heck they're even talking about amending their constitution to allow more than one candidate for President. How democratic is that?

But none of that is even germane to the discussion. The US is a key player because the are the only super power, and they stick their nose into the situation without regard to the desires of the populations of the region, and the UN never thought that Israel would survive an attack from hundreds of millions of Arabs.

The history teacher in me, and the free time on a day off, can no longer stay out of this debate.

UN Resolution 181 was a resolution created by the General Assembly of the United Nations. Does anyone think that a General Assembly Resolution can actually create a country.

Also that resolution followed the model of a British study in 1937 that called for a two-state solution for the population of the Palestine mandate. The jewish state that was to be created by UN Resolution 181 had a bare majority of Jews in it.

Also Jerusalem was to be created as an international city, ala Danzig from WWI.

Israel created Israel. The UN was not trying to let the Arabs finish the job created by the Germans, they were trying to end the mandate status of the mandate with a compromise.

Israel accepted it and the Palestinians did not. Israel declared itself an independent state and immediately the United States recognized the nation.

The UN did not create the nation of Israel. The UN was not proposing making a reservation for Jews. The UN was not proposing displacing the local population. This happened in the ensuing war in which Israel defeated the disorganized forces of five nations and in the fighting many of the resident Palestinians fled as refugees and Israel absorbed more territory than was laid out by the proposal of the General Assembly. At the end of hostilities Israel refused the right of return to the Arab refugess that fled the fighting. (This is likely the source of Moif's claim of ethnic cleansing)

Also at this same time the Arab nations, most of which only just coming into existence, tended to expel their Jewish populations which were fairly substantial. Iraq and Yemen are two easily searchable examples of this.

The United States established itself of a protector of Israel at this time. It also connected itself clearly to the nations of Turkey and Greece in these Cold War years. Since then we have considered Israel a key strategic ally in the region. When Egypt became the first arab nation to make peace with Israel and thereby officially recognize Israel's right to exist, it too, began to receive a tremendous amount of US foreign assistance.

I think our main reasons for the support of Israel are political (domestic opinion favors Israel) and in part for supporting a friendly democracy and the strongest power in the Middle East.

Eeyore, I will not dispute the fact that the UN did not create Israel. You are on target on that point. Nor will I disagree with your reasons for continued US support. I will dispute the statement that the UN did not want the Arabs to finish off the Jews. Not the UN as a whole, just a large percentage of the membership, but that is just my opinion.

As for the US establishing itself as Israel's protector in 1948, the facts are to the contrary. The US placed the MiddleEast on a weapons embargo and did not supply Israel with any weapons or aid until President Nixon did so.

[QUOTE][quote=loreng59,Jan 5 2005, 01:37 PM]
[quote=Eeyore,Jan 5 2005, 11:24 AM]The history teacher in me, and the free time Eeyore, I will not dispute the fact that the UN did not create Israel. You are on target on that point. Nor will I disagree with your reasons for continued US support. I will dispute the statement that the UN did not want the Arabs to finish off the Jews. Not the UN as a whole, just a large percentage of the membership, but that is just my opinion.

As for the US establishing itself as Israel's protector in 1948, the facts are to the contrary. The US placed the MiddleEast on a weapons embargo and did not supply Israel with any weapons or aid until President Nixon did so.

[/quote] [/QUOTE]

(This was accidentally edited out when I first posted it--user error)

Loreng, I made the mistake of overstating the military relationship between the United States and Israel in the years immediately after the formation of Israel. The United States seems to have had a policy that favored the existence of Israel and the establishment of friendly relationships with the Arab world for Cold War and Oil Supply reasons. For that reason, we wanted to preserve the 1948 status quo by having Israel in a position to be able to defend itself, but we did not want it to expand its boundaries. Sorry I snipped this out somehow.

Here is one link that describes that relationship from 1948-1972.

The United States provided only a limited amount of arms to Israel, including ammunition and recoilless rifles, prior to 1962. In that year, President Kennedy sold HAWK anti-aircraft missiles, but only after the Soviet Union provided Egypt with long-range bombers.

By 1965, the U.S. had become Israel's main arms supplier. This was partially necessitated by West Germany's acquiescence to Arab pressure, which led it to stop selling tanks to Israel. Throughout most of the Johnson Administration, however, the sale of arms to Israel was balanced by corresponding transfers to the Arabs. Thus, the first U.S. tank sale to Israel, in 1965, was offset by a similar sale to Jordan.7

The U.S. did not provide Israel with aircraft until 1966. Even then, secret agreements were made to provide the same planes to Morocco and Libya, and additional military equipment was sent to Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia.8

As in 1948, the U.S. imposed an arms embargo on Israel during the Six-Day War, while the Arabs continued to receive Soviet arms. Israel's position was further undermined by the French decision to embargo arms transfers to the Jewish State, effectively ending their role as Israel's only other major supplier.
Myths & Facts Online

It is an Israeli-biased site but I think these facts are correct.

This link provides a better overview and it shows a case by base approach to Israeli military aid until the Nixon Era and it generally supports the spirit of Loreng's post.
Link

Eeyore I stand corrected on the weapons sales. Though I did find this one interesting One can hardly consider that the US was acting as Israel's protector from 1948, when they 24 years before blocking any of the multitude of UN resolutions against it.

I must say that if stopping the return of people that voluntarily depart during a war is a form of ethnic cleansing, then just about all of the nations of the world are guilty of such an offense including the US that refused to allow any of the Americans that fled during the Revolution to return, or get paid for any of their property that they left. It certainly is not the definition used under international law that definition is "The term ethnic cleansing refers to various policies of forcibly removing people of another ethnic group." Not allowing somebody to return can not be defined as ethnic cleansing.

Of course the U.S. is a "key player." Without continued U.S. subsidy (roughly $3-5 billiion per year); without significant annual payments to purchase the neutrality of the Egyptian regime; and without ultimate guarantee of U.S. military support; Israel could not survive in anything resembling its current form.

Israel is (unless you count modern Iraq) the last great expression of Western colonialism. Its constitution is closely akin to that of apartheid South Africa, premised on the innate superiority of a single ethnic group. (And let us please not quibble about the difference between "ethnic" and "ethno-religious.") It is quite remarkable indeed to observe the intellectual contortions of Zionists who attempt to deny this.

The simple answer to the question of why reparations were not offered to Palestinians at the the time of Israel's creation is that doing that would have been impractical. First, it would have been prohibitively expensive to offer compensation anywhere near sufficient to purchase the concurrence of the Palestinians. Second, it would have constituted a rejection of the popular ficition, necessary to world acceptance of the idea of Israel, that the founding of the Zionist state would have a benign effect on those who were then living in Palestine. The subsequent decades have amply illustrated just how benign that influence was.

Where to start? Let's see Israel survived without US Aid until 1974, so I think that the claim that Israel needs US Aid is false. It has it's uses, but survival, no. If the US stopped it's aid to Israel's neighbors, then there would be no need for American support.

Number two Israel's constitution. They don't have one! Whoops! Where in the heck did you get that one?

Number three Israel as an Apartheid regime, well lets see what that means.
Israel has no racial laws, never have, unlike most nations, including the United States. So what in the world can you be referring to? Maybe the "Right of Return" for Jews. Well if that is the case then it is nothing like Apartheid since anybody can apply for immigration to Israel. Jews and those that have a fear of genocide have a priority to live there. In fact thousands of Muslims from Bosnia settled in Israel when nobody else would accept them. Now then the 56 Muslim nations of the world do not allow non-Muslims to immigrate at all. Several of them including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE do not allow any immigration. Yet there nobody claims that those are Apartheid regimes. Is that what you are referring to. Or perhaps that Jews and certain non-Jews are drafted into the IDF. None are refused membership based on their religion, they just aren't drafted so what?

So just who claims to have any innate superiority? The only ones claiming that are the Arabs, not the Israelis.

yes...

And the bible goes into nice detail about how, when they left Egypt in the main exodus, the armies of Israel proceeded to destroy every town they came across, because they wouldn't let the thousand strong group in.

Rewind. THEY DESTROYED EVERY TOWN.

Having finally made it to a nice bit of land, they found that it was currently inhabited by a people who weren't really warrior type. THey were farmers. So the armies of Israel forced these people (the palestinians) from their own land.

My question is this. With all the regular discussion on terrorist activity, is there a point or a size at which a terrorist group stops being considered a terrorist group, and starts being considered something more politically friendly? I would suggest that Israel has, since it left Egypt, been nothing more than a people relient on their strong military skills, who have terrorised every people they have crushed on the way to getting their "promised land".

This has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with history, and current policy. If the "Basque separatist" terrorist group of Spain marched into France, and took over the country, holding them down with military might and terrorist activity, taking the land as their own, would they not still be terrorists? Or maybe they'd have to wait a few years.

If France then retaliated in the only way they could, by what is referred to as terrorist activity, would they not still be the rightful owners of their country?

Let's start with the facts. We could go back and forth about which groups were warriors and those that weren't but why? The people of biblical period were not Muslims. Islam did not exist for another 4,500 years. So to claim that they were one in the same as the current residents, makes about as much sense as claiming the current Israelis are somehow culpable for actions that occurred 5,500 years ago. In the end not one of them is alive today.

So to introduce ancient history as a justification for terrorism is a waste of time. Terrorism is very easy to define, it is only those that want to make exceptions that attempt to redefine it and confuse the issue. Terrorism is the targeting of non-combatants period. There is no other definition. When it targets a specific race, religion, sex, etc. then it is not only terrorism, but also the war crime of genocide. That definition can be used anywhere in the world, regardless of competing land ownership issues or anything else. If one group targets non-combatants then they are committing terrorism.

Would controling the flow of water to Palestinians (non-combatants) be considered an act of terrorism? How about destroying Palestinian homes to build a wall deemed illegal by the ICJ? Is it ok to open fire on a 14 year old boy who's throwing stones at your APC? I was 14 once and I'm pretty sure I did somethings worse than throwing stones. Normaly if a protest gets out of hand, tear gas or pepper spray is used, not bullets.

You can't possibly tell me the IOF and IDF have no blood on their hands, terrorism is on both sides.


Why is why is America considered the key player in resolving the Israel-Palestine situation?

The Jewish lobby in America (AIPAC) always makes the top 5 in the amount of money they give. The Arab lobby is almost non-existant. Israel knows they have the unwaivering support of the US regardless of what attrocities they commit.

How do mean controlling? Do they have water - that answer is yes, so they are not going thirsty no terror in that.

Building a wall to keep out terrorists is a terrorist act - Now the victim is guilty for trying not to be a victim. The Geneva Convention even disagrees you there.

How many people have been killed by stones throw at them over there? The answer is more than 100. The IDF has shot 14 year olds for doing a lot more than throwing stones, that yes some have been shot for that, it happens and it is regrettable but the Israeli government has prosecuted people for that. But since the PLO routinely uses children to hide behind and shoot at those Israeli troops how do you suggest tear gas be used? Also when those same kids throw Molotov Cocktails what do you do? This is not some street protest, they are using rockets, mortars, roadside bombs, automatic weapons and you want police tactics against that? How many people has the PLO prosecuted for attacking Israelis? I can answer with the number zero, it's not even a crime according to them.

Please do not insult my intelligence, the Arab lobby groups have and continue to spend millions of dollars every year.

As for atrocities the Israel has supposedly committed, care to name one? I can give a few thousand that the Arabs have committed. There is no terrorism by the IDF nor has there been any, please produce one act by the IDF which the Israeli government did not prosecute the individual.

Just a little fact a couple of years ago a Mexican youth in Mexico threw a rock at an American Border Patrolman on the American side. He was shot to death and the Border Patrolman was decorated and promoted for his actions. Was that terrorism?

Well, to begin with:
Palestine, Israel: settlers cut water supply
http://www.irc.nl/page/13127

and:
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2002/02/26/blood/
"International law states that most of the water sources in the area are international
resources, and as such must be shared by Israelis and Palestinians according to the
principle of equitable and reasonable use.

....

At present, Israelis receive five times as much water per person as Palestinians. In Gaza, the disparity is even more striking, with settlers getting seven times as much water as their Palestinian neighbors. Stated differently, on average, Israelis get 92.5 gallons per person per day, while Palestinians in the West Bank get 18.5 gallons per person per day. The minimum quantity of water recommended by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the World Health Organization for household and urban use alone is 26.4 gallons per person per day."


and:
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/pubs/19990818ib.html
"Currently, Israel consumes more than 80 percent of Palestinian ground water and denies Palestinians their rightful utilization of the Jordan River. Israel allocates Palestinians 93 million cubic meters (mcm) per year for industrial use, and 153 mcm per year for agricultural use, leaving per capita consumption for domestic use at less than 30 cubic meters per year. Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories are consuming Palestinian water at the rate of more than 75 mcm per year. On an annual, per capita basis, Israelis consume more than four times as much water as Palestinians."





Think what you like, the ICJ declared it an illegal wall and the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly (150-6-10 if I remember) agreed with the ruling. Even the Israeli supreme court asked for the path of the wall to be changed. As for the Geneva Convention, please let me know what you're talking about:



...This is just the very tip of the iceberg when it comes to the problems with the wall.



While I'm sure you're probably right, make me happy and give me a cite I'd like to know.



Again, please cite. Now, which faction of the PLO is responsible for prosecuting members of other factions? The PLO is divided into many factions, some moderate, some violent. Besides, I'd say Israel does the prosecution for them, they throw Molotov Cocktails Israel returns with Apache helicopter fire...




Sure they spend money but they don't have the pull that the Israeli lobbies do:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...8-2004Sep4.html




How much room do I get? Tell you what, when Palestine makes up their list of reperations they are entitled to under Section C of the ICJ ruling I'll copy and paste those and then we can get into the ones that aren't wall related.



http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/child_41304.html
http://www.arena.org.nz/palhome1.htm
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/updates/pa...n_child_day.htm
"The Israeli forces said they had feared the three were planting mines on a road near the Netzarim settlement, but later admitted the three had been unarmed. It seems likely they were trying to enter Israel to find work."





By your definition ("Terrorism is the targeting of non-combatants period") Yes.

what, so based on the fact that they as a people evolved doesn't mean they are in essence the same peoples? So, what of all the Africans that (through various means) became Christians. 4000 years ago, they weren't Christians, yet they still live in the same country, and are the same people. Ditto most peoples in the world.

Do you seriously question whether the Palestinian people (natives of the land) were the peoples that Israel pushed off their land during the exodus. Where do you think they came from? Why do you think they're agrieved? Have you ever asked any of them? I don't have the sources to hand, but if you require, i'll find what I can.


And how is what Israel are doing any better or different? They say "oh we believe that house has terrorists in it" and blow it up, only to reveal that there were only 4 families living their, no guns, and that they didn't have any information regarding terrorists being present.

So, which party is the terrorist? How anyone can defend the Israeli behaviour is beyond me.


No, of course they can't be held responsible. However, they should be held very responsible for their current and recent actions.

Don't get me wrong. The Palestinians resistance have not been little angels. No-one is suggesting they have. However, the reasons for their desperation should be laid very open and clear, and history is a major factor. It is "funny" that no other country in the region are fans of Israel either. I wonder why that could be...





No, that wasn't terrorism. It was being trigger happy, sure, but throwing stones at someone with a gun must be considered "combative". What is disgusting is that he was decorated for it. It was just him doing his job. I'd hope that there was more to his promotion and decoration than just that (but alas, i doubt it).

It would have been more reasonable if the soldier had just picked up a stone and thrown one back. I thought guards were supposed to resist unnecessary killing.

I guess my perspective on this is, if you'd been through what the Palestinians have been through, then how far would you go to protect your family and country? It is not as though just walking around won't get you killed, because history has proven that doesn't really matter. I've never said that they're right in their actions, but I do believe their cause is just.

Just a couple of things to add here. Maybe it has been said and I missed it when I skimmed the topic. However, when we are talking about "Aid" to Israel, we have to remember that the vast majority of this "Aid" is actually in the form of loan guarantees.

Loan guarantees are a form of aid where the US Congress votes to stand behind the loan. Meaning if the country in question defaults on the loan the US Government will cover the loss to the financial institution. Then US Banks loan the money to that country, as they would anyone else, but with the added benefit of knowing that they cannot loose on the loan because of the US guaranty behind it.

To date, Israel has never defaulted on a loan. So, when it comes to the majority of "Aid" that goes to Israel, the US didn't actually spend any money on it, and US financial institutions / US Economy actually made money on it.

Of course there are other forms of Aid. For instance, when we gave Patriot Missile Batteries to Israel during the 1st Gulf War. This was a necessity. We needed Israel to stay out of the conflict and not strike back at Iraq for the SCUD attacks in order to hold the Middle-Eastern portion of the Coalition together. We were asking Israel to react to an attack differently then they had ever done in history, the least we could do is give then best available means to defend against that form of attack in the future.

As for the question of why this democracy and not that one. Well, frankly, all Democracies are not equal. Some democratically elected governments are more totalitarian then others. Some Democratically elected governments are a scam (take Saddams Elections, where you had to vote in the election (with no opposition running) to be able to renew your food ration card). Also, back when we were in the cold war with the Soviets, any form of socialist or communist government, be it democratically elected or not, was seen as a possible enemy.

Throughout central America, we supported totalitarian governments, because the rebels fighting them were perceived to be communist / socialist. Despite the fact that America was founded by "rebels" who fought an oppressive regime, we were more concerned with the politics of each side, then the morality. Don't think that I feel this is right, It is just the way it was, and in some ways still is.

Israel is also a strategic partner for the US. Israel being the only stable government in the middle-east that continuously supports the US and can be counted on in that regard. Also, being the only truly friendly and stable land in the middle-east, Israel has always been seen as a possible base of operations should the middle-east become a war-zone.

Why is America considered the key player in resolving the Israel-Palestine situation?

Most likely because we have always taken on that role. Can the US resolve the issue? For that matter can anyone outside of the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves? Not likely.

However, it is difficult for a people like the Israelis to find peace and common ground with a people, who include the destruction of Israel and her people in the version of a constitution.

As someone who is not Jewish, who has visited Israel, I happen to have a soft spot in my heart for that country. When my Ship stopped in Haifa in 1990, I had 4 days of Liberty in Israel. The people there were wonderful, friendly, fun and helpful. They all had at least two years of english in school and wanted to practice it with you. Their stores would take Israeli or American money without issue, and the sites were absolutely amazing! Jerusalem (both the Jewish and the Arab sections), the Wailing Wall, Mesada, the Dead Sea, etc. I visited most of the Mediterranean, alot of the Caribbean, and a bit of Africa & the Middle-east while serving in the Active Duty US Navy. The one place, above all others I would want to return to is Israel. Unfortunately, until the acts of terror against Israel come to a stop, I don't think I would risk bringing my family along to meet these wonderful people and see the fantastic sights of that country.

Where to start..hmmm. Okay let's start with a couple of facts. First one Israel has a legal claim to the land, in fact they have two legal claims. The first one is the Convenant of the League of Nations, the second is the United Nations Charter. These are international laws. Both give the land to the Jews. The Arabs have a non-legal world opinion, the General Assembly of the United Nations.

So tell me how can an opinion trump international law? The UN says that it doesn't or at leat their charter says that.

So the claim that the land is 'occupied' is at the very least and I mean least false. At best it can be considered 'disputed' but that is a long way 'occupied'. So the rest of the claims are false as well. Water rights are even more convoluted, but to claim that is a form of terrorism is spurious.

Even though the Geneva Convention has no legal grounds on 'disputed' territory that Art 53 would certainly come to play. There has been no mass deportations, repeat no mass deportations though reading the sources presented the opposite is continually claimed.

The ICJ has two functions: arbitrating disputes between states and providing advisory opinions to the UN. But since its charter expressly conditions arbitration on the parties' consent, it hitherto refused to issue advisory opinions on bilateral disputes where such opinions, in its words, "would have the effect of circumventing the principle that a State is not obliged to allow its disputes to be submitted to judicial settlement without its consent." Israel did not give that consent so they violated their charter, the judges included at least one from Egypt that has written extensively about how the State of Israel is illegal and he was not removed. So in otherwords the fix was in and Israel would be guilt no matter what the truth was. Israel like the US is not a member of the ICJ so their rulings mean nothing.

As for the number of killed:
May 9, 2001 - Yossi Ish-Ran, 14, and Kobi Mandell, 14, both of Tekoa, were
found stoned to death in a cave about 200 meters from the small community
south of Jerusalem where they lived.

May 18, 2001 - Lt. Yair Nebenzahl, 22, of Neve Tzuf (Halamish), was killed
and his mother seriously wounded, in a Palestinian roadside ambush with rocks north of Jerusalem.

June 11, 2001 - Yehuda Shoham, aged 5 months, of Shilo, died of injuries
incurred in a fatal stoning on June 5. He was critically injured by a rock
thrown at the family's car near Shilo in Samaria.

This one wasn't a rock but Feb 8, 2002 - Moran Amit, 25, of Kibbutz Kfar Hanasi was stabbed to death by four Palestinians, aged 14 to 16, while strolling on the Sherover Promenade in Jerusalem's Armon Hanatziv neighborhood Friday afternoon.

As for faction that is to prosecute how about the PA, aren't they suppose to be the government or not? They are certainly active executing people.

Are there going to be repartitions for Israelis too? Like for the 900,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries, unlike the 400,000 Arabs that fled Israel. Those refugees got exactly nothing from the UN ever. Or how about the billions that Israel has spent defending from these hundreds of thousands of attacks? I am willing to bet that there won't. So they can take those lists and do whatever they want with them, because if it as usual only about the 'poor Palestinians' it continues to be a propaganda show.

Maybe what is required is a definition for a combatant. The dictionary says:
combatant
adj : engaging in or ready for combat n : someone who fights (or is fighting) [syn: battler, belligerent, fighter, scrapper]

So that 14 year kid with a rock is a combatant, and guess what that means he choice to make himself a target. The IDF is not a police force, nor are they required to act like one. They do not ever have to arrest anybody, in case you didn't would it they get to shoot combatants anyway they want. That includes using missiles so that they do not get engaged in heavy ground fighting where non-combatants could be killed. Heck they could do like the US and just carpet bomb neighborhoods, that would be legal as well.

In your view Israel is the right. So naturally, it is hard for them to be seen to do wrong. If you switch your perspective (for the sake of argument) to seeing the Israelis as the aggressors, then you might well appreciate how such management of water rights is at least (and i mean at least) war through siege tactics.

Likewise, if I considered them in the right, then i'd think using such bullying tactics was perfectly fine. But i don't.

Secondly, all it takes to change land from being occupied to being owned is law. I don't know the answer, but if Israel was only created so recently, who's was the land before? Certainly the Palestinians have been squashed into smaller and smaller spaces over the years.

The Israelis have always had the louder voice in the international world than the Palestinians. That and they have had more friends; the Jews are probably one of the most powerful groups in the world. Thus it was fairly easy to ratify their occupation in law.

However, was it not legal for people to have slaves at one point? That something is "lawful" doesn't by any stretch of the imagination make it correct.

Unfortunately.

The question isn't really whether the Israeli (and other groups) behaviour is considered legal, but whether it is actually condonable.

Umm... No. The almost 3 billion dollars given to Israel every year (which used to be split pretty evenly between military and economic aid -- though now it is mostly for military aid) comes in the form of grants. This amounts to roughly one-fifth or so of total US foreign aid. You can then throw in extra aid like the $625 million dollars (updated with figures from CRS document) for Arrow missle research and the number increases. In total, since 1949 Israel has received (including proposed 2005 aid) almost $97 billion dollars in aid in the form of unguaranteed loans and grants. The guaranteed loans are added on top of this aid and certainly don't amount to the vast majority of aid given to Israel. In addition, Israel is the only country to get it's aid in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year -- the result being that Israel has an opportunity to invest this money and increase the amount of the aid package through these investments. It is also the only country receiving foreign aid that does not have to account for how the money is spent. The only requirement (when it comes to military aid) is that 75% of the money be spent in the US.

It is true that Israel has never defaulted on a loan, but it is also true that Israel has made use of the latest guaranteed loans in part to make the payments on previous loans -- meaning if we hadn't given them more guaranteed loans, they would've defaulted.

Here is a table that shows US foreign aid to Israel. It doesn't consider guaranteed loans foreign aid, because the US has currently not actually had to spend any money yet in terms of these types of loans. The link they provide to figures regarding US guaranteed loans to Israel is not updated to include the $9 billion in guaranteed loans from 2003.

U.S foreign aid to Israel

So when people are talking about the huge amount of foreign aid given to Israel, they are referring to money actually spent by the US... not the guaranteed loans which are only a contingent liability held by the US -- from what I could find, a roughly $19 billion dollar contingent liability.

Here is a document from the CRS (pdf) that goes into detail regarding US aid to Israel.

Congressional Research Service -- Israel: US Foreign Assitance

*edited to attempt to bring figures up to date with CRS document.

I think maybe you have things backwards. Replace Israel with Palestine. That was only recently created (1918). Funny thing is the only one's referred to as 'Palestinians' from 1918 to 1948 were the Jewish residents. The first time it was used for Arabs was 1964. Just to keep things in the correct order here.

Boy the only thing wrong is the law? Dang then let's just ignore International Laws for the Israelis, I mean what could they be thinking, that laws might apply to them too? Heck the next thing you know they're going to demand to be treated as equal human beings too.

As for the 'Palestinians' being squashed into a smaller and smaller area, well since they had no land at all until 1993 how could that get be getting smaller?

What I see is the State of Israel being constantly attacked for the crime of living, and sometimes striking back at some of their aggressors. It's kind of like a little kid throwing a rock at the biggest kid in the school and then running to the teacher crying, "That the big kid is going to hit me!!!!". It kind of loses the effect after a while. The Arabs have been offered a country on a platter several times, and to each and after every offer they have attacked Israel and scream that it's not enough!!!! It is way past time to say enough is more than enough.

Okay. Exactly how do these documents give the land to the Jews? Be exact, please. There is nothing in either of these documents that gives all of this land to the Jews.

You're kidding right? Have you actually read the two documents in question?

From the preamble



Gee that didn't say a thing about giving the land to the Jews? No place in that? Are you sure about that? Care to try and give an explanation what Article 5 means.

The UN Charter says that it accepts the mandate without any changes. If you want I can produce that as well.