A Declaration of U.S. Independance From Israel

from JoeUser Forums

From The Washingtown Report, Written by Chris Hedges

(1) Israel, without the United States, would probably not exist. The country came perilously close to extinction during the October 1973, war when Egypt, trained and backed by the Soviet Union, crossed the Suez Canal and the Syrians poured in fover theGolan Heights. Huge American military transport planes came to the rescue. They began landing every half-hour to refit the battered Israeli army, which had lost most of its heavy armor. By the time the war was over, the United States had given Israel 2.2 Billion in emergency military aid.

(2) The intervention, which enraged the Arab world, triggered the OPEC oil embargo that for a time wreaked ahvoc on Western economies. This was perhaps the most dramatic example of the sustained life-support system the United States has provided to the Jewish state.

(3) Israel was born at midnight May 14, 1948. The U.S. recognized the new state 11 minutes later. The two countries have been locked in a deadly embrace ever since.

(4) Washington, at the beginning of the relationship, was able to be a moderating influence. An incensed President Dwight D. Eisenhower demanded and got Israel's withdrawal after the Israelis occupied Gaza in 1956. During the Six-Da War in 1967, Israeli warplanes bombed the USS Liberty. The ship, flying the U.S. flag and stationed 15 miles off the Israeli coast, was intercepting tactical and strategic communication from both sides. The Israeli strikes killed 34 U.S. sailors andw ounded 171. The deliberate attack froze, for a while, WAshington's enthusiasm for Israel. But ruptures like this one proved to be only bumps, soon smoothed out by an increasingly sophisticated and well-financed Israel lobby that set out to merge Israel and American foreign policy in the Middle-East.

(5) Israel has reaped tremendous rewards from this alliance. It has been given more than $140 billion in U.S. direct economic and military assistance. It receives about $3 billion in direct assistance annually, roughly one fifth of the U.S. foreign aid budget. Although most American foreign aid packages stipulate that related military purchases have to be made int he United States, Israel is allowed to use about 25% of the money to subsidize its own growing and profitable defense industry. It is exempt, unlike other nations, from accounting for how it spends the aid money. And funds are routinely siphoned off to build new Jewish settlements, bolster the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and construct the security barrier, which costs an estimated $1 million a mile.

(6) The barrier weaves its way through the West Bank, creating isolated pockets of impoverished Palestinians in ringed ghettos. By the time the barrier is finished it will probably in effect seize up to 40% of Palestinian land. This is the alrgest land grab by Israel since the 1967 war. And although the United States officially opposes settlement expansion and the barrier, it also funds them.

(7) The U.S. has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems and given Israel access to some of the most sophisticated items in its own military arsenal, including Blackhawk attack helicopters and F-16 fighter jets. The United States also gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its NATO allies. And when Israel refused to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, the United States stood by without a word of protest as the Israelis built the region's first nuclear weapons program.

(8) U.S. foreign policy, especially under the current Bush administration, has become little more than an extension of Israeli foreign policy. The United States since 1982 has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It refuses to enforce the Security Council resolutions it claims to support. These resolutions call on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

(9) There is now volcanic anger and revulsion by Arabs and this blatant favoritism. Few in the Middle East see any disctinction between Israeli and American pilicies, nor should they. And when the Islamic radicals speak of U.S. support of Israel as a prime reason for their hatred of the United States, we should listen. The consequences of this one-sided relationship are being played out in the disastrous war in Iraq, growing tension with Iran, and the humanitarian and political crisis in Gaza. It is being palyed out in Lebanon, where Hezbolla is gearing up for another war with Israel, one most Middle East analysts say is inevitable. The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is unraveling. And it is doing so because of this special relationship. The eruption of a regional conflict would usher in a nightmare of catastrophic proportions.

(10) There were many in the American foreign policy establishment and State Department whos aw this situation coming. The decision to throw our lot with Israel in the Middle East was not initially a popular one with an array of foreign policy experts, including President Harry Truman's secretary of state, Gen. George Marshall. They warned there would be a backlash. They knew the cost of the United States would pay in the oil-rich region for this decision, which they feared would be one of the greatest strategic blunder of the postwar era. And they were right. The decision has jeopardized American and Israeli security and created the kindling for a regional conflagration.

(11) The alliance, which makes no sense in geopolitical terms, does makes sense when seen through the lens of domestic politics. The Israel lobby has become a potent force in the American political system. no major candidate, Democrat or Republican, dares to challenge it. The lobby successfully purged the State Department of Arab experts who challenged the notion that Israeli and American interests were identical. Backers of Israel have doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to support U.S. political candidates deemed favorable to Israel. They have brutally punished those who strayed, including the first President Bush, who they said was not vigorous enough in his defense of Israeli interests. This was a lesson the next Bush White House did not forget. George W. Bush did not want to be a one-term president like his father.

(12) Israel advocated removing Saddam Hussein from power and currently advocates striking Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Direct Israeli involvement in American military operations int he Middle East is impossible. It would reignite a war between Arab states and Israel. The United States, which during the Cold War avoided direct military involvement in the region, now does the direct bidding of Israel while Israel watches from the sidelines. During the 1991 Guld war, Israel was a spectator, just as it is in the war with Iraq.

(13) President Bush, facing dwindling support fro the war in Iraq, publicly holds Israel up as a mdel for what he would like Iraq to become. Imagine how this idea plays out on the Arab street, which views Israel as the Algerians viewed the French colonizers during the war of liberation.

(14) "In Israel", Bush said recently, "terrorists have taken innocent human life for years in suicide attacks. The difference is that Israel is a functioning democracy and it's not prevented from carrying out its responsibilities. And that's a good indicator of success that we're looking for in Iraq."

(15) Americans are increasingly isolated and reviled in the world. They remain blissfully ignorant of their own culpability for this isolation. U.S. "spin" paints the rest of the world as unreasonable, but Israel, Americans are assured, will always be on our side.

Rewarding Apartheid

(16) Israel is reaping economic as well as political rewards from its lock-down apartheid state. In the "gated community" market it has begun to sell systems and techniques that allow the nation to cope with terrorism. Israel, in 2006, exported $3.4 billion in defense products - well over a billion dollars more than it received in American military aid. Israel has grown into the fourth largest arms dealer in the world. Most of this growth has come in the so-called homeland security sector.

(17) "The key products and services", as Naomi Klein wrote in The Nation, "are hi-tech fences, unmanned drones, biometric IDs, video and audio surveillance gear, air passenger profiling and prisoner interrogation systems - precisely the tools and technologies Israel has used to lock in the occupied territories. and that is why the chaos in Gaza and the rest of the region doesn't threaten the bottom line in Tel Aviv, and may actually boost it. Israel has learned to turn endless war into a brand asset, pitching its uprooting, occupation and containment of the Palestinian people as a half-century head start in the 'global war on terror.'"

(18) The United States, at least officially, does not support the occupation and calls for a viable Palestinian state. It is a global player, with interests that stretch well beyond the boundaries of the Middle East, and the equation that Israel's ennemies are our ennemies is not that simple.

(19) "Terrorism is not a single adversary," John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote in The London Review of Books, "but a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups. The terrorist organization that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism isnot random violence directed against Israel or 'the West'; it is largely a response to Israel's prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip. more important, saying that Israel and the U.S. are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backward: the U.s. has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around."

(20) Middle Eastern policy is shaped in the United States by those with very close ties to the Israel lobby. those who attempt to counter the virulent Israeli position, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, are ruthlessly slapped down. This alliance was true also during the Clinton administration, with its array of Israeli-first Middle East experts, including special Middle East coordinator Dennis ross and Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of the American Israel Public Affairs Commitee, AIPAC, one of the most powerful Israel lobbying groups in WAshington. But at least people like Indyk and Ross are sane, willing to consider a Palestinian state, however unviable, as long as it is palatable to Israel. The Bush administration turned to the far-right wing of the Israel lobby, those who have not a shred of compassion for the Palestinians or a word of criticism for Israel. These new Middle East experts include Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, the disgraced I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and David Wurmser.

(21) Washington was once willing to stay Israel's hand. It intervend to thwart some of its most extreme violations of human rights. This administration, however, has signed on for every disastrous Israeli blunder, from building the security barrier in the West Bank, to sealing off Gaza and triggering a humanitarian crisi, to the ruinous invasion of saturation bombing of Lebanon.

(22) The few tepid attempts by the Bush White House to criticized Israeli actions have all ended in hasty and humiliating retreats in the face of Israeli pressure. When the Israel Defence Forces in April 2002 reoccupied the West Bank, President Bush called on then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to "halt the incursion and begin withdrawal". It never happened. After a week of heavy pressure from the Israel lobby and Israel's allies in Congress, meaning just about everyone in Congress, the prisent gave up, calling Sharon "a man of peace." It was a humiliating moment for the United States, a clear sign of who pulled the strings.

(23) There were several reasons for the war in Iraq. The desire for American control of oil, the velief that Washington could build puppet sates in the region, and a real, if misplaced, fear of Saddam Hussain played a part in the current disaster. But it was also strongly shaped by the notion that what is good for Israel is good for the United States. Israel wanted Iraq neutralized. Israeli intelligence, in the lead-up to the war, gave faulty information to the U.S. about Iraq's alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And when Baghdad was taken in April 2003, the Israeli governement immediatly began to push for an attack on Syria. The lust for this attack has waned, in no small part because the Americans don't have enough troops to h and on in Iraq, much less launch a new occupation.

(24) Israel is currently lobbying the United States to launch aerial strikes on Iran, despite the debacle in Lebanon. Israel's iron determination to forcibly prevent a nuclear Iran makes it probable that before the end of the Bush administration an attack on Iran will take place. the efforts to halt nuclear development through diplomatic means have failed. It does not matter that Iran poses no threat to the United States. It does not matter that it does not even pose a threat to Israel, which has several hundred nuclear weapons in its arsenal. It matters only that Israel demands total military domination of the Middle East.

(25) The alliance between Israel and the United States has culminated after 50 years in direct U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. This involvement, which is not furthering American interests, is unleashing a geopolitical nightmare. American soldiers and Marines are dying in droves in a useless war. The impotence of the United States in the face of Israeli pressure is complete. The White House and the Congress have become, for perhaps the first time, a direct extension of Israeli interests. There isno longer any debate within the United States. This is evidenced by the obsequious nods to Israel by all the current presidential candidates with the exception of Dennis Kucinich. The political cost for those who challenge Israel is too high.

(26) This means there will be no peaceful resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It means the incidents of Islamic terrorism against the U.s. and Israel will grow. It means that American power and prestige are on a steep, irreversible decline. And I fear it also means the ultimate end of the Jewish experiment in the Middle East.

(27) The weakening of the United States, economically and militarily, is giving rise to new centers of power. The U.S. economy mismanaged and drained by the Iraq war, is increasingly dependent on Chinese trade imports and on Chinese holdings of U.S. treasury securities. China holds dollar reserves worth $825 billion. If Beijing decides to abandon the U.S. bond market, even in part, it would cause a free fall by the dollar. It would lead to the collapse of the $7 trillion U.S. real estate market. There would be a wave of U.S. bank failure and huge unemployment. The growing dependence on China has been accompanied by aggressive work by the Chinese to build alliances with many of the world's major exporters of oil, such as Iran, Nigeria, Sudan and Venezuela. the Chinese are preparing for the looming worldwide clash over dwindling resources.

(28) The future is ominous. not only do Israel's foreign policy objectives not coincide with American interests, they actively hurt them. The growing belligerence in the Middle East, the calls for an attack against Iran, the collapse of the imeprial project in Iraq have all given an opening, where there was none before, to America's rivals. It is not in Irasel's interests to ignite a regional conflict. It is not in ours. But those who have their hands on the wheel seem determined, in the name of freedom and democracy, to keep the American ship of state headed at breakneck speed into the cliffs before us.

politics
7,790 views 24 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ok.. my fingers hurt for re-copying all that in 45 minutes. I'll post my own thoughts tommorrow.. arg..
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am surprised you have your own thoughts. This is hateful propaganda easily refuted with those annoying things called facts.

Israel was born at midnight May 14, 1948. The U.S. recognized the new state 11 minutes later.


An offer was made to the Arabs at the time. They were and still are free to become Israeli citizens. Today about 20% of the Israeli citizens are Arabs about 8% are Christian Arabs that fled Lebanon when the Muslims began ethnic cleansing 20 years ago. The Palestinians that are not citizens choose to be because they are from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and other countries and settled there. The Arab-Israeli citizens are not rising up and attacking the Jews so it is not a question the Jews oppressing the Palestinians but the diehards that won’t accept the fact that Jews are there. These are the descendants of Palestinians that refused to take Israeli citizenship because they were told to stand and fight by Egypt and Jordan, and Syria at the time. They live in poverty and squallier because they choose to live that way instead of joining the nation of Israel. Their stated goal is to drive the Jews into the sea.

America has supported Israel because we rightly believe that they should have their own home land. They have been attacked and we helped them defend themselves because we gave our word to help them. They in turn have helped us.

Terrorism, the modern Arab terrorism has a good verifiable history. It can be traced back to the good old Soviet Union. I researched this for one of my books, the head of the KGB at the time Yuri Andropov chose to fund and train terrorist around the world in order to attack the west and keep his hands clean. Black September was the first group they trained. They kept this up until the terrorist kidnapped a Soviet citizen in Lebanon. They got the man back by kidnapping the uncle of one of the terrorists and mailing back his body parts until the soviet was released. By then they realized that teaching unbalanced people to do terror was a bad idea but it was too late as they started to have problems within their own borders. They cut off funding and provided information to get these people caught but as I said it was too late. The training went out beyond the people the KGB trained and could not be stopped or controlled as easily as they had envisioned.

Before the Soviet Union got involved there were random shootings and a bombing or two. Now their legacy has spread around the world so don’t be so quick to blame Israel for terrorists and terrorism in Israel or out.

Israel is currently lobbying the United States to launch aerial strikes on Iran, despite the debacle in Lebanon.


I want to see proof of this

Okay I am not going to refute this garbage point by point unless I have to. This is from another racist website that wants to do the hate the Jews thing, and the Jews are the reason we were attacked by terrorists.

Point of fact. We have been attacked by terrorists since the 1970’s the terrorist back then were funded by the Soviet Union. They tried to do the same thing here in the 60’s and failed. They tried to infiltrate the Black Panthers, as well as get the Reverend Martin Luther King on their side and each time they failed. They also started the SDS which almost made it. The fact that the Islamic terrorists thrive on misguided religious beliefs and hate is the only reason they lasted this long and now they are beginning to see that terror does not work. In my anti-terror unit we learned that terrorism only works if you can get it up and running quickly and end it in five years. If five years after you start your first terror attack and you have not won you won’t. AQ has been struggling for years because they are losing and they know it. A new splinter group may try to pick up where they left off but AQ is dead. This is why they jumped into Iraq so quickly. They hopped to get a nation involved in their war. It only prolonged the inevitable. Sure they want to destroy the Jews, but they want to destroy the Christians also. The Jews are just a smaller group and Israel is a good first step.

Since terror has not worked they have opted for a long term solution. Population. Move to other countries and breed like rabbits then use your citizenship to change the laws as your population becomes the majority. It is bloodless and benign in appearance. Look at France it is the second country they have tried it on. Lebanon was the first. Decades of fighting did not get them what they wanted so now they do decades of breeding. Lebanon went from a 50-50 split to 90-10 in just fifteen years. The Christians that lived there moved to Israel or the United States or Great Briton, or Canada. They are trying to retake Spain as well as take over the UK and America.

With all of this information out there you sit there reposting hateful articles, I was right when I said you were racist in another article we debated. The first one could have meant you were misguided or misinformed but this one is so blatant that I no longer have any doubt.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
With all of this information out there you sit there reposting hateful articles, I was right when I said you were racist in another article we debated. The first one could have meant you were misguided or misinformed but this one is so blatant that I no longer have any doubt.


Could you remember me which article was it?

Hey, I haven't wrote that stuff up there. I merely copied it from the magazine. I haven't had the time to post my own thoughts about it.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are correct. You have not posted your own thoughts. I reacted in anger and should have waited. For that I apologize. I also mistook you for another person that posted crap like you just gave us. I await your thoughts.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ok.. my fingers hurt for re-copying all that in 45 minutes. I'll post my own thoughts tommorrow.. arg..


That's where OCR comes in real handy. ;)

And thank you Paladin for your partial rebuttal. There is really too much to rebut on here, but as Cikomyr correctly notes, this is just a reposting, not his thoughts. WHile I think he posted it because of a frustration of the symbiotic relationship between the US and israel, I dont think he is really a bigot.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I will wait for his thoughts. I lived in Israel when I was part of the Security for the athletes during the LA Olympics. I remember the hate in the eyes of the Palestinians just for being alive and in their sight. The threats we got were beyond belief.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
What's OCR?

WHile I think he posted it because of a frustration of the symbiotic relationship between the US and israel, I dont think he is really a bigot.


I'd call it rather a "parasitic relationship", since in a symbiose, both parties has to gain something out of it.

All right, we're going to flesh out the anti-Israeli comments in this articles, and debate a little about some facts that there's in it. I'll number the paragraphs 1, 2, 3 etc... in order for an easier reference. The reason why I posted this article is because I think there are some parts of it that should seriously be considered. It's too easy to label it "rascist" when they depict another point of view, specially when Israel is concerned.

And, let's make a distinction. Paladin already made the mistake to call me rascist (thinking I wrote the article), where I do not actually see any rascism in this upper article. The article isn't antisemitist, it's anti-Zionist. It's critical of the country of Israel and the relationship it shares with the USA, not of the Jew peoples themselves.

To label anyone who criticise Israel "Antisemitist" or "Racist" is undermining the true face of these evils. An antisemitist is someone who will harass Jewish people, whereever they are. An anti-zionist is against the country of Israel, but don't care about Jews around the world.

All right, let's fire up!
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
(1) Is merely a statement of facts. In history, about the war of 1973. There isn't anything discutable about it, the USA DID gave a huge amount to Israel in order to save them. 2.2 Billion dollars, at the time, was an extremely high sum when you think of it.

(2) Is debatable. I don't think OPEC effectively said why they caused the crisis. However, fact remain that OPEC is formed by many, many countries who are (still) officially opposed to the creation of Israel, and OPEC hold the Oil's price into its hand. Actually, I think many of those countries are still official at WAR with Israel.

(3) Is un-debatable. However, I have to add to your point, Paladin, that while it is true an offer was made to the Arabs of the time, the offer gave also control over the immigration to the Israeli Jews, which knew they would quickly dominate demographically the Arabs. The arabs of the time were given the short end of the stick, literraly.

America has supported Israel because we rightly believe that they should have their own home land. They have been attacked and we helped them defend themselves because we gave our word to help them. They in turn have helped us.


While I agree that America initially supported Israel because they believed it was the right thing to do, I strongly believe most of the recent (last 20-30 years) unilateral support the USA give Israel is because of Israelian lobbies.

Where or when did Israel actually helped the USA?

(4) Is merely the retale of an incident. I won't make much of it, but if you want to add/reject something, be my guess.

(5) The first part of the paragraph first. Do accept these figures? The amount of direct economic and military aid the USA gave to Israel over history, and the present figure? It IS quite an amount of money, don't you agree, if Israel gets 20% of all the foreign aid. Anyone who is remotely opposed to Israel cannot stop themselves from opposing the USA by association, seeing how much you give them for.. for what do you actually give them that money? Isn't there other countries who would need military aid better? Isn't Israel already the inconditionnal powerhouse of the Middle East? No army, except maybe Turkey, can rival with it. And that's leaving out the Nuclear weapons Israel have.

The Second part of the paragraph is more critical. It says that Israel has been given special dispensation that the USA would normally never allow. Why is there special rules for Israel, tell me? Why isn't it accountable for what it doesn with that aid, while every single other country has to be? Why are they allowed to spend 25% of the money on subsidies, while the ORIGINAL idea of foreign aid of the kind was to help America's defense industry find new customers?

It should not be forgot that the USA officially oppose the fence that Israel is building in the West Bank. This fence is extremely costly, isn't there the possibility that America is funding what it opposes?


(OOC: All right, if you want to contribute to the topic, you have to select the number of paragraph (ex: (3)) and then make your points. When you first post in this topic, you have to go over ALL the paragraphs that have been said earlier, it's just too easy to focus on the points that are conveniant for you. You can merely say ((3) I agree with what Paladin said) if you want, but there shall be no selective answering. This discussion is meant to be serious, and clear-headed, and name-calling won't progress the discussion.)

note: I will continue later. I think we have ennough to debate a little to start with :)
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
What's OCR?


Optical Character Recognition. It is a way to scan paper documents into the computer and turn them into text instead of just a picture. Back in the 90s, the best ones could translate 90% of the text without error. Today, some (the more priciers ones) can convert over 99%. Of course this does not apply to handwriting. No program is God after all. ;)

I'd call it rather a "parasitic relationship", since in a symbiose, both parties has to gain something out of it.


But dont we? Israel gets a big bother, America gets a stable ally in a very critical and unstable region of the world. I think the relationship is a win-win, and that is why it is so strong (not perfect as the Walker family proved).

[break]

After reading your second post (the by paragraph one), I can easily see where some look at it that way, since they call the relationship parasitic, when the reality is that it is not. Yes, America has invested a lot of money, but gotten a lot in return. It is one of the few areas where the money "given" to a foreign nation has actually reaped something other than scorn and ridicule (see Locamama's article). I hardly see that as parasitic.

But it also goes more to my point (in a much earlier comment and article) where I debated the Israel lobby. The question on the table was: Does it influence Democrats and Repblicans the same?

The answer is no. And you make clear the reason. The Israel lobby does not need to influence the Republican lobby much, if any at all. Why? Wail and gnash your teeth as much as you want, the reality is Republicans are the party of national defense, Democrats are the party of appeasement (not peace, appeasement). The Israel lobby has to work on the democrats to prevent them from throwing Israel under the bus. Republicans see the advantage of a stable friendly country (that does not use the aid given to stage anti-american rallies) in a very unstable and critical region of the world. You dont bribe those who already agree with you, just those you need to get there.

So Racist, Bigot, or other terms of endearment may be a bit strong to describe those who rail against the symbiotic relationship between the US and Israel. A better term would be jealous myopics. As they see everyone as "good" guys and refuse to acknowledge that true evil exists in the world. So they see the relationship of Israel and the US as parasitic since we dont NEED them, they just NEED us. There reasoning goes "I am sure we could garner the same support from Syria if we wanted to, and they would then become a democracy and shower their citizens with flowers and freedoms". So the "parasitic" crowd wants to beleive.

The "symbiotic" crowd however realizes that the world is not perfect, man is not perfect, and that evil men sometimes do triumph - when good men do nothing.

The biggest mistake that a country can make is to run their foreign policy like a vending machine. Tit for tat. It happens sometimes (as was suggested here - withdraw aid), and usually with even worse results. Instead foreign policy needs to be run as an investement bank. Money invested today with an eye towards dividends in the future. People may not like it (and it is clear that most here do not), but that is what extends power for a non-imperialistic country. And the investment made in Israel has paid back itself many times over. When you got a great investment, why would you dump it when they have a down year? The long term still reaps plenty of profit.



Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
But dont we? Israel gets a big bother, America gets a stable ally in a very critical and unstable region of the world. I think the relationship is a win-win, and that is why it is so strong (not perfect as the Walker family proved).


While your alliance itself with Israel is stable, the ally itself is not. It is probably the most military aggressive country of the region, with no diplomatic relation with more than half the country (and the population) of the region.

Backing up such country is... well, it really doesn't put america on good light in the eyes of the Arabs populating the countries that are at war/no-peace with it. Israel still is bombarding civilian encampment, and you can say what you want about the needed security fence in the West Bank, Israel is fracturing that land into arbitrary chosen piece of lands, creating a humanitarian disaster. How do you think the population see this? Is making life utterly miserable for 10000 persons is worth it if it saves the life of 1 other? Because, like it or not, that's the numbers.

Even if you do not consider the bombardment and the innocents killed by Shaala (damn it, what's the nickname of Israel's army..?), Israel is making the life of people in the West bank and Gaza a nightmare on purpose - no water, electricity, jobs, supplies -. A lot of these people aren't terrorists. A lot of these these "terrorists" wouldn't be terrorists if they didn't had Israel's gun pointed in permanence on their nation's head (figure of speach).

Same happened during 2006. Israel wanted to fight Hezbollah. Ok, I don't really care about that, but they still destroyed a LOT of the country's infrastructure. How can a Lebanon, who didn't cared about Israel before think after this? How can he not become despise them when they destroyed his home, his job? how can he not despise Americans when he learn that they are 100% behind these actions?

These people talk. Maybe they won't take arm, maybe they will. Some do, that's why we end up with terrorists. But some won't. Some will simply talk on the internet, in the papers. These were innocent peoples who lost everything, because Israel decided to make an example of Hezbollah, a failed example I might add. How can a 15-years old boy think something else than "Israel is the ennemy"?

What do we end up with? Americans are despised. Israelians are hated. It's.. a very sade state of fact.

I, personnally, do not call for the end of Israel. There are good people over there. But I would like some change in Israel's attitude. Resistance against occupation end when the occupation ends. Asking Hamas and other restitance fighters in Palestinian territory to lay their arms as a condition before Israel think about stopping the occupation? It's ludicrous.

Well, tell me when you want to go ahead with other paragraphs.. Oh dear, you asked me a question about the Israelian lobbies in the U.S.. I'll get back to you with comments on that ASAP
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Got it! On this little piece of information here, it says there have been 691 000$ contributed in 2007 by pro-Israelian lobbies to 103 democratic congressmens potential candidates, for an average of 6709$/candidate, while there have been 442 500$ contributed to 54 Republican congressment potential candidates, for an average of 8195$. (it should be noted that a lot of these potential candidates are incumbent candidates, which may also explain the democratic leaning in part)

Well, even if your point is right, that the lobby is stronger on the democratic side, it is very active on both sides. There is also the list of the candidate, how much they have received last year, the comitees they are on, and how much they have received in their whole career.

There is no doubt about it, the whole lobby is very active in America. Do you refute that point?

As for your other points, the one that says Republican are more National Defence-oriented. I'd have to say that Republicans are also more Christian/Evangelical oriented than their counterparts. So there is, indeed, less need for an activist lobby on the republican side. But what does that mean? That absolute support of Israel is what is needed for National Defense? Not really. It only shows that this is what is perceived in America. Many people are saying that the interests of Israel and USA in the middle east are one.

If that is the case, why did Israel just started negociations with Damascus while America is still refusing to talk about them (and pushed so other allies don't talk with them)?

There is a.. disparancy between the two countries. Their policies shouldn't be as one.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
While your alliance itself with Israel is stable, the ally itself is not. It is probably the most military aggressive country of the region, with no diplomatic relation with more than half the country (and the population) of the region.


Please explain what you mean by the most aggressive in the region.

The reason why there are no diplomatic relations with other countries in the region is because all but one has stated that the state of Israel does not exist. You can’t have relations with nations that have stated their national goal is your destruction.

Ever hear of President Anwar Sadat? As the leader of Egypt the nation is bound by the peace treaty he signed back in the 70’s. The other countries did not like that so he was gunned down during a military parade. Since then no Arab nation has recognized Israel as a state. Lebanon tried but was forced into a three way war. Lebanon against terrorist, Lebanon against Syria and Lebanon against Iran. Syria has murdered the leader of Lebanon for being friendly to Israel. I don’t see Israel as being that aggressive when they have been attacked daily by 5 different countries and three terrorist organizations for the last 60 years. Who are you going to have diplomatic relations with after the UN declared that Zionism is equal to racism?

Backing up such country is... well, it really doesn't put america on good light in the eyes of the Arabs populating the countries that are at war/no-peace with it.


How good a light do you need to be in when your enemies have stated for the last 60 years that the only peaceful solution in the region is the death and destruction of all Israeli citizens including the Arab-Israelis that live there? The destruction of all temples, and the removal of all Hebrew sites in the land. This has been their stated goal since Israel became a state, only after years of war did one country make peace with Israel, Egypt. The death of everyone in Israel is there minimum acceptable bargaining chip for peace in the region. Put yourself in Israel’s position, everyone around you wants you dead, so how do you make them your friends? Let’s see, we could give them more land. Oh wait, that didn’t work the last ten times it was tried. They could try not fighting back. Oh, wait each time that was tried the terrorists just re-armed broke any and all agreements and as soon as Israel tried to stop it, the terrorists claimed that Israel broke the treaty and resumed attacking civilians using all the weapons smuggled in during the peace treaty.
Other than killing them all do you have any suggestions that have not been tried?

Even if you do not consider the bombardment and the innocents killed by Shaala (damn it, what's the nickname of Israel's army..?), Israel is making the life of people in the West bank and Gaza a nightmare on purpose - no water, electricity, jobs, supplies -. A lot of these people aren't terrorists. A lot of these these "terrorists" wouldn't be terrorists if they didn't had Israel's gun pointed in permanence on their nation's head (figure of speach).


Why would they make the lives of people sworn to kill them uncomfortable. How about instead of bombing them they cut off utilities and maybe they will stop supporting the terrorists?

You see leaving them alone has not worked. Palestine is not a country, it is land that belongs to Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Those nations will not accept those people in their countries, and supply them with weapons but not food, clothing or shelter. What does that tell you their goal for those poor people are?

Same happened during 2006. Israel wanted to fight Hezbollah. Ok, I don't really care about that, but they still destroyed a LOT of the country's infrastructure. How can a Lebanon, who didn't cared about Israel before think after this?


Well since they did not attack Israel but did attack the terrorist until they took over the political leadership I would say they welcomed the work Israel was doing.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don’t see Israel as being that aggressive when they have been attacked daily by 5 different countries and three terrorist organizations for the last 60 years. Who are you going to have diplomatic relations with after the UN declared that Zionism is equal to racism


Well, seeing that Israel declares himself a "Jewish State", I can see why it is Zionism (as the establishment of a Jewish state) can be perceived rascists, since it exclude non-Jewish from it's core citizenry. It's like if you said the USA were a "White State", or a "Christian State".

Off course, the "Muslim States" should be considered just as rascist, I agree 100% with you about it. There shouldn't be double standard of Islam vs Jewish.

But, my original point is, Israel makes a poor ally in the region. I am not attacking the validation of Israel's actions, I was underlining the view the region had of those actions. Since USA automaticly and completely back up these actions, as justified or unjustified as they are/appear, it is loosing diplomatic weight in the region. It is an.. unconveniant ally. In the paragraph number 12, it is said that Israel sat and watched as USA fought for them. I disagree strongly, since Israel's choice to NOT enter the Gulf War was a strategic one: the USA needed the backing of other arab countries, and these countries would probably had withdrawn their support of Israel had joined the coalition.

I mean.. how good is an ally, that he shouldn't back you up in time of need because it means you would loose the support of other countries? How good is an ally when he is actively (and still) antagonist (by choice or not) to your own allies in the region?

USA has been a fantastic (euphemism!) ally to Israel. Israel has not been one to the USA, which is the whole point of the article up there. It's a lousy ally, one that costs a lot and is more damaging politically to your status in the region, that provides a token support to any military action you might want to take, and have happened to act on it's own mind, against the USA's interests.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, seeing that Israel declares himself a "Jewish State", I can see why it is Zionism (as the establishment of a Jewish state) can be perceived rascists, since it exclude non-Jewish from it's core citizenry. It's like if you said the USA were a "White State", or a "Christian State".


Oh, I understand now you, made it so clear. Muslims states like Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Libya or not racist states even though it is against the law to openly practice any other religion other than Islam in all but on of the above mentioned countries. But mean old Israel wanting to have a state religion is racist according to you even though they freely allow the practice of Islam and Christianity in their country. How many Christians are arrested just for mentioning Christ when asked by a Muslim about their religion? It is against the law to even learn of any other religion other than Islam. Please show me a corresponding law in Israel that forbids all religions other than Judaism.

Off course, the "Muslim States" should be considered just as rascist, I agree 100% with you about it. There shouldn't be double standard of Islam vs Jewish.


So on one hand you justify the UN call that the Israeli state is racist then you agree that the people that wrote the UN resolution are being racist themselves. There has always been a double standard my friend. Islamist terrorists murder innocent civilians and justify it by saying they are trying to be free in a nation that already allows them the practice of their religion. And if the Israelis defend themselves and innocents get hurt or killed then Israel is the bad guy.

I mean.. how good is an ally, that he shouldn't back you up in time of need because it means you would loose the support of other countries? How good is an ally when he is actively (and still) antagonist (by choice or not) to your own allies in the region?


You mean like when Saddam invaded Kuwait and all the Arab nations begged us to do something about it because it is against Islamic law to make war on another Muslim? It seems the Arab lobbies did okay on that one. But once Saddam was ousted from Kuwait they started saying we can not take Saddam out of power or they would refuse to support us. That kind of ally seems less friendly to us than Israel who when we need help will give us all they can even when it hurts them in the long run. I see a difference but it seems you do not.

USA has been a fantastic (euphemism!) ally to Israel. Israel has not been one to the USA, which is the whole point of the article up there.


Every time we have asked for help from Israel they have complied. This can not be said of the Arab states, the European states, or the Asian states. Europe was over run in two world wars, both times they asked for and received our help. We freed them then paid for the reconstruction of Europe. We asked for military support after we were attacked and they drag their feet and give minimal assistance.

China was freed from Japan and they turned around and have been attacking us ever since. The Soviet Union was freed because we gave them massive support and after the war they began seeking our demise. The Arab states were overrun by Europe after the First World War and we did nothing because we did not bother other countries. After the Second World War we stepped in and forced the Europeans out of those countries and in return the Arab states attack us and have been attacking us since the 60’s.

South Korea is still at war with North Korea and we are still there defending them 50 years later. Israel received our pledge because they are the lone democracy in the region. They are surrounded by water and enemies, and these enemies have sworn 60 years ago to destroy the state of Israel and their justification is they are not Muslim. We are allied with the Arab states because of the oil, we are allied with Israel because of ideology. Israel is the stronger ally.

Please remember that the U.S. stated goal is to support and defend democracy anywhere around the world. Iraq is turning into a democracy and we are supporting and defending them. The Arab states are not democracies they are mostly dictatorships and were it not for the oil we need we would have let the sands bury them all.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
While your alliance itself with Israel is stable, the ally itself is not. It is probably the most military aggressive country of the region, with no diplomatic relation with more than half the country (and the population) of the region.


Again I disagree. You cannot make people love you, and this is an example of that maxim. Israel has not been the agressor in any of its wars, and the fact that the rest of the region does not like it is a testament to their stupidity, and the evil men that dictate that policy. Check me if I am wrong, but what you are advocating is the Carter policy - chuck your friends under the bus regardless of the outcome - which as we have seen is far worse. It would be fool hardy and myopic to abandon Israel just because its neighbors dont like it. Especially when those neighbors are tyrannical dictatorships that supress their citizens on the level of the worst countries on earth.

But, my original point is, Israel makes a poor ally in the region.


And again we disagree. Israel is the perfect ally. A thriving democracy, beset by dictatorships, that is strong and able to defend itself adequately. Remember Bastogne? That broke the Germans last offensive. Israel is that ally in a very troubled point in the world.

USA has been a fantastic (euphemism!) ally to Israel. Israel has not been one to the USA, which is the whole point of the article up there.


It is said, and rightly so, that nations do not have friends, just allies with common purposes that intersect at times. The fault with the author is in trying to make Nations like people. They are not, and never will be. And that is the fatal flaw in the whole article. Nations do not "have your back" because they are your friend, they have your back because of a commonality of interests.

America Should have more allies like Israel.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
America Should have more allies like Israel.


Hell, I would be happy with more allies like the UK!
Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top

I'm not sure if anyone reads this article any more, but it's been flouting around the internet for about a year now.  I feel several things need to be stated about this article.  I have lived in both Palestine and Israel.  I have lived in the Middle East quite some time now.  I feel the need to clear up some of this ridiculous nonsense that this article is stating for I see through some people's post that the article most 100% fact. 

In the paragraph 1 where it says that Israel would not have survived without the United States is true.  Any newly erected needs Allies.  The U.S would NOT have survived if it didn't have allies or at least time to build its economy up.  This goes with paragraph 3.  The statement about the Soviet Union training these men there is NO evidence this is true.  In fact, the author just happened to leave out some key facts about the Soviet Union and Israel.  WHAT A SURPRISE!!!!  You guys should go and find out who was immediately Israel's 2nd ally right after the U.S. became Allies with Israel.  Let me give you a hint it is one of the 3 countries that has just been talked about, so think hard about that.  The author also makes it seem like we were heavy supporters with money of Israel and in fact the early 70s was the first time we militarily fiancially helped Israel.  It wasn't until the mid-80s until we heavily financied them.

Paragraph 4 about the 6 day war again the author leaves out nearly a lot.  Again I am not stating what is written here is not true. The whole incident is pretty strange.  I don't know why Israel would do this.  The one thing I will say that according to both American and Israel military history reports Israel did ask if the U.S had any ships there and the response was no.  Also many of the surround Arab countries were accusing the U.S and the U.K of helping Israel and in fact the U.S had there were no military ships with 100 miles and only the Liberty (which by the way the author makes it sound like a battleship but was a technical research ship)

Paragraph 5 is also very misleading because our government's check's and balances is really poor.  The author trying to say that we don't have Israel show were they are spending their money.  Ask for you all:  Do you know Suha Arafat is?  I hope you know the name Yasir Arafat because that was his wife (He's died in case you didn't know).  She is one of the world's most wealthiest women.  Both came from middle class families and let me just think here hmmm I know the Palestinian President gets paid better than most Palestinians but I don't think they got paid enough to make some one be in the category of the most wealthy.  Oh let me just say that our government has been HEAVILY supporting the Palestinian goverment with billions of OUR money.  I let you put one + one together. This refutes that we DON'T give help to Arab nations.  The problem also is that our government is stupid and doesn't do check and balances in which case for Palestians 90% of the money goes to politicans/their families and 10% if that goes to the Palestians.

Paragraph 9,19, and 20.  Most Americans believe that the only reason why Muslim fanatics hate us is because we support Israel.  Their logic goes something like this:  If the U.S. stopped supporting Israel.  The Terrorist would not bother us.  First, one thing about Radical Islam is that they feel there is a greater Satan and a lessor Satan.  They consider the lessor Satan to be Israel. Just google great satan and you'll see who the great satan is.  Radical Islam HATES everything that our culture spews, so could stop being allies with Israel they'll be well great!  Then three months later, we want you to stop producing all junk you produce (aka porn), p.s. we still hate you guys.  Another thing after interacting with Radical Muslims they hate both democrates and republicans.  They currently hate republicans more because of all the events in the past 7 to 8 years.


Paragraph 21.   First, the barrier was built because they have a very hostile neighbor.  This barrier allows people to go through.  The cars are inspected, because the suicide bombers have been known to use EVEN AMBULANCES (www.israelnewsagency.com/palestinianambulancesterrorism1009.html )This was one of the main cause for stricter secruity.  Also for the humanitarian crisis.  Hamas was the primerary cause of it.  Israel told Gaza that they will shot down the surplies (due to the constant missle attacks).  They gave a dead line of when everything will be shot down if the rockets don't stop. What a suprise and they didn't stop.  Israel was not suppling Palestine with all their needs.  Google Arab (that's right an Arab) editor blames Hamas for Gaza crisis, because they shot down everything to make Israel look bad.


Now I can't stand to read any more of this garbage which all it is is propaganda.  I leave you with one last thought Does Canada expect the U.S. to supply it with all of its needs? Now, Why should Israel be expected to supply Palestine (which wants to be an Independant country) with everything?  Why doesn't Jordan, Turkey, or IRAN for that matter send them any aid?  If Mexico or Canada started shotting rockets into the U.S., how do you feel we should respond to this?  Please be honest when you answer those questions especially the last one (for I made it easy for you to answer because ALL Canada or Mexico would be doing is firing rockets not siding suicide bombers in nor KIDNAPPING YOUR SOLDIERS who are partoling the border (the President of Lebanon admitted if he would have known that doing that would cause a war he would have never done it.  Idiot, what do you expect?)

 

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Very well written and expressed. Thanks! :grin:

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

To an extent that we could not have endured without France's support during our own revolution, so, too Israel without ours; nonetheless, we should have long ago said "enough already" you are on your own--just as we must let go of Iraq.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

Their logic goes something like this: If the U.S. stopped supporting Israel. The Terrorist would not bother us.

I had such simplistic ideas when I was 6 as well. 

Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top

Sorry for the spelling/grammar mistakes in my previous post.  I'm usually better about that but when you are at work and trying to do a million things at once + plus that post some stuff has to go.  Paladin 77, I'm not sure if your comment was sarcastic or not, but that's the reason.

Dr. Guy, your comment cracks me up!  The sad thing is I've notice most people from the States think like this and if something requires them to do a little research on their own some just flat out won't do it because of laziness.

Steven, what's your reason for this?  To everyone go to this website: http://qesdb.usaid.gov/gbk  Very high percentage of people from the States don't even know that there are figures out there of how much money we give to ALL countries.  Scroll down and you'll find a paragraph marked *new* download the excel sheet.  The most current information is 2006 which is good.  I cant hand feed the numbers because I'm at work and need to get back to work. You'll see that we support a TON of other countries, Mr. DeDalus. 

With your logic, Mr. DeDalus, I guess we should just cut them all off (there are 100+ countries go download the excel sheet).  Heck, what has Jordan done for us in the last 15 years!  Or for that matter those silly Cannucks up north of us! Yes we even gave Canada aid. Instead of having a foolish political agenda, why don't you give some reasons to why we should cut Israel off.

FYI Israel and Jordan, both have a lot of CIA operatives there and also they both supply a tremendous amount of Intelligence info.

 

Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top

P.S. you'll also see that the authors numbers to this story are inflated.  I guess inflation MUST affect all even journalists' writings.


P.P.S  Go to that website and download the excel.  Scroll down until you see the word *new*

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

 

Paladin 77, I'm not sure if your comment was sarcastic or not, but that's the reason.

Allow me to be clear then. I rarely point out spelling and or grammer errors unless the errors confuse the statement. I was not being sarcastic.

we should have long ago said "enough already" you are on your own--just as we must let go of Iraq.

The problem with this statement is that is a communist ploy. They demanded colonies abandon the country before they could stand on their own. This was done in Africa and you can see how well that worked the last 40 years.

Reply #24 from PolMach Forums Top

Paladin 77, I'm sorry.  Typing is such a hard way to have a discussion.  You can type something wrong by accident and then the whole meaning be misinterpreted or even type something and the meaning being misinterpreted.


I stand corrected:  Iran was their second ally and the Soviet Union just a little time after.