Why defend Israel?

[ThinkingDifferent]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ast/index.html

When are they going to learn to take care of themselves?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
When are they going to learn to take care of themselves?

Oh, I don't know. I think Israel does alright in regard to that.

[vinea]

Because if you don't stand by your friends you wont have any?

Simple enough concept.

Vinea

[tonton]

But when friends are doing something clearly wrong, it's time to either let them know, or end the friendship. That's why the US has so many fewer friends than in the past.

[vinea]

Originally posted by tonton
But when friends are doing something clearly wrong, it's time to either let them know, or end the friendship. That's why the US has so many fewer friends than in the past.

We have fewer friends because we've been acting like jerks toward our friends when we thought we could go it alone.

That and republicans got very dumb about foriegn policy and diplomacy. George HW Bush knew how to make friends, the real costs of war (and occupation) and the value of allies.

The son is a very pale shadow of the father.

Vinea

[sammi jo]

In the article, Bush said he would come to Israel's aid should they get attacked by Iran, all based on translations which may be completely inaccurate since they are provided by an Israeli-based agency MEMRI. Considering the extraordinary degree of pro-Israeli bias as regards the translations of the majority of Middle East news and affairs into English for the "benefit" of American readers by that organization, there is a very good chance that the bizarrely self-destructive statements as regards the "destruction of Israel + Jews" attributed to Mahmood Ahmadi Najad in a number of recent broadcasts might easily be exaggerated or bogus. Not only are these statements self-destructive for Iran's reputation worldwide, but they also don't gel with positive statements that the Iranian president has issued on behalf of the Iranian Jewish community, whom he regards as 'brothers", as well as praising the Jewish faith as being a "noble religion". So much for Jew hating.... the contradictions make no sense..

Furthermore Iran hasn't preemptively attacking anyone in recent history.
Iran's Wars. Suddenly we're getting bombarded in our weasel-media with this mythical, crazy, disconnected, illogical, out of character garbage regarding Iran, a nation that has no record of attacking a nation outside of its immediate borders. In fact, Iran has historically been the recipient of US aggression... for example the CIA backed coup in 1953 where their democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh (voted Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1951) was deposed, to be replaced by an unsavory dictator, the Shah. The Islamic revolution in 1979 was a direct blowback from this grossly stupid interference in anothjer nation's internal affairs.

Now, the American people are being indoctrinated, on Israel's behalf, that Iranians are terrorists, because they are Iranians (!) (just like all Muslim groups are now tarred by the US being terrorists), in the NeoConservative's "Long War". With the US campaign in Iraq gone pearshaped due to civil war, the best way of diverting attention-span challenged Americans away from the Iraq mess would be a brand new war, (a part of the 2000 neocon plan), start over all again in neighboring Iran, using the bogus and manufactured pretext that (Iran) plans to attack Israel with nuclear (and other) weapons of mass destruction. Incidentally, for those who have already forgotten, the most well-hidden reason for the Iraq war was to protect Israel's security.

Israel has between 200 and 400 nuclear weapons. They have the region's most efficient and welltrained military and intelligence service. They enjoy largely peaceful relations with their immediate neighbors Jordan to the east, Egypt to the south, and Lebanon to the North, which act as buffer zones in the most extremely unlikely and absurd notion that they are going to get attacked by either Iran or Syria. The U.S and the NeoCons are trying to bring on a major multinational war in the region, and if Iran is preemptively attacked, it could trigger conflict far worse than the current Iraqi civil war and insurgency.

Since 2003, the US taxpayers have spent at least $250,000,000,000 on Israel's security, against a non-existent threat. It looks as if the Likudist US neoCons are just getting started, and nobody's going to stop them.

Incidentally, if Israel attacks Iran without cause, can we expect the US to come to Iran's aid? No chance: since in NeoCon terms, they are an inferior people, with an inferior genotype, with an inferior religion. The PNAC even suggested such in their "Rebuilding America's Defenses" essay.

[vinea]

Originally posted by sammi jo
[B]In the article, Bush said he would come to Israel's aid should they get attacked by Iran, all based on translations which may be completely inaccurate since they are provided by an Israeli-based agency MEMRI. Considering the extraordinary degree of pro-Israeli bias as regards the translations of the majority of Middle East news and affairs into English for the "benefit" of American readers by that organization, there is a very good chance that the bizarrely self-destructive statements as regards the "destruction of Israel + Jews" attributed to Mahmood Ahmadi Najad in a number of recent broadcasts might easily be exaggerated or bogus.

Yes, this is because there are no Farsi speakers in the State Department, the CIA, CNN, AP, any news organization in Europe or US (that might not like the conservative Bush agenda or Isreal), liberal professors, Iranian immigrants, European foreign offices, friendly muslim countries etc that all Iranian translations are done by MEMRI...leading to Bush and the rest of the western world being duped by Isreal/MEMRI.

Or the alternative is that Najad did say those things to play to a domestic and arab/muslim audience given there's very little the West can do to him given he's selling oil to a some random country known as China.

Gee, I'm torn...

Vinea

[tonton]

Wow... someone else to take seriously -- evidently a conservative even -- on the PO boards.

[DanMacMan]

America has no greater friend in this world than Israel. Given its geographic location, historical importance and political situation we best defend Israel to the end.

[Chris Cuilla]

Truth be told, without the risk of a U.S. (or other major nation's) reprisal, Israel would be pushed into the Mediterranean Sea.

[ThinkingDifferent]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Truth be told, without the risk of a U.S. (or other major nation's) reprisal, Israel would be pushed into the Mediterranean Sea.

Why is this a concern for us?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by sammi jo
In the article, Bush said he would come to Israel's aid should they get attacked by Iran, all based on translations which may be completely inaccurate since they are provided by an Israeli-based agency MEMRI. Considering the extraordinary degree of pro-Israeli bias as regards the translations of the majority of Middle East news and affairs into English for the "benefit" of American readers by that organization, there is a very good chance that the bizarrely self-destructive statements as regards the "destruction of Israel + Jews" attributed to Mahmood Ahmadi Najad in a number of recent broadcasts might easily be exaggerated or bogus. Not only are these statements self-destructive for Iran's reputation worldwide, but they also don't gel with positive statements that the Iranian president has issued on behalf of the Iranian Jewish community, whom he regards as 'brothers", as well as praising the Jewish faith as being a "noble religion". So much for Jew hating.... the contradictions make no sense..

Furthermore Iran hasn't preemptively attacking anyone in recent history.
Iran's Wars. Suddenly we're getting bombarded in our weasel-media with this mythical, crazy, disconnected, illogical, out of character garbage regarding Iran, a nation that has no record of attacking a nation outside of its immediate borders. In fact, Iran has historically been the recipient of US aggression... for example the CIA backed coup in 1953 where their democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh (voted Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1951) was deposed, to be replaced by an unsavory dictator, the Shah. The Islamic revolution in 1979 was a direct blowback from this grossly stupid interference in anothjer nation's internal affairs.

Now, the American people are being indoctrinated, on Israel's behalf, that Iranians are terrorists, because they are Iranians (!) (just like all Muslim groups are now tarred by the US being terrorists), in the NeoConservative's "Long War". With the US campaign in Iraq gone pearshaped due to civil war, the best way of diverting attention-span challenged Americans away from the Iraq mess would be a brand new war, (a part of the 2000 neocon plan), start over all again in neighboring Iran, using the bogus and manufactured pretext that (Iran) plans to attack Israel with nuclear (and other) weapons of mass destruction. Incidentally, for those who have already forgotten, the most well-hidden reason for the Iraq war was to protect Israel's security.

Israel has between 200 and 400 nuclear weapons. They have the region's most efficient and welltrained military and intelligence service. They enjoy largely peaceful relations with their immediate neighbors Jordan to the east, Egypt to the south, and Lebanon to the North, which act as buffer zones in the most extremely unlikely and absurd notion that they are going to get attacked by either Iran or Syria. The U.S and the NeoCons are trying to bring on a major multinational war in the region, and if Iran is preemptively attacked, it could trigger conflict far worse than the current Iraqi civil war and insurgency.

Since 2003, the US taxpayers have spent at least $250,000,000,000 on Israel's security, against a non-existent threat. It looks as if the Likudist US neoCons are just getting started, and nobody's going to stop them.

Incidentally, if Israel attacks Iran without cause, can we expect the US to come to Iran's aid? No chance: since in NeoCon terms, they are an inferior people, with an inferior genotype, with an inferior religion. The PNAC even suggested such in their "Rebuilding America's Defenses" essay.

I think it's pretty clear that you have no credibility on any defense or ME issue at this point. Your anti-israel bias is well known. It doesn't matter how many innocent civilians get blown up pizza parlors, how many times Iran's President calls for Israel to be wiped off the map or that a known terrorist organization now runs things in Palestine. You'll still post crap like this.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I think it's pretty clear that you have no credibility on any defense or ME issue at this point. Your anti-israel bias is well known. It doesn't matter how many innocent civilians get blown up pizza parlors, how many times Iran's President calls for Israel to be wiped off the map or that a known terrorist organization now runs things in Palestine. You'll still post crap like this.

And it is so patently obvious that you choose to ignore the two central issues that are the cause of all the problems: firstly rank duplicity on the part of US foreign policy, andsecondly the need to perpetually scupper peaceful relations between Jews and Arabs by pursuing unrealistic goals. I do not acknowledge that you are ignorant as regards what is happening, but insofar as your conservative philosophy allows, you believe in the maintanance of the status quo, and keeping things exactly as they are, even if it comes down to pursuing policies that are known to encourage and aggravate terrorism.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
[B]Truth be told, without the risk of a U.S. (or other major nation's) reprisal, Israel would be pushed into the Mediterranean Sea.

By whom?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by sammi jo
By whom?

By every Arab nation that doesn't want them there.

Israel's very existence is an affront to the middle-eastern nations that were there before Israel was created.

[OfficerDigby]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Truth be told, without the risk of a U.S. (or other major nation's) reprisal, Israel would be pushed into the Mediterranean Sea.

Nope, Truth be told, without the US (and the rest of us) Israel would have, by now, been forced to come to a reasonable and fair settlement with it's neighbours and the Palestinians - with US, it will continue to eck out every last bit of land, natural resource it can get away with by any means possible. Unfortunately, it became some kind of pawn in the cold war and expansionism was encouraged.

[MarcUK]

truth be told part 2.

The Catholic church, Hitler and the Jews all conspired together to persecute Jews during WWII, precisely so that they could get the nation of Israel reinstated. Everyone's a winner.

The greatest tradegy against Jews was done by their very own blood.

[southside grabowski]

1. Israel is the only country in that region that we can even halfway trust.

2. They are the closest thing that we have to a friend in the ME.

3. We have common enemies that we both know need to be inactivated.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by SDW2001 ]I think it's pretty clear that you have no credibility on any defense or ME issue at this point.

whatever. You are as entitled to state your opinion as I am to post some facts about the middle east that do not conform with your black and white world view.

Your anti-israel bias is well known.

My only "anti Israel bias", as you put it, is your interpretation of my belief that Israel should be expected to adhere to international law in the same way that the other nations of the world are expected and obliged to do. I don't see what is so wrong with that. Unfortunately, influential people on the far right in US politics feel that Israel has the right to remain above the law, in perpetuity, under all circumstances.

It doesn't matter how many innocent civilians get blown up pizza parlors,

The collateral damage inflicted by terrorism is the reason given to justify not only the maintenance of the status quo, but also more drastic measures, such as the wall. The last thing that radical Zionists want is the cessation of terrorism.

how many times Iran's President calls for Israel to be wiped off the map

As I mentioned in my earlier post, Ahmadi Najad's apparent call makes no sense in the light of his recorded utterances as regards the Jewish community in Iran itself, and the Jewish religion in general. Everything points to (a) Ahmadi Najad being a lousy politician with zero sense of diplomacy (b) he is a anti-Iranian stooge (c) we are not hearing his signals correctly or (d) his apparent anti-Israeli rhetoric is based in fear and suspicion that Iran is on the list of middle Eastern nations to be attacked by the United States at the behest of the Israeli lobby in DC.. and Iran is pushing as fast as possible to acquire nuclear weapons on order to avoid such a confrontation.

or that a known terrorist organization now runs things in Palestine.

Perhaps you should read into the origin of Hamas as a counter to the PLO under Arafat, with the aim of dividing the Palestinian peoples' allegiances... another classic example of how not to conduct international relations. Anyway, Hamas went pearshaped, blowback happened.. but now the Palestinian people democratically elected a group going under the same name "Hamas" to power. Yes they have a terrorist past, but so do lots of other groups who get along just fine with the US. So, what does the rest of the world do? Take the initiative and work with the Palestinians, and insodoing, remove the causes in which terrorism thrives? No, thats a probplem. We cut them off and allow internal strife and poverty to cause more terrorism and violence to fester.

How obvious. Silly question, of course. The way that allows the continuation of unrest and conflict is the one that is universally selected by default. It's the way the world is, that is, for perpetually ostracized parties.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Oh, I don't know. I think Israel does alright in regard to that.

Yeah, so long as they're equipped with American military equipment and get about 5BN USD in the bank, each year, hard cash - they will.

Show me one war they won without US military help and without us bailing them out of their heavily subsidized state ecomony.

Consider this:

Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person.

This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington. For decades, his analyses of the Middle East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the Israel lobby.

For the first time in many years, Mr. Stauffer has tallied the total cost to the US of its backing of Israel in its drawn-out, violent dispute with the Palestinians. So far, he figures, the bill adds up to more than twice the cost of the Vietnam War.

And now Israel wants more. In a meeting at the White House late last month, Israeli officials made a pitch for $4 billion in additional military aid to defray the rising costs of dealing with the intifada and suicide bombings. They also asked for more than $8 billion in loan guarantees to help the country's recession-bound economy.

Considering Israel's deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the Israel bonds covered by the loan guarantees will ever be repaid. The bonds are likely to be structured so they don't pay interest until they reach maturity. If Stauffer is right, the US would end up paying both principal and interest, perhaps 10 years out.

Israel's request could be part of a supplemental spending bill that's likely to be passed early next year, perhaps wrapped in with the cost of a war with Iraq.

Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to get $2.04 billion in military assistance and $720 million in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting $3 billion a year for years.

Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel has been given $240 billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel.

And this:

Other US help includes:

• US Jewish charities and organizations have remitted grants or bought Israel bonds worth $50 billion to $60 billion. Though private in origin, the money is "a net drain" on the United States economy, says Stauffer.

• The US has already guaranteed $10 billion in commercial loans to Israel, and $600 million in "housing loans." (See editor's note below.) Stauffer expects the US Treasury to cover these.

• The US has given $2.5 billion to support Israel's Lavi fighter and Arrow missile projects.

• Israel buys discounted, serviceable "excess" US military equipment. Stauffer says these discounts amount to "several billion dollars" over recent years.

• Israel uses roughly 40 percent of its $1.8 billion per year in military aid, ostensibly earmarked for purchase of US weapons, to buy Israeli-made hardware. It also has won the right to require the Defense Department or US defense contractors to buy Israeli-made equipment or subsystems, paying 50 to 60 cents on every defense dollar the US gives to Israel.

US help, financial and technical, has enabled Israel to become a major weapons supplier. Weapons make up almost half of Israel's manufactured exports. US defense contractors often resent the buy-Israel requirements and the extra competition subsidized by US taxpayers.

• US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East about $5 billion a year, costing 70,000 or so American jobs, Stauffer estimates. Not requiring Israel to use its US aid to buy American goods, as is usual in foreign aid, costs another 125,000 jobs.

• Israel has blocked some major US arms sales, such as F-15 fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s. That cost $40 billion over 10 years, says Stauffer.

Source


That's a lot of moolah that they don't have and a lot of weapons that they don't have - yet they keep funding their military with money coming from the US and supplying their military with weapons coming from the US.

Not to mention the intelligence they receive from the US and other "help", not usually known to the naked eye. Oh, they're really doing alright they are.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yeah, so long as they're equipped with American military equipment and get about 5BN USD in the bank, each year, hard cash - they will.

Show me one war they won without US military help and without us bailing them out of their heavily subsidized state ecomony.

Consider this:




And this:



Source


That's a lot of moolah that they don't have and a lot of weapons that they don't have - yet they keep funding their military with money coming from the US and supplying their military with weapons coming from the US.

Not to mention the intelligence they receive from the US and other "help", not usually known to the naked eye. Oh, they're really doing alright they are.

Then I guess they do need our help.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Then I guess they do need our help.

riiiight, lets help the people who don't believe in Jesus, and kill the ones who do.

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I think it's pretty clear that you have no credibility on any defense or ME issue at this point.

Irony at its absolute best!!!

[tonton]

Originally posted by giant
Irony at its absolute best!!!

LOL. And I bet it just goes right over their heads.

[meelash]

Originally posted by OfficerDigby
Nope, Truth be told, without the US (and the rest of us) Israel would have, by now, been forced to come to a reasonable and fair settlement with it's neighbours and the Palestinians - with US, it will continue to eck out every last bit of land, natural resource it can get away with by any means possible. Unfortunately, it became some kind of pawn in the cold war and expansionism was encouraged.

Exactly!! In fact, if it were not for the interference of the west (Britain, etc.) Jews would be living peacefully in the Middle East as they have been since the Muslims took over from the Roman empire. Remember, it's europeans that tortured, discriminated-against, exploited the jews for centuries--never Muslims.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by sammi jo
And it is so patently obvious that you choose to ignore the two central issues that are the cause of all the problems: firstly rank duplicity on the part of US foreign policy, andsecondly the need to perpetually scupper peaceful relations between Jews and Arabs by pursuing unrealistic goals. I do not acknowledge that you are ignorant as regards what is happening, but insofar as your conservative philosophy allows, you believe in the maintanance of the status quo, and keeping things exactly as they are, even if it comes down to pursuing policies that are known to encourage and aggravate terrorism.

Rank duplicity? Such as? The Jews certainly can be said to "go to far" in some respects in their retaliation for terrorist acts. That said, Israel has publicly declared it's wish for peacefully co-exist with Palestine. Has Palestine done the same?

We defend Israel because they are surrounded by nations that want to push it into the sea. Israel is a deomcracy. Israel does not send suicide bombers into Palestine. Yes, they retaliate for those acts, and I have not always been supportive of the manner in which they have done so. True, there is perhaps the biggest "land dispute" in the history of the world going on. That doesn't give a people a right to send children into shopping malls to blow themselves up.

But beyond this, my point was that you clearly have an anti-Israeli, pro-palestinian viewpoint. When called on this, you really can't justify your position by means other than attacking (vaguely) US policy in the region. The US supoort Israel's right to exist. That's why we defend them.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by meelash
Exactly!! In fact, if it were not for the interference of the west (Britain, etc.) Jews would be living peacefully in the Middle East as they have been since the Muslims took over from the Roman empire. Remember, it's europeans that tortured, discriminated-against, exploited the jews for centuries--never Muslims.

That's stupid.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by OfficerDigby
Nope, Truth be told, without the US (and the rest of us) Israel would have, by now, been forced to come to a reasonable and fair settlement with it's neighbours and the Palestinians - with US, it will continue to eck out every last bit of land, natural resource it can get away with by any means possible. Unfortunately, it became some kind of pawn in the cold war and expansionism was encouraged.

That might even be more stupid.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by sammi jo
whatever. You are as entitled to state your opinion as I am to post some facts about the middle east that do not conform with your black and white world view.



My only "anti Israel bias", as you put it, is your interpretation of my belief that Israel should be expected to adhere to international law in the same way that the other nations of the world are expected and obliged to do. I don't see what is so wrong with that. Unfortunately, influential people on the far right in US politics feel that Israel has the right to remain above the law, in perpetuity, under all circumstances.



The collateral damage inflicted by terrorism is the reason given to justify not only the maintenance of the status quo, but also more drastic measures, such as the wall. The last thing that radical Zionists want is the cessation of terrorism.



As I mentioned in my earlier post, Ahmadi Najad's apparent call makes no sense in the light of his recorded utterances as regards the Jewish community in Iran itself, and the Jewish religion in general. Everything points to (a) Ahmadi Najad being a lousy politician with zero sense of diplomacy (b) he is a anti-Iranian stooge (c) we are not hearing his signals correctly or (d) his apparent anti-Israeli rhetoric is based in fear and suspicion that Iran is on the list of middle Eastern nations to be attacked by the United States at the behest of the Israeli lobby in DC.. and Iran is pushing as fast as possible to acquire nuclear weapons on order to avoid such a confrontation.



Perhaps you should read into the origin of Hamas as a counter to the PLO under Arafat, with the aim of dividing the Palestinian peoples' allegiances... another classic example of how not to conduct international relations. Anyway, Hamas went pearshaped, blowback happened.. but now the Palestinian people democratically elected a group going under the same name "Hamas" to power. Yes they have a terrorist past, but so do lots of other groups who get along just fine with the US. So, what does the rest of the world do? Take the initiative and work with the Palestinians, and insodoing, remove the causes in which terrorism thrives? No, thats a probplem. We cut them off and allow internal strife and poverty to cause more terrorism and violence to fester.

How obvious. Silly question, of course. The way that allows the continuation of unrest and conflict is the one that is universally selected by default. It's the way the world is, that is, for perpetually ostracized parties.

1. And I'm entitled to think that your nothing but an anti-semite.

2. Oh...let me see. Nations like Iran..and what is now called Palestine...you mean how they "obey international law?" OK, I'm with you now.

3. That's a conspiracy theory. Secondly, you don't make terrorism any prettier or sexier when you refer to it's outcomes as "collateral damage."

4. I don't know whether he has the support of the Iranian people or not. He might well be a lousy politician. But according to you, we shouldn't worry about his rhetoric. It's all just another ploy from the Neocons and Zionists. Meanwhile, I suppose we should just take the chance that this man is not another Hitler in waiting. That's a pretty big risk you're willing to take there.

[dmz]

Historically speaking, Jews have not been treated this way by the Muslim community -- this is a relatively new development -- and is probably nothing more than an outlet for Muslim inadequacy: five countries against half a million Jews turned out to be quite a humiliation. Couple that with something that continues to 'them' -- having to the sole liberal ME democracy.

Why wouldn't the Muslim® community make excuses?

[meelash]

Originally posted by SDW2001
That's stupid.

Thanks for the thoughtful response .

What I stated is historical fact. When the Eastern Roman Empire first turned over Jerusalem to the 2nd Muslim caliph, the Jews had been forbidden from entering the Holy land. As part of the agreement, the muslims insisted that Jews should be allowed to enter, and live in the holy land and visit Jerusalem. Except for the brief stints of Crusader control, this remained the status quo until 1914. After World War II, the European's were sooo sorry about their terrible treatment of the Jews for centuries that they made the "sacrifice" of *GASP* giving away someone else's land for a Jewish state.

In fact, in contrast to Europe, the Jews lived peacefully in all parts of the Muslim world throughout history. Jewish historians agree that the golden age of the diaspora was their time in Muslim Spain.

Originally posted by dmz
Historically speaking, Jews have not been treated this way by the Muslim community -- this is a relatively new development -- and is probably nothing more than an outlet for Muslim inadequacy

agreed... this definitely describes the position of the pan-arab nationalist arab countries. Who do they exploit to do their dirty work? Poor palestinian children and young men who, as a result of Israel's apartheid-ist policies are bitter, have no future and therefore nothing to lose anyway.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by meelash
Thanks for the thoughtful response .

What I stated is historical fact. When the Eastern Roman Empire first turned over Jerusalem to the 2nd Muslim caliph, the Jews had been forbidden from entering the Holy land. As part of the agreement, the muslims insisted that Jews should be allowed to enter, and live in the holy land and visit Jerusalem. Except for the brief stints of Crusader control, this remained the status quo until 1914. After World War II, the European's were sooo sorry about their terrible treatment of the Jews for centuries that they made the "sacrifice" of *GASP* giving away someone else's land for a Jewish state.

In fact, in contrast to Europe, the Jews lived peacefully in all parts of the Muslim world throughout history. Jewish historians agree that the golden age of the diaspora was their time in Muslim Spain.



agreed... this definitely describes the position of the pan-arab nationalist arab countries. Who do they exploit to do their dirty work? Poor palestinian children and young men who, as a result of Israel's apartheid-ist policies are bitter, have no future and therefore nothing to lose anyway.

That's academic. However, in fairness, I had assumed you meant interference in more modern times. My mistake.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by SDW2001
1. And I'm entitled to think that your nothing but an anti-semite.

Standard rightwing tactic of name calling already and the thread is just 2 days old.. sheesh

2. Oh...let me see. Nations like Iran..and what is now called Palestine...you mean how they "obey international law?" OK, I'm with you now.

Where did I say that Iran and "Palestine" obeyed international law? Try to argue the point without assigning false statements please.

I am sure that Iran and "Palestine" have run afoul of the international law. The difference is, they get called for it, whereas Israel, the UK and the US (and other more "privileged" member of the international community never do. I have a problem with that, but you obviously don't.

3. That's a conspiracy theory.

Oh dear, that old yawn. C'mon SDW, you weren't born yesterday. To set up a counter to an enemy is SOP for millennia. All governments and nations do this stuff. Have you not read Macchiavelli's "The Prince" yet?
Similar dynamics are happening right now within Palestinian politics: groups loyal to Abbas are sponsoring and arming militias to counter Hamas.

Secondly, you don't make terrorism any prettier or sexier when you refer to it's outcomes as "collateral damage."

I'm not trying to. Both sides are committing terrorist acts against the other. The underlying problem is that it is uncomfortable to admit that people who are US allies are committing terrorist acts. Hell, the Israelis can even murder US citizens in cold blood, get away with it, and the US government is too weasely and cowardly to even register the slightest complaint. http://www.rachelcorriefoundation.org/ If that girl had been murdered by Hamas as opposed to the IDF, lets say the outcome would have been "a different universe", to put it mildly.

4. I don't know whether he has the support of the Iranian people or not. He might well be a lousy politician. But according to you, we shouldn't worry about his rhetoric. It's all just another ploy from the Neocons and Zionists. Meanwhile, I suppose we should just take the chance that this man is not another Hitler in waiting. That's a pretty big risk you're willing to take there.

Well the corporate media are already painting him to be such by printing
stories like this People believe what they read FIRST, and usually don't see the 4 line retraction sandwiched between the want ads and the local highschool softball results at the bottom of Page 47.

The label story is BOGUS of course, but its enough to tell Americans that Iran need to be invaded before Ahmadi Hajad becomes the next "HItler", with the Canadian weasel media doing Bush's dirty work by proxy.

Sheesh folks.

[vinea]

"But Iranian legislators called a report that they would require religious markings false and said the bill seeks to make women dress more traditionally. "

Yes, that's a grand improvement.

Vinea

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by dmz
having to the sole liberal ME democracy.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by meelash
Exactly!! In fact, if it were not for the interference of the west (Britain, etc.) Jews would be living peacefully in the Middle East as they have been since the Muslims took over from the Roman empire. Remember, it's europeans that tortured, discriminated-against, exploited the jews for centuries--never Muslims.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Truth be told, without the risk of a U.S. (or other major nation's) reprisal, Israel would be pushed into the Mediterranean Sea.

Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
Why is this a concern for us?

[midwinter]

I'm really more curious about how, exactly, Iran would push Israel into the Mediterranean. That's a bit of a long haul.

And frankly, don't we issue some kind of statement like this about Israel or South Korea every 6 years or so?

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by midwinter
And frankly, don't we issue some kind of statement like this about Israel or South Korea every 6 years or so?

When a country is attacked, its powerful ally is usually commited to come to its defence, that is something that both South Korea and Israel have in common.

The difference is that the US fought a war to defend South Korea and has troops stationed there for the purpose of defending South Korea (and a good thing it is). The US has not done the same for Israel.

But the thread's initiator asks:

Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
When are they [Israel] going to learn to take care of themselves?

Assuming (and giving the benefit of the doubt, I'll guess it was due to ignorance rather than idiocy) that Israel haven't taken care of its own defence, and that it depended and still depends on US military for its defence.
Which has no basis in reality. While the US has committed troops and sometimes fought to defend various countries from Western Europe (UK, Belgium…) to East Asia (Japan, South Korea…) to the Middle-East (Kuwait, Saudi…), it has never done so for Israel.

Nevertheless, the US is now verbally committed to come to Israel's side should Israel be under attack, and I appreciate it, hoping it never to be needed.

[Gene Clean]

Since 1974, Israel has received nearly $80 billion in assistance, including three special aid packages. The first followed the signing of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty and Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai. The redeployment of Israeli forces and rebuilding of air bases in the Negev cost $5 billion. To partially compensate for this sacrifice, Israel received $3 billion ($2.2 billion of which was in the form of high-interest loans) in U.S. aid in 1979.

The second special package was approved in 1985, following a severe economic crisis in Israel, which sent inflation rates soaring as high as 445 percent. The $1.5 billion in emergency assistance-disbursed in two installments, in 1985 and 1986-was provided as part of Israel's economic stabilization program, which was implemented under the guidance of the U.S.-Israel Joint Economic Development Group (JEDG).

The most recent extraordinary package was approved in 1996 to help Israel fight terrorism. Israel is to receive a total of $100 million, divided equally between fiscal years 1996 and 1997.

and

Israel's economic aid changed from the Commodity Import Program (CIP), which provides funds to foreign nations for the purchase of U.S. commodities, to a direct cash transfer in 1979. In return, Israel provided the Agency for International Development with assurances that the dollar level of Israel's non-defense imports from the U.S. would exceed the level of economic assistance granted Israel in any given year. Thus, Israel guaranteed that U.S. suppliers would not be disadvantaged by the termination of Israel's CIP Program.

Starting with fiscal year 1987, Israel annually received $1.2 billion in all grant economic aid and $1.8 billion in all grant military assistance. In 1998, Israel offered to voluntarily reduce its dependence on U.S. economic aid. According to an agreement reached with the Clinton Administration and Congress, the $1.2 billion economic aid package will be reduced by $120 million each year so that it will be phased out in ten years. Half of the annual savings in economic assistance each year ($60 million) will be added to Israel's military aid package in recognition of its increased security needs. In 2005, Israel received $360 million in economic aid and $2.22 billion in military aid. In 2006, economic aid is scheduled to be reduced to $240 million and military aid will increase to $2.28 billion.

For several years, most of Israel's economic aid went to pay off old debts. In 1984, foreign aid legislation included the Cranston Amendment (named after its Senate sponsor), which said the U.S. would provide Israel with economic assistance "not less than" the amount Israel owes the United States in annual debt service payments. The Cranston Amendment was left out of the FY1999 and subsequent appropriations bills. At that time Israel received $1.2 billion in ESF and owed only $328 million in debt service so the amendment was no longer needed.

Roughly 26 percent of what Israel receives in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) can be spent in Israel for military procurement. From FY1988 to FY 1990, Israel was allowed to use $400 million in Israel. From FY1991 to FY1998, the amount was increased to $475 million. As U.S. military aid to Israel increased, according to the agreement to cut economic aid, the amout set aside for defense purchases in Israel has increased (but the percentage has remained roughly the same). In FY2004, the figure is $568 million. The remaining 74 percent of FMF is spent in the United States to generate profits and jobs. More than 1,000 companies in 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have signed contracts worth billions of dollars through this program.

At the end of 1998, Israel requested an additional $1.2 billion in aid to fund moving troops and military installations out of the occupied territories as called for in the October 23, 1998, Wye agreement. Israel received $600 million of this in military aid in FY1999 and $300 million in each fiscal year 2000 and 2001 (see Wye funding table).

In February 2003, for the first time, Congress voted to cut aid to Israel against the wishes of the pro-Israel lobby and the government of Israel. The 0.65 percent deduction was not aimed at Israel; however, it was an across the board cut of all foreign aid programs for fiscal year 2003. The lobby and government also suffered a defeat when Congress deleted an administration request for an extra $200 million to help Israel fight terrorism. Even while cutting aid to Israel (which still was budgeted at $2.1 billion for military aid and $600 million for economic assistance), Congress included a number of provisions in the aid bill viewed as favorable to Israel, including a provision that bars federal assistance to a future Palestinian state until the current Palestinian leadership is replaced, and that state demonstrates a commitment to peaceful coexistence with Israel, and takes measures to combat terrorism.

The setbacks were also temporary as the Administration approved a supplementary aid request in 2003 that included $1 billion in FMF and $9 billion in loan guarantees to aid Israel's economic recovery and compensate for the cost of military preparations associated with the war in Iraq. One quarter of the FMF is a cash grant and three quarters will be spent in the United States. The loan guarantees are spread over three years and must be spent within Israel's pre-June 1967 borders. Each year, an amount equal to the funds Israel spends on settlements in the territories will be deducted from the loan amount, along with all fees and subsidies.

Altogether, since 1949, Israel has received nearly than $100 billion in assistance. This includes the three special allocations, the $10 billion in loan guarantees (spread over five years) approved in 1992, and a variety of other smaller assistance-related accounts, such as refugee resettlement (nearly $1.5 billion overall) and cooperative development programs (a total of $186 million since 1981).

The total does not include funds for joint military projects like the Arrow missile (for which Israel has received more than $1 billion in grants since 1986), which are provided through the Defense budget. President Bush requested $60 million for the Arrow for FY2003 and $136 million in FY2004. The United States also has provided $53 million for the Boost Phase Intercept program and $139 million for the Tactical High Energy Laser program under development in Israel to complement the Arrow.

Though the totals are impressive, the value of assistance to Israel has been eroded by inflation. While aid levels remained constant in total dollars from 1987 until 1999, the real value steadily declined. On the other side of the coin, Israel does receive aid on more favorable terms than other nations. For example, all economic aid is given directly to the Israeli government rather than allocated under a specific program. Also, starting in 1982, Israel began to receive all its economic aid in a lump sum early in the fiscal year instead of in quarterly installments as is done for other countries. Israel is not required to provide an accounting of how the funds are used. Israel also receives offsets on FMS purchases (U.S. contractors agree to offset some of the cost of military equipment by buying components or materials from Israel).

As of December 31, 2001, Israel owed the United States government $1.977 billion in direct economic and military loans.

tell a different story.


-



And this

1949-2004 Total

*
Military Assistance
$64.4 Billion
*
Economic Assistance
$35.6 Billion
*
Total Assistance
$100 Billion

is nothing to sneeze at.