A Nation Like OursYes from a realpolitik calculation it would make much more sense to abandon Israel . But thankfully foreign policy is not always measured by pure self interest .

A good start to understanding would be to read <a href=http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/001/225tpziw.asp >A Nation Like Ours Why Americans stand with Israel</a> by David Gelernter .He explains that the US and Israel have shared experiences in the founding of our respective nations.

[an interesting sidenote ;David Gelernter was one of the unibomber's victims ]

I think that if there were no Jews in America at all ,that the US would still support Israel due to our common experience of creating a nation from an idea ;a dream. Settlers in both countries saw lands that were essentially unused empty space and through hard work cultivated the land and made it prosperous. They like us built it and deserve to own it."We hope to plant a nation, where none before hath stood."

Beyond that the jihadists of the Middle East would still loathe America, even if we didn't support Israel. America is the "Great Satan".OBL and his al-Qaeda freeks did not mention Israel in their original fatwas against us.

Israel is a democracy in the Middle East,surrounded by antagonistic Islamic regimes. It does not deserve to be forced out of existence by hateful neighbors. America supports Israel because it can count onto be an ally like nobody else in the region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VBNomad

Why does the USA support Israel?

---

Let me take a different tack here. Let me ask you to answer these questions

1) Do you believe that the State of Israel has a right to exist?

2) Do you believe that a sovereign state has a right to defend itself against attack?

3) Do you believe its right for any military organization to hide behind civilians?

Scott, you're going a bit overboard don't you think? If one asks "Why does the USA support Israel?" why do you need to ask "Do you believe that the State of Israel has a right to exist?"? Isn't that a little confrontational? It's like asking "Why did IBM sell their laptop business to China?" and you respond "Do you believe that the China has a right to exist?".

Why not just answer the question cooly and with facts? I think tomder did a pretty good job of that.

What gets tiresome is the constant trotting out of the persecution complex.

Hello again, Need:

Ummh, ummmh, ummh. Couple things. I'm a Jew. I was born in 1943. IF I happened to have been born in the country my parents had emigrated from, I would have found myself tattooed and screwed. That's MYSELF – ME – my perfect little body.

Frankly, I have every right to inform you how the Jews have been persecuted, because – they have. And, but for an accident of my birth, it WOULD have been me. That's personal, dude!

However, you have never heard me or Scott play the poor Jew card. That we deserve this stuff because the world did us dirty. Your characterization of his arguments as “persecution complex” oriented, just ain't so. Certainly, you don't think I sound persecuted.

Nope, my and Scotts arguments have been quite cool, under the circumstances, and quite factual. So, instead of talking about him and me personally, why don't you address the facts we present??

I think it's because you just aren't able. I'm waiting……….

excon

I mentioned that tomder presented some good facts. You guys just jumped all over the OP. This thread isn't about the Holocaust as much as you'd like it to me, it's about someone wondering why the U.S. offers so much support to another country.

Hello again, Need:

You're still talking about us. I'm not interesting. Argue with what I say, not who I am.

Still waiting...

excon

You brought up who you are.

Still waiting...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Scott, you're going a bit overboard don't you think?

---

No I don't. I have, previously, answered the question cooly and factually. Nor do I believe I am exhibiting a persecution complex.

I have been told I am wrong in applying the anti-semite tag here. The purpose of these questions is to help me determine if I was wrong in doing so. I believe the answers to those questions will help me formulate a better answer. Like I said I'm trying a different tack in dealing with this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

This thread isn't about the Holocaust as much as you'd like it to me, it's about someone wondering why the U.S. offers so much support to another country.

---

I think that part of the question was answered early on. The OP wasn't "jumped" on until he kept ignoring the true facts. He has opened up another issue by constantly promoting propaganda and rhetoric.

As much as I was curious to the answer of the original question I do agree that the OP went in different direction with the whole "murderer" tagging. I was more interested in why such a large mount of funds has been diverted there for so many years while other domestic and international ills ravaged on with little support.

With all the crazies with bombs and wanting to blow somebody up, don't you think a few friends would come in handy?? If you look at a map don't you see the only thing stopping the whole region from being NUTS is Israel? And last, but not least since we have the same enemies doesn't it make a lot of sense to be allied with Israel?? Am I the only one up this early who can see this?? Oh, If we didn't support Israel, what do you think them terrorist would do after they bombed Israel to bits? Didn't WWII teach you guys anything about what happens when some one hates you and nobody stands up to them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Didn't WWII teach you guys anything about what happens when some one hates you and nobody stands up to them?

---

But that happens in many African countries and the U.S. doesn't step in. Why?

African affairs are tribal in almost every case and The middle east is regional. Also upon further thought, we should stop giving money to the Jews, and instead send them all the guns, and bombs, and nukes they need. Would that satisfy everyone?

Tribal or regional, who cares, genocide is genocide right?

Yes it is, but that's another thread.

Roger that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I have been told I am wrong in applying the anti-semite tag here. The purpose of these questions is to help me determine if I was wrong in doing so.

---

Hello again:

Scott is so much more logical and introspective, than I am. Maybe that's the computer geek in him. The above applies to me too, and I wonder if I'm wrong...

Ok! Wondering over. I'm not wrong! I think the thoughts presented here ARE based on anti-Semitism, rather than on history. I would rather NOT think so, but arguments against the facts, both Scott and I have presented, have been NON EXISTENT. In the absence of argument, what am I left with, but prejudice?

I WAS wrong, however, to say so, because the thread became about THAT instead of the politics. My bad. Ok, I did that. Sorry. If I've falsely accused anyone here of bigotry, show me.

Indeed, at this stage of the discussion, I think it's incumbent on you guys to argue, with facts on the ground, how your positions are NOT anti-Semitic.

In the absence of that, there's really nothing more to say, except – Go Jews!

excon

I am not a Jew
I am not a computer geek
I don't know if I am anti semantic
I do know the same fools who drove airplanes into the World Trade buildings hate America
I do know terrorist HATE Jews (they said so)
I do know all this debate does goes back to hatred
I do know I have all the facts say US vs THEM for survival.
Who's side should America be on??
With the absence of common sense... Go BEARS

Perhaps if there wasn't such a visceral reaction when this issue is presented then rational dialogue would be possible . Certainly I do not blame someone like EXCON for his responses. Most times when the issue is discussed invariably the issue of the "Jewish Lobby " and their "manipulations" of American politics,government , and press is mentioned.

Consider the essay published by professors John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University entitled The Israel Lobby and US Policy

HTML Code:

---

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf#search='the%20israel%20lobby'

---

. They argue that US supports Israel even to the detriment of the US;basically anti-Israeli propaganda masquerading as scholarship in my view . It is full of errors of fact, logic and deliberate omission.

Quote:

---

U.S. foreign policy shapes events in every corner of the globe. Nowhere is this truer than in the Middle East, a region of recurring instability and enormous strategic importance. Most recently, the Bush Administration’s attempt to transform the region into a community of democracies has helped produce a resilient insurgency in Iraq, a sharp rise in world oil prices, and terrorist bombings in Madrid, London, and Amman. With so much at stake for so many, all countries need to understand the forces that drive U.S. Middle East policy.
The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security.

---

To prove that it is basically anti-Semitic all you have to do is read the reaction of some of America's most renown biggots ;like David Duke who said

Quote:

---

"It is quite satisfying to see a body in the premier American university essentially come out and validate every major point I have been making since even before the war even started."

---

(NY Sun)

David Gergen who served for Presidents of both parties called the essay An Unfair Attack

HTML Code:

---

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/060403/3edit.htm

---

.

Quote:

---

Over the course of four tours in the White House, I never once saw a decision in the Oval Office to tilt U.S. foreign policy in favor of Israel at the expense of America's interest. Other than Richard Nixon--who occasionally said terrible things about Jews, despite the number on his team--I can't remember any president even talking about an Israeli lobby. Perhaps I have forgotten, but I can remember plenty of conversations about the power of the American gun lobby, environmentalists, evangelicals, small-business owners, and teachers unions.

---

He goes on to make this key observation...

Quote:

---

10 straight American presidents have befriended Israel--not because they were under pressure but because they believed America had made a commitment to Israel's survival, just as we have to other threatened outposts of freedom like Berlin, South Korea, and Taiwan.

---

That's right .The US has made a commitment to shed blood and treasure to defend nations all over the world . Recently Bush reaffirmed our strong commitment to the defense of Taiwan ,which could potentially bring us to nuclear confrontation . Also foreign pressure has penetrated the halls of US gvt besides the Jewish lobby... the Saudi princes come immediately to mind .So it is disingenuous to point out the "jewish lobby " as the reason for our support .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

So it is disingenuous to point out the "jewish lobby " as the reason for our support .

---

You're the first person to mention it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Let me take a different tack here. Let me ask you to answer these questions
1) Do you believe that the State of Israel has a right to exist?

---

In the current (2006-2007) geopolitical context, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

2) Do you believe that a sovereign state has a right to defend itself against attack?

---

Yes, by means that are allowed by the international laws of war, including, but not limited to Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949, to wit:

Quote:

---

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

3) Do you believe its right for any military organization to hide behind civilians?

---

No. However, fighting an enemy who does so doesn't absolve military forces of the responsibility to avoid civilian casualties when their presence is known.

Now let me ask you to answer these questions:

1) What gives any nation state the right to exist?

2) What gives any ethnic/cultural group the right to have a nation state of its own?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

1) What gives any nation state the right to exist?

2) What gives any ethnic/cultural group the right to have a nation state of its own?

---

Hello again, ordinary:

I'll give you my two cents. They DON'T!!

But, I've never said they did - no more than we have a right to exist - and we DON'T. If you think I have said that, please show me where.

Here's a short course on history. The people who hold the land, hold it because they're strong enough to hold it. “Rights” be damned. Might is right. Nothing else. That’s the way the world works, and always has.

Let the UN debate about the purported rights you talk about. I couldn't care less. What? You’ll give your house back to the Indians because they have “rights” to it? I don’t think you would.

Israel is a Democracy who's holding on to their land because they can. We should support them because we said we would, and for no other reason.

None of my arguments have been based upon any perceived rights. Argue with what I say, not with what you make up.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Now let me ask you to answer these questions:

1) What gives any nation state the right to exist?

2) What gives any ethnic/cultural group the right to have a nation state of its own?

---

First, my questions were directed at the OP not you. Second, your quote from the Geneva Convention refers to an "active part" in the hostilities. Harboring combatants, permitting attacks to be launched from your lands and homes can be considered an active part.

As for the rest, when the OP answers my questions I will deal with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, ordinary:

I'll give you my two cents. They DON'T!!!

But, I've never said they did - no more than we have a right to exist - and we DON'T. If you think I have said that, please show me where.

Here's a short course on history. The people who hold the land, hold it because they're strong enough to hold it. “Rights” be damned. Might is right. Nothing else. That's the way the world works, and always has.

Let the UN debate about the purported rights you talk about. I could care less. What? You'll give your house back to the Indians because they have “rights” to it? I don't think you would.

Israel is a Democracy who's holding on to their land because they can. We should support them because we said we would, and for no other reason.

None of my arguments have been based upon any perceived rights. Argue with what I say, not with what you make up.

excon

---

I know you didn't say anything about rights, but Scott did, and I was responding to his post. I happen to agree with you that nation states exist by virtue of might, not rights. As I understand it, the rules of war are designed to protect the rights of persons, not nations. In your view, do people have rights, or is the whole idea bogus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

First, my questions were directed at the OP not you.

---

Are you saying that I am forbidden (or at least unwelcome) to answer any question not directed specifically to me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Second, your quote from the Geneva Convention refers to an "active part" in the hostilities. Harboring combatants, permitting attacks to be launched from your lands and homes can be considered an active part.

---

Are you saying that because of the nature of the enemy they face that Israel's armed forces are not and should not be subject to the laws of war? Or are you saying that the civilian population of the occupied territories or Lebanon is not covered by Article 3?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

As for the rest, when the OP answers my questions I will deal with them.

---

Of course, you're under no obligation, but I would appreciate it if you would answer my questions about the rights of nations.

Rights are a "idea" and only valid in war if and when both sides agree to it.

In the Revolutionary War, the US broke every rule of war by not standing in a open field and shooting at each other, they did not wear uniforms and hide behind trees and other places, they were considered barbarions and terrorists for their methods of fighting.


And in Isreal for example, if you are fighting an enemy that hides its weapons around family apartments, will launch missles from behind schools, and use moblie missles shooting from family living parts of town.

So when you attack these areas, non military people will die, it is to be expected, And does other nations really have a right to hold aonother free nation to their standards, and can you blame one side for protecting it, if you don't condemn the nation using non military as basic shields.

A enemy that is not fighting by any rules, can they really ask for and expect the other side to have to follow those rules, since doing so, will mean they will have to lose

This is a good example of what is happening in Iraq today also

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Are you saying that I am forbidden (or at least unwelcome) to answer any question not directed specifically to me?

---

Not at all. But the question was not a general one posed to anyone who wants to respond. I was looking for a response from a specific person because I want to see how that person will respond. I don't want to deal with other people's responses until I get the OP's response.

I have often said that once something is posted it is open for anyone who wants to to comment. But there is some discretion to be exercised. In a case like this, it was clear that I wanted the answers from a specific person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Are you saying that because of the nature of the enemy they face that Israel's armed forces are not and should not be subject to the laws of war?

---

No, I'm saying that the laws of war are subject to interpretation. When your enemy is not the army of a country, but a people who assume many guises, then the line between what is a combatant and what isn't is very blurred. That is the main point that has to be taken into account when judging Israel's actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Of course, you're under no obligation, but I would appreciate it if you would answer my questions about the rights of nations.

---

I didn't say I wouldn't answer, only that I wanted to see if the OP will respond and what that response is before I answer your questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

can you blame one side for protecting it, if you don't condemn the nation using non miliary as basic shields.

---

That is the crux of the argument I have been making. To condemn one side without condemning the opposing side when the opposition is committing much greater atrocities is one sided and prejudicial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Rights are a "idea" and only valid in war if and when both sides agree to it.
In the Revolutionary War, the US broke every rule of war by not standing in a open field and shooting at each other, they did not wear uniforms and hide behind trees and other places, they were considered barbarions and terrorists for thier methods of fighting.

---

Don't you think there's an important difference between rights, as in "...all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...", and rules, such as the laws of warfare?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

And in Isreal for example, if you are fighting an enemy that hides its weapons around family apartments, will launch missles from behind schools, and use moblie missles shooting from family living parts of town.

So when you attack these areas, non military people will die, it is to be expected, And does other nations really have a right to hold aonother free nation to thier standards, and can you blame one side for protecting it, if you don't condemn the nation using non miliary as basic shields.

A enemy that is not fighting by any rules, can they really ask for and expect the other side to have to follow those rules, since doing so, will mean they will have to lose

---

Refusing to adopt an enemy's standards of conduct doesn't necessarily mean you lose. Remember WWII? And Israel hasn't resorted to suicide bombing of civilian targets, and they haven't lost yet, even though their enemies use it routinely. By this logic, though, there would be no reason to abstain from it if they really thought it was necessary to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

This is a good example of what is happening in Iraq today also

---

Yes, what's happening in Iraq is a tragically good example isn't it? Wasn't it John McCain who said that the rules of warfare and treatment of prisoners that we follow are about who WE are, not who THEY are? If we accept for ourselves no limits to inhumanity beyond whatever is accepted by our enemy, then don't we allow them to define us? If there is no level to which we will not stoop in our quest for "victory", can we still claim to be worthy of it?

Israel is not sbject to our rules. They can defend themselves any way they see fit. So if they say area so-and so will be destroyed you'd be a zip damn fool to stay there, just my humble opinion. What idiot allows a bully to throw rocks at the local tough guy and then stands there and lets the bully hide behind him? If the lebanese are that dumb why should I care if they get here butts blown up with the terrorist. Again just my humble opinion. Rules ae only as good as the ones who enforce them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Not at all. But the question was not a general one posed to anyone who wants to respond. I was looking for a response from a specific person because I want to see how that person will respond. I don't want to deal with other people's responses until I get the OP's response.

I have often said that once something is posted it is open for anyone who wants to to comment. But there is some discretion to be exercised. In a case like this, it was clear that I wanted the answers from a specific person.

---

Please excuse my indiscretion. It wasn't clear to me that no one else was supposed to respond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

No, I'm saying that the laws of war are subject to interpretation. When your enemy is not the army of a country, but a people who assume many guises, then the line between what is a combatant and what isn't is very blurred. That is the main point that has to be taken into account when judging Israel's actions.

---

Are you saying that because of the presence of guerrilla fighters among them, the civilian population of the occupied territories or Lebanon is not covered by Article 3?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I didn't say I wouldn't answer, only that I wanted to see if the OP will respond and what that response is before I answer your questions.

---

I don't see what his response has to do with it, but I'm in no hurry, so take your time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

To condemn one side without condemning the opposing side when the opposition is committing much greater atrocities is one sided and prejudicial.

---

I certainly agree that greater atrocities deserve greater condemnation than lesser atrocities, but don't you think even very small atrocities deserve at least a teeny tiny condemnation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Israel is not sbject to our rules. They can defend themselves any way they see fit. So if they say area so-and so will be destroyed you'd be a zip damn fool to stay there, just my humble opinion. What idiot allows a bully to throw rocks at the local tough guy and then stands there and lets the bully hide behind him? If the lebanese are that dumb why should I care if they get here butts blown up with the terrorist. Again just my humble opinion. Rules ae only as good as the ones who enforce them.

---

So if you were a Lebanese family man, how, exactly, would you force the bully to stop hiding behind you?

1-Get behind him and knock hell out of him with a big stick
2-Get a couple of other family guys and knock hell out of him with a big stick
3-See him coming with a rock and knock hell out of him with a big stick
4-catch him in the john and knock hell out of him with big stick
5-Burn his house down, and when he ran to escape the fire, knock hell out of him with a big stick
6-Tell the local bad boys that there's a bully with a rock talking about his mama and he lives over thar!
7-Get all my buddies together and round up all the bullies and knock the hell out of them with a big stick
8-knock the hell out of any one in my villagewith a rock in his hand.
Not only does this work on bullies ,but terrorists and young boys who sell dope in my neighborhood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Please excuse my indiscretion. It wasn't clear to me that no one else was supposed to respond.

---

Again, I didn't say no else could respond, only that I was looking for an answer from a specific person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Are you saying that because of the presence of guerrilla fighters among them, the civilian population of the occupied territories or Lebanon is not covered by Article 3?

---

No, I'm saying that the line between civilan and combatant is extremely blurry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

I don't see what his response has to do with it, but I'm in no hurry, so take your time.

---

I have my reasons for waiting for a response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

I certainly agree that greater atrocities deserve greater condemnation than lesser atrocities, but don't you think even very small atrocities deserve at least a teeny tiny condemnation?

---

And you make the same mistaken assumption that they have not and are not being criticized.

Hello again:

While we work on that, I want to project our discussion into the near future.

In the declared global jihad, Africa is now fully involved. China is lining up with Iran. Europe is appeasing the jihadists in the hopes that they won't be attacked. Venezuela has guaranteed Iran its supply of refined fuel, because Iran doesn't refine its own. South America is now fully in the jihadist camp. The UN is helpless. Indeed, in the face of sanctions from the UN, Iran INCREASED is production of nuke fuel.

What I'm saying, is that in a year or two, it's going to be the jihadists against the world. The US and its ally Israel, are the ONLY ones who are going to be standing up. Maybe Australia would help. Roogirl?

What are you going to think of Israel then?

By the way, in my view, the scenario I allude to, is GOING to happen.

excon

<adjusts tinfoil hat>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

<adjusts tinfoil hat>

---

Hello again, Need:

So sayeth Nevill Chamberlain, too. "The Nazi's are kiddin........."

excon

In a year or two if it's the jihadists against the world I'll buy you a beer... or a bag of weed. :)

Hello again, Need:

Cool. Canada is going to be the only safe place. I'll be a knocking...

excon

I think we should all go to school on how the Ethiopians handled the jihadist in Sudan this week . http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...345844,00.html

The funny thing is I hear no one belly aching about disproportionate force. ( rumors abound about US forces in the region supplying "support" by the way ).This brief and successful military operation should send a message to the 'realists' of the Baker/ Hamilton Iraq Surrender Group and our State Department that appeasement doesn't pay.

The irony is that Israel with its advanced military equipment and highly trained forces could accomplish another similar victory in the war against Jihadistan by re-entering Gaza and rooting out the Hamas and al Qaeda terrorists killing Israelis daily with the unabated rain of Qassem rockets.

Now that I think about it ;isn't Ethiopia the purported location of the lost tribes of Israel ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The irony is that Israel with its advanced military equipment and highly trained forces could accomplish another similar victory in the war against Jihadistan by re-entering Gaza and rooting out the Hamas and al Qaeda terrorists killing Israelis daily with the unabated rain of Qassem rockets.

Now that I think about it ;isn't Ethiopia the purported location of the lost tribes of Israel ?

---

Hello again, tom:

Instead, Olmert is giving money and weapons to Fattah - a terrorist organization who's been at war with Israel since the beginning. Isn't that crazy??

Yes, Ethiopia IS where the last tribe came from. There was a black police chief named Greenburg in Charleston, SC. He's not a convert.

I think Sammy Davis Jr. was from there, too... Ok, maybe not.

excon