User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 632
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 21 Apr 2024 - 11:00 to 16:00
- 5 May 2024 - 11:00 to 16:30
Quick Links
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
It might surprise you to learn that the largest recipient of US foreign aid, larger than Israel, is Egypt and has been for some time. Contrary to what the Muslim world screeches very little US money is used for military spending, since as you can read for yourself from the State Department specifically [i]military aid[/i] for both Egypt and Israel has continuously fallen since the military buildup in 1984.
fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf
As you can read for yourself (starting page 11) most military aid for both Egypt and Israel is discretionary - if Israel's Arab neighbors become aggressive Israel recieves more money, if Israel becomes aggressive Egypt recieves more money.
Egypt is inhabited by muslims. MPAC and CAIR are disproportionately powerful lobby groups interested in helping Muslims abroad.
Clearly they are behind our foreign aid to Egypt.
It's very clear that just as I outlined in the twin pillars doctrine/Carter doctrine that we need Israel and their neighbors in a state of stability - this has nothing to do with Jewish lobbies. There is no 'deep impact' on American society. And you're absolutely wrong; all of this 'zionists control the government' nonsense isn't 'hijacked' by racists, it was born with men like Duke, not controversial scholars who wrote articles within the last 5 years so that they could get published.
The lie isn't that there is something called zionism, it's that 'zionism' is some kind of Jewish device that controls the US policy in the middle east when that's clearly not the case.
Walt and Mearsheimer have spurious conjectures (and don't over estimate their '[url=http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060403&s=joffe040606]esteem[/url]' in the intellectual circuit), born in the back woods of Alabama by anti-semites claiming the 'Zionists' have been controlling government through a wide range of evil plots. Before AIPAC it was the International Communist Movement/Zionist conspiracy - once again a fine product of the hinterlands of Mississippi and once again quickly gained currency in more [url=http://users.ox.ac.uk/~metheses/Alexander.htm]respectable[/url] [url=http://www.soas.ac.uk/studying/coursedetail.cfm?coursesunitsid=907]estab....
This specific article doesn't represent an actual debate, but rather acquiescence to a fringe argument born out of racism; harvard had their [url=http://www.nysun.com/article/29638]seal[/url] removed; frm Secy of State [url=http://www.cfr.org/publication/10606/mighty_and_the_almighty_rush_transc... called it 'highly overstated.'
And they all focus on the same repeating idea that "When people criticize "Zionists," they mean Jews, You are talking anti-Semitism." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
I don't know if you've heard of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. But I hope his words can be more pursuasive to yall than two Presidents, the State Department, fmr NSA, fmr Defense Secy, SOCOM, the Navy, and the various FA journalists (in fairness they say that FA and CFR are controlled by zionists).
It's as true today as it was in the 50s back when they claimed 'zionists' controlled the government.
Damn 100man, send an email out to all the other Jews and tell them to stop trying to take over the world.
The US is not and never has 'allied' with Israel, we do not have a security treaty with Israel and provide less funding than we do to Egypt with whom we have similar relations. You don't know what you are talking about.
Dave,
Firstly let me say that I am not a racist and neither are the majority of people, Muslim and non Muslim, who are worried by the influence Israel has on America’s role in the Middle East. The concerns are legitimate. I don’t agree with everything in the article, specifically I feel they play down the role of Christians and Bush’s own reasons for invading Iraq, but much of what they say is based on serious research. Check their references if you don’t believe me. If Walt and Mershimer were neo-Nazis then they would have been sacked long ago. Their article had no racist sources.
USA did indeed support Israel during the Cold war for selfish reasons but the new war on terrorism has changed the situation. Walt and Mershimer are from the “realist” school of thought, thus their view is that US FP should primarily reflect the best interests of the US. Constant support for Israel is a major factor in anti-American feeling across the world, which is clearly [u][i]not[/i][/u] in the nation’s best interest. US security and access to oil is threatened by the pro-Israel bias not strengthened by it.
Arguing that pro Israel pressure groups have a significant influence is really no different to saying that Christian groups have an impact on US politics. There is nothing remotely anti-Semitic about saying that.
The reason that we can refer to the “Israel lobby” rather than the “Jewish lobby” is precisely because a large section of the lobby are evangelical Christians. The evangelical groups believe that the “miraculous” rebirth of Israel is a biblical prophecy, so they feel duty bound to defend Israel at all costs. They are BUSH voters, not Jews. This is not some sinister, medieval European fairy tale.
[b]Evangelical support for Israel:[/b]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1969542.stm
http://www.jewishmag.com/70mag/pipes/pipes.htm
http://www.cfi-usa.org/
The lobby’s most effective weapon is to declare Israel as the victim and to shout down anyone who disagrees. Many Jews are not part of the active pro-Israeli groups which why the “anti-Semite” charge is false and is often only used as a slur to discredit those whose views are unpalatable to the lobby. A knee jerk reaction.
[b]Jews for justice for Palestinians [/b]
http://www.jfjfp.org/about.htm
[b]Pro Israel bias in British media:[/b]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4964702.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2162459.html
[url=http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=79088&d=12&m=3&y=2006&...
I'm not getting into 'who the racist is' because I cannot make that judgement, and frankly that's just low. However these concerns are not legitimate, they are fabricated by over a hundred years of suspicion against Jews. They are spurious and do not stand to serious scrutiny. It should be noted that when called to defend their assertions by Dr. Kramer, they both [url=http://sandbox.blog-city.com/mearsheimer_walt_retreat.htm]declined to accept and issued a rejoinder[/url].
Walt and Mearsheimer aren't from the 'realist' school of thought, they are neo-realist and neo-liberal.
I don't object to you saying that the US has a bias toward Israel, we do - so much was said by Madeline Albright in the article I posted previously (condemning Walt and Mearsheimer). However the lie propagated by the racists in this country for the last 150 years, and latched onto by the Muslim world in the last 50 is that there is always some underground Jewish collaborative (they don't have to be under a unified command, being Jewish qualifies you instantly) that is unduely influencing the US government to the point of controlling it.
I see you're backing off of 'Zionism' being behind US policy toward Israel throughtout the Cold War period. By your own admission the US supported Israel during the Cold War... because of the Cold War, not because of US 'Jewish organizations' and 'Zionists' whispering into the ears of the President.
Now it looks like you are retreating to updated canard "yes but you have to admit the neo-cons are all a zionist plot" and that the support for Israel in the 'War on Terror' has something to do with the power of 'Zionists' in the government and not 1. Popular support, and 2. Real security concerns.
This recent Gallup Poll tells you who the real Zionist conspiracy is, [url=http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03... Average[/url]. Madeline Albright shed light on the subject in that speech I posted earlier - the US has always had an interest in Israel, we are their only friends, their interests are often aligned with ours and we see ourselves as moving in the same cultural direction.
Yet while [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/opinion/polls/main505251.shtml]at the same time[/url] we support Israel, we are aware of their abuses and by no measure approve of them. How is it possible we can overwhelmingly support Israel, strongly disapprove of what they are doing, and have such underwhelming support for the Palestinians?
What possible reason do we have to identify with them? We were attacked by terrorists and the Palestinians just recently elected terrorists to be their government!
That does not mean that the (apparently 'Zionist') US public in the end will have such a grand effect on the details of Policy. The US has security concerns still with Israel, largely maintaining peace in that area of the world to protect our oil interests and keep terrorism from growing under failed states. Again that's discussed in the previous State department and Carter doctrine information on our military and civilian policy in the Middle East I posted.
However security issues and genuine public do not necessarily result in favorable policy toward Israel. As previously mentioned we have no military alliance with Israel, nor have we ever intervened militarily in any significant way. The only support we do give them (financial) is actually second to that of their bitter (Arab-muslim) enemy Egypt; but most importantly (and again cited from the previous State dept. document) our ten year policy is actually to reduce US foreign aid to Israel. We are abandoning them.
Where in all this does 'AIPAC' and other 'Jewish Organizations' Walt Mearsheimer and the Middle East contend are the evil sith hiding behind the screen and secretly guiding US policy? We're following a Middle Eastern strategy which we've followed since Nixon and Carter, public support for Israel is overwhelming for more substantive reasons than 'jewish media brainwashing,' security concerns demand we keep the Israeli state operating, and finally despite it all Foreign Aid is dropping - not that it's all that special in light of the aid given to Israel's unpredictable arab neighbor.
Actually, with support so very against Israel's arab neighbors it makes me wonder how such an incomprehensibly strange amount of money is being funnelled silently to Egypt.
You are very wrong. Dr. King and I both come from a country that has a long history of accusing Jews of having shady pressure groups that control the US government. He is absolutely correct when he says "When people criticize "Zionists," they mean Jews, You are talking anti-Semitism." 'Zionist' conspiracies are just the latest incarnation in a string of evil conspiracies which we blaim the Jews for (and which 'respected academics' have entertained theories on, see my previous link to the one about the Jewish Communist conspiracy). The comparison you are making is innocent enough if you ignore the culture in which this comparison exists; however we are talking about a nation that's flirted with anti-semitism for so long entire human rights groups had to be created (ADL, JDL, ACLU) in order to make sure laws were enforced to protect them from civil rights abuses.
You are retreating from Walt and Mearsheimers article in the same way Walt and Mearsheimer did when challenged by Kramer. You're expanding what you yourself called "Jewish organizations" and a select cadre of pro-Israeli Jewish lobbyists into 'Jews but also evangelical Christians." Political evangelical Christianity does not even approach 60% of the nation. How do you explain a near 60% approval rating at a time that Bush's approval rating just hit the 20s?
And at this point if you are going to say "Jews and Christians are controlling the US foreign policy favoring Israel" what's the point? Christians make up something like 85% of this country. That's democracy.
What you are really saying is "Pro-Israeli isn't in America's interest" based on a perspective [i]you[/i] endorse. However that's not the perspective Americans overwhelmingly endorse, it's not what the elected government deemed in our best interests and it's got little to do with any other sinister influences than the people of the United States themselves.
Unfortunately a few token Jews doesn't really impress me, just like I don't give Finkelstein any special attention for being Jewish. It's not for me to decide who the 'Good Jews' are and who the 'Bad Jews' are; however this argument is born out of anti-semitism, and just like Martin Luther King said it is anti-semitism. 'The Jewish Lobby' is just the elder's of Zion with a new name and a snappier suit. They meet in secret not to overthrow the czar but to manipulate the US into supporting Israel.
It's all a lie.
The people of the United States wanted this direction; the leaders of the United States found real reasons 40, 30, 20, 10 and 5 years ago to continue this direction. And if anyone has tempered this policy at all, it's Congress itself who is reducing Israel's US foreign aid over the next ten years. Curious since if lobbyists have an effect anywhere - it's on Congress.
Maybe they weren't Islamists then, but in 1976 the Lebanese PM was fighting Christian Lebanese when Syria, against Jumblatt's objections but with the blessing of the Arab League, sent troops in ostensibly to protect the Christians, which they did not. By 1978 Syrian forces were overwhelmingly fighting the Christians. It is probably a mistake on my part to collapse them with Islamists.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
I’m not sure how that’s “low”? If you are saying that highlighting the significance of the Israel lobby is “anti-Semitic”, then it is perfectly reasonable for me to deny that charge. I’m sorry if that comment irritated you.
The importance of pressure groups and lobbying is not spurious at all. The collection of pro Israel lobby groups do exist and do their utmost to defend Israel from criticism. That’s not creepy or sinister in any way, its a fact of political life. They have every right to lobby government. You can dispute how effective they are but I have to object to the anti-Semite argument.
Jewish people work to defend Israel. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’m objecting to the image of the Arab-Israel conflict that they present, not their right to form pressure groups.
“[i]When people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them – help AIPAC” [/i] – Ariel Sharon
[i]“Most effective general interest group...across the entire planet.” [/i] - Newt Gingrich
“[i]Stunningly effective...better than anyone else lobbying in this town”[/i] - Bill Clinton on AIPAC.
I accept that US middle east policy was effected by cold war myopia. Support for Israel remains strong since the end of CW which strongly suggests that other factors are also involved.
I’m not “retreating” from my position. My point is that pro Israel groups have a considerable influence on US FP in the Middle East. Nowhere did I say that it is the only factor worthy of consideration.
Do you think the US public, including Mr. Joe Average, is fully aware of the role terrorism played in the founding of Israel?
Furthermore, how much of the media coverage of the Arab/Israeli conflict comes from unbiased sources?
As for the Hamas election, well I thought you were in favour of democracy in the Middle East?
US has vetoed steps taken by international bodies to restrain or censure Israel. US accepted the illegal and immoral colonisation of the West Bank, the construction of what is effectively an apartheid wall, political assassinations and the general repression of the Palestinians. There has been no genuine attempt to allow inspections of Israel’s nuclear facilities. That doesn’t sound like a policy of abandonment. The US is far from an honest broker.
Who said anything about “evil”?
How is criticsing evangelical Christian support for Israel anti-Semetic? And again you are saying “evil”. Why? There is nothing “evil” about pointing out the existence of the Israel lobby. I am unaware of Martin Luther King’s views on Palestine. Nelson Mandela’s views are a different matter. http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/mandella.html
Retreat?
I always stated that a combination of groups are active in the pro-Israel lobby. I stand by my previous comments.
Exactly. Jewish and Christian groups do indeed have a key influence on American public life. That’s what I was saying. I could compare the pro-Israel groups to the Irish American groups who raised funds, and political awareness, for the IRA in the 1970s and 80s.
I fail to see how continued support of Israel benefits the US when it is supposed to be fighting a war against Islamist terrorism. If terrorism is the threat then why continue to protect a nation that blatantly oppresses Muslims. The anger felt at Israel in the Muslim world is wide spread and justified. A just solution to the Palestine question remove a principle cause of terrorism, instead Israel is allowed to continue its colonial conquest. In addition, the Iraq war has made things a million times worse.
Effective lobbying is not a conspiracy. There is nothing illegal or sinister in the activities of the Israel lobby. The charge of anti-Semetism is simply a smoke screen.
Token Jews? I don't understand that comment. There are many Jewish people who are very critical of Israel, are they also anti-semites?
You may well argue that the Israel lobby has no influence on US FP, fair enough, we’ll have to agree to disagree over that one. However the is no doubt in my mind that the perception of the Muslim world, especially the Arab world, in the US is profoundly shaped by the pro-Israel pressure groups. The Christian supporters of Israel take a vitriolic view of Islam and Muslims and push the “clash of civilisations” theory to anyone who will listen. This is reflected in the attitude of American governments.
On the basis that latifah is part of the pro-Muslim lobby would I be right to lump her in with al Qaeda? Would I be right to draw attention to the numbers of Muslims supporting her view and insist that her argument is less valid because it has self-serving supporters? Or would saying that constitute a partisan smear campaign and an insult to her intellectual efforts and commitments to peace? Would it be really, really low and plausibly racist? Or in this case would it not?
latifah,
I can actually do much better than that and distinguish various Muslim positions, but there will still be two types: Positions in support of a two-state peace between Israel and Palestine; and positions that support Israel's destruction. No doubt those positions are often strategic expressions of other issues but it is wonderful that America pits itself against the second group which believes in sacred life only when it is convenient for propagating Islam and challenging kafirs ("You have disrespected Geneva and we righteous now will chop off your head!"). Granted you can take issue with the last sentiment but this is all by way of asking straight up, which position do you stand for?
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
what a loada bull..
thats like an Israeli saying we the righteous will now shoot your kids in the head,
[b][i]Round and round the Ka'bah,
Like a good Sahabah,
One step, Two step,
All the way to jannah[/i][/b]
Your interpretation doesn't relate to my point, which ends in a question to latifah. (Additionally Israel makes no such excuses and doesn't work on the basis of gripes. People killed deliberately by Israel are known terrorists (ie self-declared violent enemies) and anyone who takes up arms to thwart Israeli missions. Sometimes unarmed civilians are killed either by total accident or because they were in the vicinity of fighters. Israel does not have a practise of executing innocents on purpose.)
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
The US labels whoever it feels like as a terrorist as it has for Hamas even though they were elected by the people of Palestine. It bullies states into agreeing with them and if they don't agree with the US then the country is punished (Venezuela for example). The US State Department banned arms sales to Venezuela because of what it called Venezuela's lack of support for counter-terrorism efforts.
If Israel is killing civilians on purpose....would they tell us....NO!
They would hide it like the US has in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Muslim Bro,
Israel says they are attacking terrorists. Maybe the terrorists should stop and we will see if Israel attacks civilians.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
That's the problem, Palestinians are blaming Israel and Israel is blaming Palestinians.
The label terrorist is controlled by the US so they put and remove the label from groups and states as they please. The term terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targetting civilians and I would say both Hamas and Israel have done that so both can be labelled as 'terrorists'.
The label 'terrorist' is not controlled by anyone. words are hard to control.
No matter what side you are on, the other side is the terrorist.
Simple really.
Muslim Bro, I atm may be extremely negative and very cynical about things, but you are showing an almost defeatest victim mentality.
Its easy to fall into. But it does far more harm than good. No point throwing blame around, as it does not show us in a good light. We need to do the roght things, and let our actions speak louder than others' words.
Always try to se where the other side is coming from. It ends alot of arguments when you know that you cannot come to the same conclusion as someone else. You then know the diplomacy is over.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
As I've said that the term terrorist is hard to define as both Israel and Hamas can be seen as terrorists.
The US have said that "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists" so as I'm not with the US and I can't stand George Bush does that mean I'm with the terrorists.
Israel wants their own state and are building a 420 mile barrier in the west bank while Hamas state in their charter (1988) "Israel will exist until Islam obliterates it, as it obliterated others before it" so I see it as a neverending problem as neither side are trying to listen to each other.
You might say that but Israel is not targetting civilians. Another part of the definition usually runs something like "in order to exert pressure on a government". The attacks on Israel are not a response to Israeli violence or useful for the security of Palestinians. They are accompanied by an ideology that insists concessions must be won through violence, and at the extreme end that calls for Israel's destruction. The IDF is deployed as a response to this, and believe it or not Israel feels compelled to respond with the military to safeguard its citizens. That is why I say, this could be easily and happily put to the test if the terrorist groups - call them the Fluffy Bunnies if you like - call an end to violence. Israel would have no pretext for attacking Palestinians.
This was part of Israel's logic for withdrawing from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, the point being to remove as much of the pretext for Palestinian violence as possible. Unfortuately Israel is unable to satisfy the Palestinians except through negotiation, because while there is a war on Israel will not unilaterally cede strategically vital areas, although they will try to get close. What Israel found is that withdrawing from Gaza backfired because Hamas & Co. claimed it as a victory. This was vaguely predictable except inasmuch as, Hamas might have siezed the moment to show more goodwill. So while the Palestinians were busy smashing their expensive new greenhouses and in the process spoiling their economic gains and Hamas was blowing holes in the Gaza border and ferrying weapons from Egypt and Islamic Jihad was firing katyusha rockets into the Negev, Israel was saying "look here, it seems there is no basis on which you will negotiate with us or accept our existence, any claims that peace is part of your agenda are very much in doubt, we will continue to do what we can unilaterally and if you engage with us we will support your state (yes - Israel has done this many times, more fool Israel), but do not think the idea is to lie back while you yell jihad and take the damn rockets". Now, you may be cynical of this. There is, as I say, an easy way to find out. In the absence of terrorism would Israel be violent? Is Israel oppressive as a matter of course or are the roadblocks and fences a security measure to prevent attacks? These are not cynical questions, the opportunity for an end to bloodshed hinges on them and on the will of the Palestinian fighters to ask. Or to care.
Admin,
Perhaps you believe that the violence is worth it? You seem to believe that a war between Israel and those that wish to annihalate Israel is the only option, and it seems you think the calls to destroy Israel are acceptable. I say this because you seem to be saying something about not arguing because it shows Muslims in a bad light and you are asserting the diplomacy is over. Please let me know if I have misunderstood.
The logical implication of that is that the only moral issues you care about are those that will advance "your side" to victory.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
what I believe is that there is no possibility of a peaceful solution.
There would have to be vast amount of blood shed for either side to agree to anything.
In short there is no solution which is acceptable to both sides. Its the simple truth.
and no side will ever choose to lose out. The hand has to be forced somehow.
This is not what I want. I would love everyone to get on. But I find that a naive thought.
You cannot wish away death and destruction. I am of the opinion sooner or later there will be death and destruction. The question is wether it is sooner or later.
And that opinion is unbiased with regards to taking sides. I cannot see either side just capitulating.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Neither side should be capitulating, the point of negotiations is to reach an acceptable agreement.
But because you are so full of ignorant thoughts and believe in "no possibility of a peaceful solution", screw what you think. I won't make way for that and fortunately I believe you aren't a terrorist.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
thankyou.
What do you think is a settlement that could be reached, and both sides will agree to?
You never know - I may not have considered some possibilities, or I may be given to less credit to others...
I could be wrong. I would prefer to be wrong. But my gut feeling is that there will be violence. and alot of it.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/Dust.html]Dust, X-Men[/url]
Israel would have to agree to share control of vital water resources under independent scrutiny. Israel and Jordan would have to agree to a plan for cross-border mobility and supporting Palestinian autonomy and the economy, no doubt each with its allies, while Israel would retain its military power for as long as necessary, and refrain from using it against its neighbours unless attacked. Palestinians would have to agree to work with Israel, Jordan and Egypt in establishing its security forces and defense. There would not be a full "right of return" for all claimants to homes or ancestry on all Israeli land. I do not know exactly who might claim but it is a very small proportion that could claim legitimate land rights in Israel. The UN resolutions refer to very specific rights and do not actually call for repatriation, but as it happens Israel has happily repatriated some 200,000 Palestinians (aside from the many Arab families that remained or took repatriation in 1948). In addition to ceding land Israel would continue to assess claims on a case by case basis. There was no right of return for Jews from Arab lands and as it stands in the whole Middle East only Israel and Jordan give Palestinians citizenship so, take it. Israel would cede over 90% (a respectable figure from the top of my head) of land won in 1967 (prior to the recent pullouts), provide whatever tunnels or road systems are needed to connect Gaza to the West Bank and make the West Bank roads contiguous without Israeli roadblocks and with simple and efficient border controls. The equivalent of the other 10% would have to be found and if necessary buffer zones would be agreed on just like the closely guarded no-man's land on other borders. East Jerusalem would be a matter for close cooperation on jurisdiction and security but it could be linked with the West Bank. That's a big negotiation point that needs more thought. And the Palestinians would want to establish themselves as an equal partner as early as possible and negotiate whatever assistance from Israel and other countries, that they especially would be more than willing to provide if only in such a context.
Or the Palestinian Authority can build bridges with an axis of armaggedon-lovin' dictators and tax the population and beg for arms while the people go short and Israel can alternately clamp down on and give rope to Palestinian militants and lives can be taken on all sides.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
100man,
I support position one as I always have. I’m not calling for the destruction of Israel; neither do I condone any acts of terrorism against innocent Israelis. I understand why you asked and I’m sorry if I’ve offended you.
I believe a two state solution can work, but only if a genuine, sovereign, Palestinian state is established, not a series of townships and roadblocks surrounded by IDF snipers. The oppression of the Palestinian people is real and the IDF is ruthless when it needs to be, as the death toll of Palestinian children since 2000 makes clear. It’s in the hundreds. You mention Israel’s “regret” at the deaths of innocent bystanders during attacks on terrorists, but how sincere are the condolences when these accidents happen day after day? The death of wealthy British peace activists provokes inquests and hand wringing, while the death of innocent Arabs is written off as “collateral damage”. A horrible term.
That’s why I object to the portrayal of the conflict by Israel’s supporters, especially in the US. I can’t ignore the relentless demonising of Arabs and Muslims. I respect the Israeli and Jewish organisations who do make an effort to show the reality of occupation.
http://www.btselem.org/english/
So, again, if I’ve offended you then I’m sorry. Just my thoughts at the time, right or wrong
You did offend me and I am not angry and thank you for your apology. I don't see things your way. I know that when Israeli soldiers conduct a raid children are deliberately put in harm's way, children are given stones and catapaults, children are educated to glory in jihad and to hate Israel, they are taught lies and the vilest conspiracy theories (and I strongly object therefore to a critical analysis of pro-Israel lobby groups that does not examine Arabist groups and that overhypes their influence) and it is ridiculous to suggest that Israel doesn't care. The damage Israel does to Palestinians is the thorn in Israel's side. I also know that the terrorism overwhelmingly explicitly targets innocents. I am inclined then to think that many Palestinian fighters are HAPPY by way of IDEOLOGY to sacrifice innocent life to accomplish their aims and villify Israel. That to me is a PERVERTED IDEOLOGY. At the same time I see that Abbas and the group of Hamas members who drafted a proposal from jail are pulling their hair out trying to get Hamas to take negotiations and past agreements on board. Perhaps some are motivated as Admin implies by violence and sanctions, but I am coming to see Abbas - while I retain my doubts - as a true internationalist like Sadat who knows the importance to any country of having a strong network of allies and even more than that, to have pride in high values and in working for peace. Sadat came to the Knesset and said "let's put an end to bloodshed" and sure enough Israel was happy under those circumstances to cede the Sinai and it worked and Egypt and Israel have upheld their agreement. The ideological schism has nothing to do with the Israel lobby but is in fact a difference in opinion among Palestinians as to whether they negotiate and renounce violent blackmail or whether they pursue campaigns against Israel as their one and only modus operandi. You "respect the Israeli and Jewish organisations who do make an effort to show the reality of occupation" and that is great: those are groups that acknowledge the facts and take responsibility so as to move forward with an agenda for peace, and they pressure the government effectively and are respected, and they do not villify Israel and justify anti-zionism.
I am happy that you support peace and agreement.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
Pages