Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why US supports Israel?
Options
Comments
-
Serenity Now! wrote: »You are making the same mistake as the poster you mention. Not all Zionism is religiously based. The term 'Jew' is not a religious term but, as I pointed out, a racial term. The people who make the most of this from a religious apart from a section of religious Jewish people are actually Gentile. Not Jewish.
ah ok, that's interesting, and it's something else I wasn't aware of, but if that was to imply, in any way shape or form, that these dubious claims were, in fact, based on race and not religion, to be honest, I find that even more alarming, especially when we take into account, the fact that the Jewish people suffered the completely unacceptable abhorrance of racial prejeduice, racial hatred, and eventual persecution themselves, under the Nazis. That's something I find ironic.0 -
That wasn't why I replied as such. The fact that you think its all hunky dory with Lebanon and Syria was the reason.There both Israel immediate neighours
Yes, you certainly did.The Arab states have gone from "we will never accept Israel" to "we are willing to talk about accepting Israel". Maybe, I exagerated there offer
More or less what I was saying. Hence a coalition currently in the seat that was made up of not only a liberal centre-leftish party but of right-wing non-secular elements.However, I would disagree with you, when you say certain quarters are against peace. All of the main political parties are basically against it, the colonial enterprise, has expanded under every successive Israeli government, since it began
Wrong. Nobody accepts Jerusalem should be shared apart from pockets of political movements within the party systems who have no power to follw this through. Nobody accepts Jerusalem's being shared on the Arab side either.Israel are the ones who are unwilling to give up East Jerusalam, which they know is a bare minimum for peace and under international law, they are illegally occupying it
Very simplistic view of how the country formed. The country was ratified internationally via the League of Nations. Who invaded Lebanon apart from Israel?Sorry, I am not looking at a narror telescope. The Israeli's engaged in ethnic cleansing long before any Arab state invaded, see the "Deir Yassin" massacre. The Arab invasion took place after this. Thats also leaving out all the violence the Zionists have been perpetrating long before this as well.
It faily simple, the Zionists came from Europe and started a violent campaign to take over. They kicked out the indigenous population to do this and they (the Palestinians) and others in the region are naturally enough pissed about it
Its insane to see any other outcome from the Zionist project. The mess was created with a group of foreigners wanting to create an exclusive ethnic enclave in the ME and they were willing to trample over the people already there to do so. This was always going to lead to the situation we see currently. The Zionists are the invaders, not the other Arab states who came to aid of the Palestinians.
Again, look at Israel policy of the "Iron wall", you can read about it in the following book:
"The Iron Wall" By Avi Shlaim
Yes they are just as culpable as Egypt or Syria for unrest in the area. You're nearly there.As for 1967, it was a continuation of the 1948 war, basically and I will point that Israel, where the one who attack first and they are just as responsible as anyone else in the conflict
Part of the vicious circle I mentioned earlier. The balance of power in Israel is built on shaky coalitions. Should Likud come to power (as looks likely), it will worsen.Well, then the Israeli's want land more than peace, which is what I have basically said. I don't see the main political parties being held hostage at all, the colonies are very well taken care of by the Israel government and they are pretty 2 faced about it, on the one hand condemning and on the other providing everything the colonists need to succeed.0 -
Yes, it is sadly ironic. I wasn't trying to justify what has happened. Merely pointing out some misconceptions posted here by some.marcsignal wrote: »ah ok, that's interesting, and it's something else I wasn't aware of, but if that was to imply, in any way shape or form, that these dubious claims were, in fact, based on race and not religion, to be honest, I find that even more alarming, especially when we take into account, the fact that the Jewish people suffered the completely unacceptable abhorrance of racial prejeduice, racial hatred, and eventual persecution themselves, under the Nazis. That's something I find ironic.0 -
Serenity Now! wrote: »That wasn't why I replied as such. The fact that you think its all hunky dory with Lebanon and Syria was the reason.
I should have been clearer. Firstly, Syria is not a military threat to Israel, they don't have the ability to destroy Israel pure and simple and neither does Lebanon. This is why I pointed out, how the situation is different to 1967 and also Syria is willing to talk.
As for Hamas in Lebanon, they can't destroy Israel either. Yes they are dangerous, but to call them a existential threat is ridiculous, they simply don't have the capability.
Then there are the peace deal with there 2 other neighbours, so the world has changed a lot since 67.Serenity Now! wrote: »More or less what I was saying. Hence a coalition currently in the seat that was made up of not only a liberal centre-leftish party but of right-wing non-secular elements.
The colaition was founded by Ariel Sharon. The guy is a monster, he is hardly liberal, but more of a realist. Remember, Sharon as per Israel own investigation into the Sabra and Shatilia massacres found that he was at least partly responsible for it.Serenity Now! wrote: »Wrong. Nobody accepts Jerusalem should be shared apart from pockets of political movements within the party systems who have no power to follw this through. Nobody accepts Jerusalem's being shared on the Arab side either.
Then, it will have to split then, if peace is what both sides want.Serenity Now! wrote: »Very simplistic view of how the country formed. The country was ratified internationally via the League of Nations. Who invaded Lebanon apart from Israel?
I know Syria invaded Lebanon and the French before them and even farther back the Ottomans. I am not blaming, all violence in the region on Israel, but its relations with its neighours are very much there own fault and the Arab states various war with each other are there own responsibility.
Erm, no it isn't. The indigenous population was not consulted and the League did not give the Israeli's the right to ethnically cleanse the population and to take all the land that they did take (far more than was allotted to the Jewish state). These are important facts, that can't be ignored.
Also, just because the League said they should, have a country, does not make it a good idea. It was always going to lead to violence and long before the league said anything, the Zionists were already engagned in violence. This mess doesn't begin with the league, but the Zionists.
The Arab states, only invaded after the Zionists started there process to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. This is something the Israeli's like everyone to forget, that they started to murder people to get them to leave and then went and grabbed more land, none of this was allowed by the League.Serenity Now! wrote: »Yes they are just as culpable as Egypt or Syria for unrest in the area. You're nearly there.
They most certainly are, but when it comes to what was done to the Palestinians, Israel is to blame on that one.Serenity Now! wrote: »Part of the vicious circle I mentioned earlier. The balance of power in Israel is built on shaky coalitions. Should Likud come to power (as looks likely), it will worsen.
I don't doubt that.0 -
It's worth noting that the US has not always been the only, or even the principal supporter of Israel military power.
The 1957 Suez crisis ended in a forced Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai, because of US pressure ( mainly on the UK and France ). France was probably responsible for starting Israel's nuclear weapons programme, and up to the time of the six day war France provided the main combat aircraft for the Israeli air force. All this against a background of the Cold War, the recent war in Algeria, and perceived national interests.
The point is that policies evolve, and the US policy towards Israel will also evolve, and become more nuanced as the political classes learn more about the region.0 -
Advertisement
-
The point is that policies evolve, and the US policy towards Israel will also evolve, and become more nuanced as the political classes learn more about the region.
Good point extragon, if there was some real headway made in US policy in this area, particularlly in terms of IDF human rights abuses, it would be Barack Obamas finest hour, however if he fails to show intellectual courage in the face of the Israeli Lobbiests in the US, I will be unable to take him, or his calls for 'change' seriously, as the President of the U.S.A.0 -
If you ask regular yanks you can expect 2 different answers:
1 - They're the only "democracy" in the ME; which of course is a rubbish excuse.
2 - Cause they are the "choosen people", which is hard to keep a straight face.
I think that most americans support israel for reasons that are unknown to them. They are sheep. They don't really know why they support israel, bar that they are told to.
very good redplanet and so true.
the us support for Israel comes from one thing the cold war.
there was very llittle support for Israel pre 73, If you look at the 56 war which france and briton although late supported Israel the US werent even told of the plan which made them very angry. fast forward a few years when Nasser came into power in Eygpt, and who did he turn to to buy his weapons thats right Russia, but even then the us didnt come running to support Israel.
the Israelis were dependant on french planes which became embargoed to them they had a massive revitilisation of there own military industries with which they became self sufficent.
the first time the americans came on the scene was after the first 3 days into the Yom Kippur war, when syria and eygpt were getting aid from ussr, the US supplied over 20 million tonnes of military aid in 3 weeks mostly in f4 phantom aircraft and replacement parts for vehicles. the sucsess of US equipment over Soviet was a good way to test the americans ability at manufacturing weapons.
and so it has stayed that way during the 80`s when the us needed the Intelligence gathered after the bierut bomings also the spate of hijackings and acts of terrorism from Carlos on behalf of Libiya. there is lots more but basicly it boils down to the middle east being a proving ground for US/USSR weapons0 -
I know Syria invaded Lebanon and the French before them and even farther back the Ottomans. I am not blaming, all violence in the region on Israel, but its relations with its neighours are very much there own fault and the Arab states various war with each other are there own responsibility.
Erm, no it isn't. The indigenous population was not consulted and the League did not give the Israeli's the right to ethnically cleanse the population and to take all the land that they did take (far more than was allotted to the Jewish state). These are important facts, that can't be ignored.
Also, just because the League said they should, have a country, does not make it a good idea. It was always going to lead to violence and long before the league said anything, the Zionists were already engagned in violence. This mess doesn't begin with the league, but the Zionists.
The Arab states, only invaded after the Zionists started there process to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. This is something the Israeli's like everyone to forget, that they started to murder people to get them to leave and then went and grabbed more land, none of this was allowed by the League.
wes I sugesst you stop reading Hezbollah and PLO versions of the war of Independance long before the leauge said anything the zionists were already engaged in violence ? so by that you think Ireland should be given back to england because we did the exact same thing here only on a much much bigger scale.0 -
The Arab states, only invaded after the Zionists started there process to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. This is something the Israeli's like everyone to forget, that they started to murder people to get them to leave and then went and grabbed more land, none of this was allowed by the League.
Terrible that I have to defend them, however thats not actually true. The mass expulsion of the Arabs took place during the war. Essentially the Arab attack was used as cover and excuse by certain elements. Benny Morris is yer best man there.0 -
IRISH RAIL wrote: »wes I sugesst you stop reading Hezbollah and PLO versions of the war of Independance long before the leauge said anything the zionists were already engaged in violence ? so by that you think Ireland should be given back to england because we did the exact same thing here only on a much much bigger scale.
I am not talking about the Hezbollah and PLO version of history, but the actual version of history.
I reccomment you read:
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine By Ilan Pappe
or even
1948 by Benny Morris, if you want the ultra Zionist version.
The Zionist came from Europe and were invaders. It absurd to call them anythng else. When someone comes to your country and attacks you, the people you invade will fight back. Irish people have every right to fight against an invasion and so do the Palestinians, to somehow try and compare Palestinians to the British is insane, they were the ones who were invaded. All the god promised them the land and there ancestor lived there thousands of year ago, does not change that fact. The Palestinians, are descended from the various people who lived in Palestine/Israel, so they were very much the indigenous population. European Zionists, were invaders and there excuses are ridiculous imho.
If, I were to follow Zionist logic, I could get a bunch of terrorists and attack Afghanistan and kick out the people living there, as some of my ancestors used to live there. Also, if I go farther back, I could also claim all of Iran to be my country, as my ancestors, came from there before going to Afghanistan. I am sure the people there wouldn't take too kindly to such nonsense from me.
If I go farter back, they came from Africa (like everyone elses on Earths ancestors), do I have a right to go take over a African country now? Seeing as my ancestors are from there. Sure, seeing as every humans ancestors came from Africa, if we go far back enough, we all have the right to take over Africa, if we were to follow Zionist logic.0 -
Advertisement
-
Terrible that I have to defend them, however thats not actually true. The mass expulsion of the Arabs took place during the war. Essentially the Arab attack was used as cover and excuse by certain elements. Benny Morris is yer best man there.
Your right there.
I wasn't being very clear, the Deir Yassin massacre (if i am remembering my date correctly), was a massacre that started before the Arabs invaded and the Zionists made there intent clear at this point. The expulsions, didn't get going till the war started. Have, I got the dates wrong on that?0 -
Your right there.
I wasn't being very clear, the Deir Yassin massacre (if i am remembering my date correctly), was a massacre that started before the Arabs invaded and the Zionists made there intent clear at this point. The expulsions, didn't get going till the war started. Have, I got the dates wrong on that?
Syrian troops arrived in about Jan 1948, massacre was in April.0 -
-
True that there was haganah reprisals before the war of independance most of these were carried out in retaliation for arab attacks on jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_committed_prior_to_the_1948_Arab-Israeli_war
while the facts about dier yassin are always contested and hotly debated I have no problem in saying that it was a massacare centred on revenge.
the fighting for this was part of the battle of the roads as outlined in plan daled http://www.mideastweb.org/pland.htm
although some parts are clearly contradictory it was a defensive plan to relieve Jerusalems jewish quarter
and on another note none of this is remotley related to the ops original topic I suggest we start a new thread or leave it to be our own opinions on what happened and who is right .0 -
IRISH RAIL wrote: »and on another note none of this is remotley related to the ops original topic I suggest we start a new thread or leave it to be our own opinions on what happened and who is right .
Alright, fair enough.
However, I can't let the excuses provided for the disturbing plan of ethnic cleansing that was Plan D, go without comment. It was a plan for ethnic cleansing, pure and simple. Again, look no further than Illan Pappe's book. You can also see it from various, quotes by Ben Gurion:"The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland." Righteous Victims By Benny Morris, p. 142
The comments were made in 1937 btw.
Just, because they call it ethnic cleansing " compulsory transfer", doesn't change that long before the war, the Zionists were threatening to kick out the Palestinians. The Zionists own actions led to the confclit, plain and simple. Threatning people with expulsion, never goes down well.
Also, there are plenty of other quotes were Gurion, talks about "transfer".
Here is another good quote, this time from Yitzak R. Rabin:From Haaretz.com:
About 800 Arabs remained in Lod in 1948 - 800 out of 40,000. The rest were expelled. "The residents of Lod must be expelled quickly, without classifying them according to age ... implement immediately," was the order from Yitzhak R. (Rabin) to the headquarters of the Yiftah Brigade on July 12, 1948, after soldiers of the brigade had killed about 250 of the city residents - some of them inside a holding pen next to the mosque, where they were being detained.
There is no excuse or possible defense for Plan D.0 -
The thread is starting to veer off my original post- to the truth behind 48, the occupation, the nature of a Jewish and democratic state etc...all very important issues but not really to do with Why US supports Israel?
I have thoight about it again in recent days- and I sort of think the book I mentioned originally while trying to make the argument too hard is prob right- the exisitence, the professionalism, the power and the clout of the Israeli Lobby is the crucial reason for US support? Other factors are there but that is crucial.
Obama used to know Edward Said he knows about the Palestinian narrative- but still his Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel is a former IDF soldier and very pro Israel. If I learnt anything from the West Wing is that the Chief of Staff position is very important- they decide who gets the ear of the Pres. So expect AIPAC and others to be in the Oval office a lot.
It's interesting that some of the better Israeli commentators in haaretz and elsewhere have been saying that they need Obama not to be 'too much of a friend' to Israel. Because with no pressure from Washinton an Israeli government is never going to be forced into organising a real dea with the Palestinians.
Finally one conclusion is that if the Arabs in America got their act together they could influence US policy into a more objective line on the conflict? What you think is that possible?0 -
Yummydaddy wrote: »Finally one conclusion is that if the Arabs in America got their act together they could influence US policy into a more objective line on the conflict? What you think is that possible?
Honestly, I doubt they could (at least right now), as the US is currently fighting a war against Arabs, in Iraq. Which tends to lead to a lot of hostility towards them.
Now, another important factor, is how big a part of the electorate do the make up? I personally don't have a clue on that one. I think if the Arab vote was big enough to influence an election, then they could have more influence.0
Advertisement