What Will it Take?

Remove all ads!

@dmc:
Ok,let's take your opinion as the real reason...But wouldn't that be too idiotic(no offense intended)?
I think People should realise that ONLY they can save themselves....

Note:Hadn't the Crusades started like that?In the end one thing or another always stopped them...

[ November 16, 2006, 18:05: Message edited by: Kara Ay ]

 

No, it is because the US and Israel are allies. We share common interests in the region, and have a mutual alliance, which a lot of other countries in the region don't like. Countires, like Iran, complain the US is not "even handed" in its approach to the region, while at the same time those countries export and support terrorism, oppress women and hang its own people in public for being gay, or for being religious heritics.

On the other hand, Israel supports women's rights, doesn't hang its own people for being gay and has a working democracy, which can't be said for a lot of other countries in the region. I found it intersting that in a recent interview, a number of Islamic mullahs supported Bush's hardline policy on gays and gay marriage here in the USA.

[ November 16, 2006, 22:05: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I thought it was funny that the Jews, Muslims, and Christians in Jerusalem were all able to unite in opposing the gay pride parade.

Good to know that the fear of a man, um, 'exploring' another man can bring together even the bitterest of enemies. I think we need more gay pride events in Iraq; maybe that'll calm things down.

 

Yes, Israel has a better democracy for her citizens; but she doesn't have a "working democracy" for all people. But it seems to me that killing thousands of innocents is a worse thing. And nobody taught me that democratic countries should kill the citizens of theocratic ones.

 

Exactly, which is why orthodox conservatives, regardless of which religion, can "hang" together on some particular issues (no pun intended). And it explains why some orthodox Islamic clerics can applaud their old, bitter enemy, George Bush.

 

Is Israel really a democracy?

Israel is a Jewish state, not a secular state like most countries. Why is the right of return not extended to Pals? Why are only Jewish marriages recognized? Even Ireland as a Catholic state (before the 90's) was never as bad as this.

Israel has established 'Jew only' roads in the Westbank.

Bedouins make up 10% of Israels army, yet their villages are still not recognized and under threat.

Settlement expansion is still ongoing, with most of the water in the Westbank going to Jews, not the Pals.

I am not saying that Jews should be kicked out of Israel, but why not give equal rights to everyone so that they can vote in who they want... or would this be too democratic?

 

I think the Israeli position on regional integration and minority rights is similar to the old joke that two wolves and one sheep can very democratically decide what's for dinner. Only the Arabs have a different idea of who's the sheep and who - the wolf. Isn't it weird? Several centuries ago, Jews from Spain and Germany would flee to the Ottoman Empire when forced to leave their homelands. Irony is a dog of female persuasion.

It's a bit of a vicious circle: they seem to think that if they don't respond in full force, they will be overwhelmed, but such responses, if anything, spur their neighbors to a greater and greater hatred. It would be a textbook case of security dilemma - creating security for yourself means insecurity for your neighbors, who will prop up their programs, therefore making you feel less secure, and so on - only here the issue is much more emotional. Emotional enough that any moderate can be viewed as a traitor - remember what happened to Rabin? And it's the Israeli who are supposed to be the more rational part of the conflict. Oh boy.

Anyway, back to the OP topic: what do you think would happen if the US at least criticized Israel?

To me it seems that no matter what, Tel Aviv is supported materially and even morally.. This (imo) not only feels wrong and probably inspires a lot of anti-American and by extension anti-Western feelings (West being all secular countries, particulatly in Europe), but could be a disservice to Israel itself. This probably sounds a bit strange, but with such unreserved support their politicians might get more than a bit reckless (hey, they have Big Brother to watch their backs, what can go wrong) and breed arrogance that could estrange them from many other countries that might, otherwise, be willing to help.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

 

Why is it fair for any country in the world to conquer land except Israel? If Gaza and the west bank were in cental or southern Africa and there were no Jews involed no one would give a damn what goes on there. Why is everyone always criticizing America's relationship with Israel, like you can not conceive of or relate to being a friend to a counrty who is contstantly being dogpiled by everyone. If it were not for the loyal frienship of America a lot of you would be speaking German or Russian, and not because it is your native language or because you thought it would be handy to know. The next time half the free worlds ass is hanging over the edge of the frying pan and being burned by the fire we may not be there thanks to the "good" people of the world always wanting to knock us down!

[ December 17, 2006, 09:09: Message edited by: Bassil Warbone ]

 

Bassil,

It wasn't fair when Saddam conquered Kuwait, when Germany and the USSR conquered Poland, or the Japanese drove deep into China. I think you get the idea.

The support for Israel by the current US administration is in fact support for Israel's right wing, Likud. That one, however, doesn't represent Israel, nor does it exactly represent Israel's interests as Likud only holds a hardline stance on all critical national security issues.

The US alliance with Israel is a cold war child, from a marriage of convenience. Israel was used by Reagan's neo-cons as a proxy against the Soviets, and in this summer's Lebanon War the neo-cons wanted to use Israel again as a proxy, sorry, 'strategic asset', against what they wrongly see as Iran's 'strategic asset', sorry, proxy, Hezbollah.
There was nothing pro-Israeli in Reagan's willingness to more or less ignore Israel’s creeping annexation of the West Bank, creating the conditions for the outbreak of the first Intifada, or in giving Israel a yellow light to invade Lebanon in 1982. Those U.S. policies reflected the agenda of Likud and its neoconservative partners, with their emphasis on propping up the 'strategic asset' by placing the Palestinian issue on the backburner and punishing the 'pro-Soviet' PLO.

That is to say that the love affair between Israel's right wing and the US is a relatively recent thing. There was a time when Israelis were pro-Soviet and pro-French. The Israelis I presume clearly see their 'interest' in this affair. Your take is in my perception very different from their approach. Don't be romantic, this is business.

 

Because America is Supposed To Be The Good Guy(TM), and so is Israel. When you set yourself up as a world leader--a world leader in freedom and human rights and the like--people rightly expect more from you.

 

Ragusa:
I concede to most of your points, but you will never convince me that Israel would have survived all these years without the supportof the USA. While our government may have justifiable or unjustifiable reasons such as using Israel "as a proxy" in the most recent history, Israel has ben supported by the USA since it's birth. I may have a "romantic" view of the world but I am far from naive. I understand that governments almost always operate in an opportunistic, selfserving manner as do most businesses and people. But the day I stop looking at my country as the Great nation that it is, in it's entirety, and see it as simply a tool of whatever administration happens to be in power, that is the day I stop being an American. I know it is fashionable among the Hippiecommunist, (and I am not saying that you are one), to consider themselves as 'citizens of the world', I see it as a point of pride to be an American. And for as long as I have lived America has been a friend to Israel and with most Americans I know, thier Loyalty is thier Honor.

Quote"Because America is Supposed To Be The Good Guy(TM), and so is Israel. When you set yourself up as a world leader--a world leader in freedom and human rights and the like--people rightly expect more from you."

And the world gets MORE from America than anywhere else in the world.

"Good Guy(TM)"

 

Bassil

'I'm used to it', doesn't mean it's a good idea

Again, not it has not. When Eisenhower killed the Suez action he acted not only against the UK and France but also against Israel. By the end of the fighting, Israel held the Gaza Strip and had advanced as far as Sharm al-Sheikh along the Red Sea. Israel's failure to inform the United States of its intentions, combined with ignoring American entreaties not to go to war, sparked tensions between the countries. The US forced Israel, France and the UK to withdraw. The United States were more concerned with the Soviet war in Hungary and the Cold War than with Israel, Britain, France's dealings involving Suez. The last thing President Eisenhower wanted was a wider war over Suez.

If you look at the Israeli equipment of the early years, up to all wars until 1973, you'll see either French, British or modernised US WW-II vintage stuff, bought together on Europe's junkyards. US arms shipments only started with Yom Kippur.

Before changing his mind on the question of Israeli stateship after intense Zionist pressure in an election year, Truman made a good point in a letter to Senator Joseph Ball of Minnesota on November 24, 1945:

Bush, the neo-cons and Likud are taking the opposite approach. They do want to go to war over Palestine, ignoring that it will only make Palestine safe for Israel, and not the world - if it works, which thus far it does not and is is increasingly unlikely that it ever will, or ever had a chance to succeed.
It should give you food for thought that Israel, though winning all its wars, except for the ones in Lebanon, is in an increasingly isolated and cornered position. Pushing them further down that street is a bad idea. The mess to me suggests that Israel's military victories are no surrogate for a comprehensive political settlement.

Israel will never achieve the 'Siegfrieden' Bush, the neo-cons and Likud hope for (just like the US will not achieve that in either Iraq or Afghanistan).

 

I do not contest your historical political points. But in all my travels throughout this country, and I have traveled it coast to coast and border to border, I have rarely met people who do not support the jewish state. Regardless of politics and governmental position I have seen evidence of American support for Israel nearly 60 years. American support does not always mean American government support. And when the "neo-cons" leave office and political power in america changes I doubt you will see the attitude of the American people change. But, as I said before, If Gaza and the west bank were in cental or southern Africa and there were no Jews involed no one would care. Thats the real shame here, not Bush and the neo-cons use of or collaboration with Israel.

 

What about coloured Americans and South Africa's Apartheid?

 

The fanatics over there think that Israel will bring back Jesus a wee bit sooner To hell with the suffering of the Pals.

 

I will cut the Pals some slack when they return the kidnapped Israeli soldiers unharmed. However, since they probably have been murdered and/or butchered this will probably never happen.

When the Pals start acting like a state and govern their people instead of wasting their energy preaching hate and intolerance I will be more understanding. Las Vegas is not willing to place odds on this ever happening.

When the Pals stop launching rockets at Israeli towns or blowing themselves up on buses, in markets, etc. then I will be willing to criticize Israel if they continue to wage war on them.

As of now the Israelis do nothing more than wage a war for their own preservation/existance. Without the presence of a strong military that was willing to defend them, they would be overrun in weeks. To think otherwise is foolishness.

The Indians had Ghandi. The American blacks had Martin Luther King. Will there ever be an arab/muslim leader to lead their people to peace instead of war?

 

There needs to be compromises from both sides. We know what is expected from the Pals, but what about the Israelis?

Israel passed a racist law in 2003 (not thats its the only racist law to be passed) that makes it all but impossible for Israeli citizens to bring a Palestinian spouse to Israel.

Sharon and Olmert are not exactly what you would call 'peaceful' leaders either.

 

And according to this story, ultra-orthodox jews aren't that all that different from the Taleban in their heyday.

 

The Israeli's are held to a higher standard as they are perceived as being more civilized. To stay on topic the point of this thread was what would it take for the US to be critical of Israel. If the Pals, arabs, muslims, et al. were to embrace peace and the Israeli's wanted to continue the conflict, they would rather quickly lose US and other international support. It is really that easy.

What should we expect from the Israelis? Well that is easy. We should expect them to continue to fight for their existance. It isn't like they are going to just roll over and die.

It amazes me that people don't see this and want to keep digging and making up reasons that the Jews are at fault. It all comes down to a very simple question. If by magic one side of the conflict was made defenseless, which side would commit genocide? If you can honestly say that the Jews would methodically eliminate each and every Pal, Arab, Muslim, etc. than IMHO you are either delusional or an anti-semite (ignoring the other types of semites and focusing on the Jewish variety)