NationStates Jolt Archive

What difference does what happens to Israel make to us here in America? Why should we care? Why is what happens to Israel important to us?

Very legitimate questions, especially as many people are unaware of the real answers.

To get there, let's put aside any considerations of fairness, justice, religion or humanitarian principles...and go for the cold, hard, self-serving realpolitik reasons why what happens to Israel is important to the US.


One, history shows that the Jews are the early warning signal of history for the West, and the atrocities visited on them first get visited on the non-Jewish world later. Hitler is one example, Islamic terrorism and jihad is another.

The tactics used to bomb New York, London, Mumbai, Bali and Madrid were perfected in Israel. So was the disinformation and propaganda to rationalize such actions, now used against the US and Europe as well as Israel. What happened in Israel was and is a precurser as to what we can expect here. Israel was merely a front for jihad, not the cause of it.

Two, Israel is one of the most important and reliable allies for the US and one of the few allies we have with a significant military and intel quotient. Israel's destruction would considerably weaken the US, especially in the Middle East and cost us strategically. Here are a few examples of how that has worked to our advantage:


* Israel singlehandedly pushed the Soviets out of the Middle East during the Cold War and provided America a first hand look at the latest Soviet weapons and technology...without the cost of a single American soldier.

* Israel saved thousands of American lives by taking out Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor at Osirak. If not for that, the casualty lists from the first Gulf War would have been very different.

* Israel, with a first class intelligence service and native Arabic and Farsi speakers has contributed immeasureably to US intel by it's access inthe region and by adding the dimension of `humint'-human intelligence - on the ground. General George Keagan, former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence, stated in Congress that "Israel is worth five CIAs," based on the value of intelligence passed to our country. As our only reliable ally and strategic asset in the cradle of Islamofascism, it provides a bulwark and window on America's enemies in the region...like Iran. And Israel effectively secures NATO’s southeastern flank.

* Israel, as one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world is a major partner of the US in weapons technology in numerous joint projects like the Arrow missle. Israeli technology provided an important edge to the USA in both Desert Storm and the first Gulf War. And the US has access to the fruits of some of the most sophisticated technological installations in the world at Tel-Aviv University and the Technion, Israel's MIT.

* Israeli troops, with their knowledge of warfare in the Middle East saved US lives by drawing on their experiences in Jenin and elsewhere to teach American soldiers how to fight in the urban battlegrounds of the Middle East, like Falujah. They have also developed unique technology specially adapted to conditions in the Middle East for recon and warfare..all of which have been made available to the US for the asking.

* Israel is the only country that makes itself and its facilities available to the United States in any contingency. Israel is America’s base in the region and the defender of America’s interests in that area of the world.

* Israel’s government supports the foreign policy objectives of the United States. In the UN, Israel votes with the United States over 90% of the time. The Arabs and other Moslem countries, recipients of American aid that collectively dwarfs what the US gives Israel, almost always vote against the United States.

* And what about that aid? Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid and $1.2 billion in economic aid from the US yearly. Almost all of the military aid is spent in the United States, making Israel one of the major customers of the U.S. defense industry. Almost all of the economic assistance goes for debt repayment to the United States, incurred from military purchases dating back many years.Unlike our troops and bases stationed in Korea, Japan, Germany, and other places, not a single American serviceperson needs to be stationed in Israel. Considering that the cost of one serviceperson per year — including backup and infrastructure — is about $200,000, and the minimum contingent is around 25,000 troops, the cost savings to the United States in cold hard dollars alone is on the order of $5 billion a year.

And that's without factoring in the value of the intel, technology and strategic benefits the US receives from our alliance with Israel.

Based on this, a good case could be made that aid to Israel, certainly the military portion, should be part of the United States defense budget and hardly considered `foreign aid' at all.

* Third, Israel is an important trading partner of the US and a leader in biotechnology, agriculture, solar, computer science, irrigation technology, synthetic energy, and a number of other fields. Many American corporations like Intel and Hewlett Packard have facilities there to take advantage of the talent coming out of TAU and the Technion. The cell phone and cell communications technology, for example, were perfected in Israel.

Fourth, if Israel disapeared, America's problems with the Muslim world wouldn't change one iota and in fact would get much worse.

A casual examination of history shows the fallacy of abandoning a loyal, powerful ally to appease an enemy, especially during wartime. Nor would it improve relations betweenthe US and the Arab world or really, even the US relationship with `old Europe'. The proof of that is to examine the US relationship with the Arab World before we became one of Israel's main allies..after the `67 Six-Day War. That's because real alliances come from shared values..something we don't have in common with a large chunk of the Islamic world.

Getting rid of what the Muslims world refers to as the Little Satan would just weaken the Big Satan, America and deprive us of one of our strongest and most valuable allies. And a victory over the hated Jews would only embolden America's enemies.

Take Israel out of the equation and the Saudis would still be exporting jihad to the West, Iran and its allies would still be a threat to the US and jihadis would still target America and Americans. And like Israel, it would be simply because of who we are, not because of anything we've done.


So yes, ordinary Americans should DEFINITELY care what happens to Israel. From a strictly pragmatic, self-interested point of view if nothing else.

Rats! I was looking to do a "please don't feed the troll" post. But this is well thought out, well stated, and informative. Kudos! ;)

Yay for propaganda!

Id argue most of those points, but im lazy

but what is the main reason the USA should worry about Jew-land?

Because Israel is a puppet state, and, before Iraq, their foothold in the Middle East.

Because Israel will attack us and make us think its the Arabs so that we do get involved.

Because Israel will attack us and make us think its the Arabs so that we do get involved.
Now you're pulling complete BS out.

Yay for propaganda!

Id argue most of those points, but im lazy

but what is the main reason the USA should worry about Jew-land?

Because Israel is a puppet state, and, before Iraq, their foothold in the Middle East.
Israel is a bastion of freedom in the Middle East. It's a sovereign state, we don't control them. Besides, would you rather have a US puppet, as in Iraq(and even there, not quite), or an Islamist theocracy hell-bent on the destruction of the West(Iran)?

Because Israel will attack us and make us think its the Arabs so that we do get involved.
We're not stupid. Don't be so condescending.

We're not stupid. Don't be so condescending.

See: USS Liberty.

See: USS Liberty.
Terribly sorry, but I missed your point.

Israel is a bastion of freedom in the Middle East. It's a sovereign state, we don't control them. Besides, would you rather have a US puppet, as in Iraq(and even there, not quite), or an Islamist theocracy hell-bent on the destruction of the West(Iran)?
So you've been fed propaganda since infancy?

Half the people who care do it because they can live their Islamicidal fantasies vicariously through Israel.

Half the people who care do it because they can live their Islamicidal fantasies vicariously through Israel.
I'm all for living peacefully with Muslims. . . it's the lving on my part they seem to object to :(

Terribly sorry, but I missed your point.

The attack on the USS Liberty was done by Israel. They tried to cover it up as a mistake, but in reality they were attacking us trying to make it look like Egypt was doing it so that we would side with Israel during their war.

I'm all for living peacefully with Muslims. . . it's the lving on my part they seem to object to :(

I live, learn, and work peacefully with Muslims. You must be doing something wrong.

The attack on the USS Liberty was done by Israel. They tried to cover it up as a mistake, but in reality they were attacking us trying to make it look like Egypt was doing it so that we would side with Israel during their war.

Not that anyone seemed to buy the coverup, as you seem to imply.

The commander of the carrier that sent planes to aid the Liberty was well aware that the attack was being conducted by Israeli aircraft.

Not that anyone seemed to buy the coverup, as you seem to imply.

The commander of the carrier that sent planes to aid the Liberty was well aware that the attack was being conducted by Israeli aircraft.

http://ussliberty.org/

Nobody bought the coverup huh?

Wow, not only are you an Islamicidal Bushevik, you're a Kahanist who supports the backstabbing of your own country as well.

I live, learn, and work peacefully with Muslims. You must be doing something wrong.
Yesh, me too. I stated it poorly. It is the continued existance of non-Islamic states that some Islamic states object to.

I still said it poorly :(

Not that anyone seemed to buy the coverup, as you seem to imply.

The commander of the carrier that sent planes to aid the Liberty was well aware that the attack was being conducted by Israeli aircraft.

Yeah, but then Israel, being a great ally and all, apologized and everyone said "Oh its okay poor Israel".

The real coverup was that it wasnt a mistake.

The attack on the USS Liberty was done by Israel. They tried to cover it up as a mistake, but in reality they were attacking us trying to make it look like Egypt was doing it so that we would side with Israel during their war.



BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ....wrong answer..the US was under NO illusion they were being attacked by Israel...we were snooping..they attacked our spy ship. we should have responded with carrier air BUT the cairrier captain was told to stand down .

A very interesting event that still has not been answered and may never will be answered .

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ....wrong answer..the US was under NO illusion they were being attaacked by Israel...we were snooping..they attacked our spy ship. we should have responded with carrier air BUT the cairrier captain was told to stand down .

A very interesting event that still has not been answered and may never will be answered .

http://ussliberty.org/

Unless you've been infected with Corneliuitis as well and think you know more than the people who were actually there.

Yesh, me too. I stated it poorly. It is the continued existance of non-Islamic states that some Islamic states object to.

I still said it poorly :(

I dont see Islam hating on China. Or Scandinavia. Or Japan. Or most of Europe.

If you do feel free to enlighten.

The idea that terrorists target countries solely because they are a non-Islamic state is a misconception that people need to grow out of.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ....wrong answer..the US was under NO illusion they were being attacked by Israel...we were snooping..they attacked our spy ship. we should have responded with carrier air BUT the cairrier captain was told to stand down .

A very interesting event that still has not been answered and may never will be answered .

Source? No? Probably because youre dead wrong.

http://ussliberty.org/

Nobody bought the coverup huh?

Wow, not only are you an Islamicidal Bushevik, you're a Kahanist who supports the backstabbing of your own country as well.

And not only are you an arrogant , self absored I'll informed buffoon , with a bizarre left wing radical propagandist view , you tend to overuse your main Bushevik insult (? ) to the point of nausea.

why not make a constructive post without an insult aimed at anyone and suprise the living shit out of all involved .:p

I dont see Islam hating on China. Or Scandinavia. Or Japan. Or most of Europe.

If you do feel free to enlighten.

The idea that terrorists target countries solely because they are a non-Islamic state is a misconception that people need to grow out of.

Again, I've said it poorly, although is it not a stated goal of the Iraninan government to persue jihad against all infidels? And what about the bombings in England and Spain, riots in France . . .

And not only are you an arrogant , self absored I'll informed buffoon , with a bizarre left wing radical propagandist view , you tend to overuse your main Bushevik insult (? ) to the point of nausea.

why not make a constructive post without an insult aimed at anyone and suprise the living shit out of all involved .:p

You of all people telling me to make constructive posts without aiming insults?

Physician, Heal Thyself.

:rolleyes:

Source? No? Probably because youre dead wrong.



You picked the wrong person .



A Report:

War Crimes Committed Against U.S. Military Personnel, June 8, 1967

Submitted to the Secretary of the Army in his capacity as Executive Agent for the Secretary of Defense, June 8, 2005.



This report of war crimes committed against U.S. military personnel is submitted to the Honorable Secretary of the Army in his capacity as Executive Agent for the Secretary of Defense, pursuant to Department of Defense Directive Number 5810.01B (29 March 2004) [1] .

This Report is filed by the USS Liberty Veterans Association, Inc. a California non-profit corporation, recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a Section 501(c)(3) tax exempt veterans organization, acting on behalf of the surviving crewmembers of USS Liberty.

Background

On June 8, 1967 while patrolling in international waters[2] in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) was savagely attacked without warning or justification by air and naval forces of the state of Israel.[3]

Of a crew of 294 officers and men[4] (including three civilians)[5], the ship suffered thirty four (34) killed in action and one hundred seventy three (173) wounded in action.[6] The ship itself, a Forty Million ($40,000,000) Dollar state of the art signals intelligence (SIGINT) platform, was so badly damaged that it never sailed on an operational mission again and was sold in 1970 for $101,666.66 as scrap[7] .

Israel acknowledged the following facts without qualification:

a. USS Liberty was an American ship, hence a neutral vis-à-vis the June 1967 war between Israel and its Arab neighbors.[8]b. USS Liberty remained in international waters at all times on June 8, 1967[9] .c. The attacking Israeli forces never made a positive identification of the nationality of USS Liberty before unleashing deadly force in their attack on the ship.[10]
At approximately 0600 hours (all times local) on the morning of June 8, 1967 an Israeli maritime reconnaissance aircraft observer reported seeing "a US Navy cargo type ship," just outside the coverage of the Israeli coastal radar defense net, bearing the hull markings "GTR-5".[11] This report, made to Israeli naval HQ, was also forwarded immediately to the Israeli navy intelligence directorate.[12]

Throughout the remainder of the day prior to the attack, Israeli reconnaissance aircraft regularly flew out to USS Liberty’s position and orbited the ship before returning to their bases in Israel. A total of no fewer than eight (8) such flights were made.[13]

At approximately 1050 hours, the naval observer from the early morning reconnaissance flight arrived at Israeli air force HQ and sat down with the air-naval liaison officer there. The two officers consulted Janes’ Fighting Ships and learned that the ship reported earlier in the day was USS Liberty, a United States Navy technical research ship.[14]

From 0900 hours on June 8, 1967, until the time of the attack five hours later, USS Liberty maintained a speed of approximately five knots and a generally westerly-northwesterly course.[15]

At 1400 hours, while approximately 17 miles off the Gaza coast, USS Liberty’s crew observed three surface radar contacts closing with their position at high speed. A few moments later, the bridge radar crew observed high speed aircraft passing over the surface returns on the same heading.[16]

Within a few short moments, and without any warning, Israeli fighter aircraft launched a rocket attack on USS Liberty. The aircraft made repeated firing passes, attacking USS Liberty with rockets and their internal cannons. After the first flight of fighter aircraft had exhausted their ordnance, subsequent flights of Israeli fighter aircraft continued to prosecute the attack with rockets, cannon fire, and napalm. [17]

During the air attack, USS Liberty’s crew had difficulty contacting Sixth Fleet to request assistance due to intense communications jamming[18]

The initial targets on the ship were the command bridge, communications antennas, and the four .50 caliber machine guns, placed on the ship to repel boarders.[19]

After the Israeli fighter aircraft completed their attacks, three Israeli torpedo boats arrived and began a surface attack about 35 minutes after the start of the air attack. The torpedo boats launched a total of five torpedoes, one of which struck the side of USS Liberty, opposite the ship’s research spaces. [20] Twenty-six Americans in addition to the eight who had been killed in the earlier air attacks, were killed as a result of this explosion.

Following their torpedo attack, the torpedo boats moved up and down the length of the ship (both the port and starboard sides), continuing their attack, raking the ship with cannon and machine gun fire.[21] In Malta, crewmen were later assigned the task of counting all of the holes in the ship that were the size of a man’s hand or larger. They found a total of 861 such holes, in addition to "thousands" of .50 caliber machine gun holes.

Survivors report that the torpedo boat crews swept the decks of USS Liberty with continuous machine gun fire, targeting communications equipment and any crewmembers who ventured above decks.[22]

Damage control firefighters, who had already risked their lives merely by appearing on deck, had to abandon their efforts because their fire hoses had been shredded by machine gun fire.[23]

Survivors also report that the torpedo boat crews fired on the inflated life boats launched by the crew after the captain gave the order "prepare to abandon ship."[24] This order had to be rescinded because the crew was unable to stand on the main deck without being fired upon and the life rafts were destroyed as they were launched.[25]

The defenseless crew, initially unable to report their plight or summon assistance and with only themselves to rely upon, fought heroically to save themselves and their ship. In recognition of their effort in this single action, they were ultimately awarded collectively one Medal of Honor, two Navy Crosses, eleven Silver Stars, twenty Bronze Stars (with "V" device), nine Navy Commendation Medals, and two hundred and four Purple Hearts. In addition, the ship was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation.

By patching together different systems, the ship’s radio operators had ultimately been able to send a brief distress message that was received and acknowledged by United States Sixth Fleet forces present in the Mediterranean.[26] Upon receipt of that message the aircraft carriers USS Saratoga and USS America each launched aircraft to come to the aid of USS Liberty.[27] The reported attacking aircraft were declared hostile and the rescue aircraft were authorized to destroy them upon arrival.[28] The rules of engagement, authorizing destruction of the attackers, were transmitted to the rescue aircraft "in the clear" (i.e., they were not encrypted).

Shortly after the Sixth Fleet transmission of the rules of engagement to its dispatched rescue aircraft, the Israeli torpedo boats suddenly broke off their attack and transmitted messages asking if USS Liberty required assistance.[29] At the same time, an Israeli naval officer notified the US Naval Attaché at the American Embassy in Tel Aviv that Israeli forces had mistakenly attacked a United States Navy ship and apologized. The Naval Attaché notified the United States Sixth Fleet[30] and rescue aircraft were recalled before they arrived at the scene of the attack.[31]

At about the same time as the cessation of the torpedo boat attack, Israeli attack helicopters arrived over the ship.[32] Survivors report that the helicopters were packed with men in combat battle dress. The Captain of USS Liberty gave the order to "prepare to repel boarders"[33] but the helicopters departed without attempting to land their troops.[34]

The official position of the United States of America concerning these events, as contained in a diplomatic note[35] by Secretary of State Rusk addressed to the Israeli Ambassador is set forth, in relevant part, below:

"Washington, June 10, 1967.

The Secretary of State presents his compliments to His Excellency the Ambassador of Israel and has the honor to refer to the Ambassador's Note of June 10, 1967 concerning the attack by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats on the United States naval vessel U.S.S. Liberty,

. . .

In these circumstances, the later military attack by Israeli aircraft on the U.S.S. Liberty is quite literally incomprehensible. As a minimum, the attack must be condemned as an act of military recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life.

The subsequent attack by Israeli torpedo boats, substantially after the vessel was or should have been identified by Israeli military forces, manifests the same reckless disregard for human life. . . . The U.S.S. Liberty was peacefully engaged, posed no threat whatsoever to the torpedo boats, and obviously carried no armament affording it a combat capability. It could and should have been scrutinized visually at close range before torpedoes were fired.

. . . the Secretary of State wishes to make clear that the United States Government expects the Government of Israel also to take the disciplinary measures which international law requires in the event of wrongful conduct by the military personnel of a State."

There has been no statement in the last thirty-eight years by the United States government reversing or amending this formal position.

The Israeli Defense Forces Chief Military Prosecutor, immediately following the attack, filed formal charges recommending court martial proceedings against a number of Israeli military personnel.[36] Prior to the start of court martial proceedings, the IDF turned the matter over to an examining judge to confirm that the prosecution should go forward. The examining judge disagreed with United States position that the attack was "an act of military recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life" and announced his finding that:

"Yet I have not discovered any deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct which would justify the committal [sic] of anyone for trial." [37]

As a result of this blanket absolution, no one in the Israeli government or military has received so much as a reprimand for their involvement in the attack,[38] much less the punishment demanded by the United States ("the United States Government expects the Government of Israel also to take the disciplinary measures which international law requires in the event of wrongful conduct by the military personnel of a State").

Within 24 hours of the attack, the United States Navy convened a formal Court of Inquiry into that attack – a standard investigative procedure reserved for such serious events or circumstances. This procedure was unusual in only one respect – the President and members appointed to the Court of Inquiry by the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe (CINCUSNAVEUR), headquartered in London, were directed orally by the appointing authority to conduct and complete their investigative proceedings within one week – a most unusual requirement in light of the nature and magnitude of the events they were ordered to investigate.

Convening initially in London, the Court proceeded immediately to the Mediterranean and conducted its inquiry both aboard USS Liberty as she limped under escort to Malta, and in succeeding days as she lay in drydock there. Concluding their inquiries there, the President of the Court, with the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps officer who had been appointed as Counsel to the Court, and with a Navy court reporter who had been assigned from the London headquarters to assist, returned to London on June 16, 1967 (eight days after the attack), with their results.

At London, the Navy court reporter supervised the final production of a written record of the Court’s proceedings and findings – a document over 600 typewritten pages in length. On the afternoon of June 17, 1967, that record of the Court’s proceedings was delivered to the senior Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps officer on the CINCUSNAVEUR staff for his review and recommendation to the appointing authority concerning his required endorsement and action upon the Court’s proceedings and record. The CINCUSNAVEUR Staff Judge Advocate thus charged with that review – in full compliance and accord with standard Navy requirements and practice – turned immediately to his detailed examination and consideration of the record. He continued that process steadily into the early morning hours of June 18, 1967, then after a four hour rest break resumed his review at 6:00 AM on June 18th.

In the midforenoon of June 18th an emissary from his Commander, the appointing authority, appeared and inquired of the Staff Judge Advocate concerning the status of his review and when it might be expected to be completed. The Staff Judge Advocate advised that he had by then read only about a third of the record – that there were many clerical and typographical flaws in the record that should be remedied before it was formally forwarded to the high governmental authorities who undoubtedly awaited it – that, more importantly, the reviewer had not yet been able to find, in the parts of the record he had so far reviewed, testimony or other evidence to support some of the Court’s stated conclusions – and that he could not yet estimate when he could complete his review and recommendations but was continuing to devote himself solely to that task.

The emissary from the appointing authority departed with that information then returned about 20 minutes later with the message that CINCUSNAVEUR, the appointing authority had directed him to come and get the Court’s record from the Staff Judge Advocate and bring it back to the appointing authority. The Staff Judge Advocate accordingly surrendered the record to the emissary exactly as he had received it; he was neither then nor later asked for any of his work or opinions so far; and he had no further contact with the Court of Inquiry or its results at any time in his active Navy career.[39]

The records of the Navy Department reveal that the written record of proceedings of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry into the Israeli attack upon USS Liberty was formally submitted by the President of the Court of Inquiry to CINCUSNAVEUR, the appointing authority by a written letter dated 18 June 1967, the very day that the record had been withdrawn by the appointing authority from his Staff Judge Advocate. The written record also reveals that the appointing authority, on that same day, placed upon that record of the Court’s proceedings, a five-page First Endorsement, transmitting that Record to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy in Washington as required by the Navy’s investigative procedures.[40]

Mr. Secretary, it is respectfully submitted that, even based solely upon the facts and circumstances outlined above, the Navy Court of Inquiry into the Israeli attack on USS Liberty – the sole official investigation by the United States Government into that attack – was deficient and prejudiced, even at its outset, by the unreasonable haste imposed informally by the appointing authority. In addition, the processing of that Court’s hasty result was further compromised by its peremptory withdrawal from its initial and prescribed legal review in the field, and its hurried transmission to the seat of the U.S. Government under cover of a purported official endorsement that could not conceivably have been based upon even a cursory complete review of even the hasty work of the Navy Court of Inquiry. Inexplicably, the Court record was classified Top Secret and withheld from public scru-tiny for many years.

In addition to all of that, however, the Judge Advocate General’s Corps officer who was appointed to serve as Counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry – the officer charged with certifying the authenticity of the Court’s record – has examined a copy of the record of that Court of Inquiry that has since been released by the Government under the Freedom of Information Act and has pronounced it a fraud, and not the record that he had certified and submitted [41]. Furthermore, the President of the Court of Inquiry, following his departure from London with the record on 18 June 1967, his personal delivery of the record to officials in Washington, and his return to his regular duty post in Italy, informed the officer who had served as Counsel to the Court of Inquiry that the Court’s record of its proceedings had been altered, in his presence, by civilian Government attorneys following its submission. [42]

The Central Intelligence Agency issued an "interim" report on the attack, dated June 13, 1967 (five days after the attack and five days before the apparent completion of the Navy’s abbreviated Court of Inquiry). The heavily redacted copy of the CIA’s report that has been released to the public does not state a conclusion, but suggests that, based on the information available as of the date of the report, the Israeli forces may not have known that they were attacking an American ship.[43]

Writing in his memoirs, Richard Helms, the Director of Central Intelligence at the time of the attack, explained that the Central Intelligence Agency undertook a "final" investigation after more evidence became available, and he offered the following information concerning the CIA’s final finding:[44]

"Israeli authorities subsequently apologized for the incident, but few in Washington could believe that the ship had not been identified as an American naval vessel. Later, an interim intelligence memorandum concluded the attack was a mistake and not made in malice against the U.S. . . .I had no role in the board of inquiry that followed, or the board's finding that there could be no doubt that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty. I have yet to understand why it was felt necessary to attack this ship or who ordered the attack." [Emphasis added]

Director Helms was not the only administration official who remained convinced that the attack was deliberate. In 1990, in his memoirs, Secretary of State Rusk observed:[45]

"But I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous."

Similarly, Clark M. Clifford, Counsel to the President at the time of the attack, recalled:[46]

"I do not know to this day at what level the attack on the Liberty was authorized and I think it is unlikely that the full truth will ever come out. Having been for so long a staunch supporter of Israel, I was particularly troubled by this incident; I could not bring myself to believe that such an action could have been authorized by Levi Eshkol. Yet somewhere inside the Israeli government, somewhere along the chain of command, something had gone terribly wrong--and then had been covered up. I never felt the Israelis made adequate restitution or explanation for their actions...."

The then-General Counsel for the Department of Defense, attorney Paul C. Warnke, opined:[47]

"I found it hard to believe that it was, in fact, an honest mistake on the part of the Israeli air force units. I still find it impossible to believe that it was. I suspect that in the heat of battle they figured that the presence of this American ship was inimical to their interests, and that somebody without authorization attacked it."

The Executive Branch of the United States Government undertook no further review of the attack. Similarly, the United States Congress has never investigated the attack, making it the only attack on a United States Navy ship involving significant loss of life that has not been so investigated.[48]

Compounding the harm done to survivors was the task given to them to bring all human remains and classified materials out of the research spaces that had been destroyed by the torpedo explosion. The survivors assigned to this task were further traumatized by having to secure the remains of their shipmates, men they knew and had lived and worked with.[49]

In the years that followed the attack, almost all of the evidence pertaining to the attack remained, inexplicably, highly classified. Starting in the late 1970s, heavily redacted documents began to be released as a result of FOIA requests. To this day, many USS Liberty related documents, including the CIA report referenced by Director Helms, remain classified.

A number of individuals and groups, some directly in the employ of the Israeli government, others self-appointed, have attempted to convince the public that the attack on USS Liberty was but an "innocent mistake."[50] In furtherance of this goal they have fabricated and repeated demonstrably false allegations the most notable fabrication being that there have been "thirteen official investigations (including five Congressional investigations)" – all of which concluded that the attack was a "tragic error." These allegations are wholly and demonstrably false.[51] Worse, in some instances, deliberately falsified evidence has been proffered in support of this argument.[52]

As a result of the public relations campaign undertaken on behalf of Israel, the USS Liberty survivors have been vilified for their assertions that the attack was deliberate and for their ongoing quest for justice. They are characterized as "neo-Nazis", "anti-Semites", and "conspiracy theorists" for wanting nothing more than an honest, open investigation of the attack on their ship and themselves.[53]

In 2003, an independent commission of highly regarded experts was created to look into the matter. The Commission consisted of Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, United States Navy (Ret.), Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Raymond G. Davis, United States Marine Corps, (MOH), Former Assistant Commandant of The Marine Corps; Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, United States Navy (Ret.), Former Judge Advocate General Of The Navy; and Ambassador James Akins (Ret.), Former United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

The "Moorer Commission" (Chaired by Adm. Moorer) investigated the attack and made the following findings:

"We, the undersigned, having undertaken an independent investigation of Israel's attack on USS Liberty, including eyewitness testimony from surviving crewmembers, a review of naval and other official records, an examination of official statements by the Israeli and American governments, a study of the conclusions of all previous official inquiries, and a consideration of important new evidence and recent statements from individuals having direct knowledge of the attack or the cover up, hereby find the following:

1. That on June 8, 1967, after eight hours of aerial surveillance, Israel launched a two-hour air and naval attack against USS Liberty, the world's most sophisticated intelligence ship, inflicting 34 dead and 173 wounded American servicemen (a casualty rate of seventy percent, in a crew of 294);

2. That the Israeli air attack lasted approximately 25 minutes, during which time unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on USS Liberty's bridge, and fired 30mm cannons and rockets into our ship, causing 821 holes, more than 100 of which were rocket-size; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes which were jamming all five American emergency radio channels;

3. That the torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but the machine-gunning of Liberty's firefighters and stretcher-bearers as they struggled to save their ship and crew; the Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded;

4. That there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Undersecretary of State George Ball, former CIA director Richard Helms, former NSA directors Lieutenant General William Odom, USA (Ret.), Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN (Ret.), and Marshal Carter; former NSA deputy directors Oliver Kirby and Major General John Morrison, USAF (Ret.); and former Ambassador Dwight Porter, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon in 1967;

5. That in attacking USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States;

6. That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of USS Liberty by recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support while the ship was under attack; evidence of the recall of rescue aircraft is supported by statements of Captain Joe Tully, Commanding Officer of the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga, and Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis, the Sixth Fleet carrier division commander, at the time of the attack; never before in American naval history has a rescue mission been cancelled when an American ship was under attack;

7. That although Liberty was saved from almost certain destruction through the heroic efforts of the ship's Captain, William L. McGonagle (MOH), and his brave crew, surviving crewmembers were later threatened with "court-martial, imprisonment or worse" if they exposed the truth; and were abandoned by their own government;

8. That due to the influence of Israel's powerful supporters in the United States, the White House deliberately covered up the facts of this attack from the American people;

9. That due to continuing pressure by the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, this attack remains the only serious naval incident that has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress; to this day, no surviving crewmember has been permitted to officially and publicly testify about the attack;

10. That there has been an official cover-up without precedent in American naval history; the existence of such a cover-up is now supported by statements of Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, USN (Ret.), former Judge Advocate General of the Navy; and Captain Ward Boston, USN, (Ret.), the chief counsel to the Navy's 1967 Court of Inquiry of Liberty attack;

11. That the truth about Israel's attack and subsequent White House cover-up continues to be officially concealed from the American people to the present day and is a national disgrace;

12. That a danger to our national security exists whenever our elected officials are willing to subordinate American interests to those of any foreign nation, and specifically are unwilling to challenge Israel's interests when they conflict with American interests; this policy, evidenced by the failure to defend USS Liberty and the subsequent official cover-up of the Israeli attack, endangers the safety of Americans and the security of the United States.

WHEREUPON, we, the undersigned, in order to fulfill our duty to the brave crew of USS Liberty and to all Americans who are asked to serve in our Armed Forces, hereby call upon the Department of the Navy, the Congress of the United States and the American people to immediately take the following actions:

FIRST: That a new Court of Inquiry be convened by the Department of the Navy, operating with Congressional oversight, to take public testimony from surviving crewmembers; and to thoroughly investigate the circumstances of the attack on the USS Liberty, with full cooperation from the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency and the military intelligence services, and to determine Israel's possible motive in launching said attack on a U.S. naval vessel;

SECOND: That every appropriate committee of the Congress of the United States investigate the actions of the White House and Defense Department that prevented the rescue of the USS Liberty, thereafter threatened her surviving officers and men if they exposed the truth, and covered up the true circumstances of the attack from the American people; and

THIRD: That the eighth day of June of every year be proclaimed to be hereafter known as

USS LIBERTY REMEMBRANCE DAY, in order to commemorate USS Liberty's heroic crew; and to educate the American people of the danger to our national security inherent in any passionate attachment of our elected officials for any foreign nation.

We, the undersigned, hereby affix our hands and seals, this 22nd day of October, 2003.

Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, USN, Ret.
Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

General of Marines Raymond G. Davis, USMC, MOH

Former Commandant of the United States Marine Corps

Merlin Staring
Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, USN, Ret.,
Former Judge Advocate General of the Navy,

James Akins
Ambassador James Akins, Ret.,
Former United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia"

The federal criminal code makes special provision for the prosecution of war crimes whether inside or outside the United States, committed against United States armed forces personnel:

"18 United States Code, Sec. 2441. - War crimes

(a) Offense. -

Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

(b) Circumstances. -

The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).

(c) Definition. -

As used in this section the term ''war crime'' means any conduct -

(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;

(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;

(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or

(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians."

The Geneva Convention (1949) defines the term "grave breach" as follows:

"Article 51

Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

Even if there were no special provision authorizing the prosecution of war crimes, the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1114 compel the prosecution of those who kill or attempt to kill United States armed forces personnel in the performance of their duties.


"Sec. 1114. Protection of officers and employees of the United States

Whoever kills or attempts to kill any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services) while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties, or any person assisting such an officer or employee in the performance of such duties or on account of that assistance, shall be punished -

(1) in the case of murder, as provided under section 1111;

(2) in the case of manslaughter, as provided under section 1112; or

(3) in the case of attempted murder or manslaughter, as provided in section 1113."

The prohibition against attacking neutrals on the high seas is unconditional. It does not allow for mistake. The belligerent force, when on the high seas, must verify that their proposed target is not a neutral and is, in fact, a co-belligerent. This provision very sensibly attempts to prevent the use of deadly force by mistake.[54] The United States of American has long and vigorously asserted the right of its warships to transit the high seas, free from molestation by belligerents of wars to which the United States is not a party.[55]

Of particular relevance to this matter, the Geneva Convention (1949) provides:

"REPRESSION OF ABUSES AND INFRACTIONS

Article 51

Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

Article 52

No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article."

In the instant matter, Israel freely acknowledged that USS Liberty was a neutral ship in international waters.[56] Israel also admitted that the attack was deliberate and made with the intent to sink the ship and crew.[57] Israel has thus explicitly admitted the essential elements of a violation of Article 1 of the Hague Convention on Naval Warfare. Israel has further admitted the essential elements required to establish a "grave breach" as that term is defined in the Geneva Convention (1949).

The Nürnberg War Crimes Tribunal established certain principles that were later adopted by all members of the United Nations.[58] Of particular relevance is Principal VI:

"Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

. . .

(b) War crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity."

It is well settled that homicides resulting from the accused committing an act inherently dangerous to others and showing a wanton disregard of human life may be charged as murder:

"Homicides prosecuted under Article 118(3) are those unlawful killings which result from an accused's committing "an act inherently dangerous to others and" showing "a wanton disregard of human life." The accused must also know that death or great bodily harm was a "probable consequence" of his conduct. Not surprisingly, intentional homicides under Article 118(2) also generally involve death as a "probable consequence"; and they are most often committed by acts which are "inherently dangerous," particularly to the deceased, and show "a wanton disregard" for the victim (i.e., killing by gunfire or other dangerous weapon).

We stated previously that, for unpremeditated murder under Article 118(3), Congress enacted the rule that murder by an act inherently dangerous to others requires ‘a wanton disregard of human life" in general, without the actions of the accused "being aimed at anyone in particular.’"

U.S. v. Berg, 31 M.J. 38, 39, 40 (CMA,1990).

This is not a case of first impression. Precedent exists[59] for the finding that this type of attack represents a grave breach of the Laws of War.[60]

Accordingly it is established, prima facie, that Israel was guilty of the commission of the war crime of attacking a neutral vessel in neutral waters as a consequence of its attack on USS Liberty.

USS Liberty survivors, through sworn statements, have established that the Israeli torpedo boats shot at rescuers and firefighters on the deck of the ship. They have further established that the same torpedo boats shot at USS Liberty’s life rafts, after the rafts had been put over the side of the ship into the sea for use by shipwrecked survivors.[61]

There also exists prima facie evidence that Israeli forces committed additional separate war crimes by firing on the wounded and their rescuers, as well as subsequently firing into the life rafts.

The concerns of an Israeli whitewash first articulated by Secretary of State Rusk[62] and later echoed by Undersecretary of State Battle[63] turned out to be prophetic. In direct violation of Article 52 of the Geneva Convention[64], the Israeli Defense Forces absolved themselves of any wrongdoing, including criminal negligence, involving their attack on USS Liberty. When provided with a copy of the Israeli report, NSA Deputy Director Louis Tordella wrote "A nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept [epithet redacted]" on the cover of his copy.[65] In that Israel has abdicated its responsibility under international law to investigate and bring the wrongdoers to justice, the task falls to the government of the aggrieved parties to act on their behalf.

Conclusion

The USS Liberty Veterans Association has established, prima facie, the commission of war crimes by the state of Israel against US military personnel and civilians. These Americans volunteered to serve their country. They followed all orders given to them. In the course of following those orders, they were suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the state of Israel and their country did absolutely nothing to protect them or seek justice on their behalf..

The failure of the United States government to undertake a complete investigation of the Israeli attack on USS Liberty has resulted in grievous harm to the surviving victims, as well as to the families of all crewmembers. Equally serious, this failure has resulted in an indelible stain upon the honor of the United States of America. It has sent a signal to America’s serving men and women that their welfare is always subordinate to the interests of a foreign state. The only conceivable reason for this failure is the political decision to put the interests of Israel ahead of those of American servicemen, employees, and veterans.[66]

Finally, the fact that the Israeli government and its surrogates in the United States have worked so long and hard to prevent an inquiry itself speaks volumes as to what such an inquiry would find.

The USS Liberty Veterans Association, Inc. respectfully insists that the Secretary of the Army convene an investigatory body to undertake the complete investigation that should have been carried out thirty-eight years ago.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the USS Liberty Veterans Association, Inc., on this, the thirty-eighth anniversary of the Israeli attack on their ship.

June 8, 2005




Go read a book ...get out of the basement once in a while ..educate yourself a bit .

http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm

Again, I've said it poorly, although is it not a stated goal of the Iraninan government to persue jihad against all infidels? And what about the bombings in England and Spain, riots in France . . .

And the rest of Europe, let alone the world, where Islamic states dont exist?

Again, I've said it poorly, although is it not a stated goal of the Iraninan government to persue jihad against all infidels? And what about the bombings in England and Spain, riots in France . . .
....had nothing to do with Islamic extremism, fundamentalism or terrorism.

Good old fashioned unemployed, discontented youth was to blame.

And the rest of Europe, let alone the world, where Islamic states dont exist?
90 percent of terror attacks nowadays are by Islamic militants.

Even in Europe, where they note that it is a problem - even in Switzerland.

What did the Swiss ever do to invite Islamic terrorists to plot in Switzerland?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901795.html

The Swiss didn't create Israel. They didn't invade anyone. They are officially neutral. They don't send troops to the Middle East.

You picked the wrong person .



Go read a book ...get out of the basement once in a while ..educate yourself a bit .

http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm

And where does it say that the Liberty was a "spy ship" (Dont you think we would have used submarines for that?), or was "snooping"? Dont you think that, if we were going to spy or snoop in the region, our ally Israel would know? Are you even trying to justify this attack?

....had nothing to do with Islamic extremism, fundamentalism or terrorism.

Good old fashioned unemployed, discontented youth was to blame.

Good point. Being alienated and disenfranchised knows no religious bounds. I still don't get how any of this justifies Hezbollah kidnapping soldiers and launching missles, or makes Isreal's trying to stop them wrong.

90 percent of terror attacks nowadays are by Islamic militants.

Even in Europe, where they note that it is a problem - even in Switzerland.

What did the Swiss ever do to invite Islamic terrorists to plot in Switzerland?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901795.html

The Swiss didn't create Israel. They didn't invade anyone. They are officially neutral. They don't send troops to the Middle East.

As they have elsewhere in Europe, Islamic radicals are making inroads in Switzerland. Last month, Swiss officials announced the arrests of a dozen suspects who allegedly conspired to shoot down an Israeli airliner flying from Geneva to Tel Aviv. In a related case, a North African man has been charged with organizing a plot from Swiss soil to blow up the Spanish supreme court in Madrid.

Plot in Switzerland is one thing. Maybe because of Switzerlands neutrality its easier to organize there. I dont see any plots against Switzerland though.

I still don't get how any of this justifies Hezbollah kidnapping soldiers and launching missles, or make Isreal's trying to stop them wrong.
It doesnt. I was just correcting (an increasingly and worrying) misreading of why the riots occurred. :)

And where does it say that the Liberty was a "spy ship" (Dont you think we would have used submarines for that?), or was "snooping"? Dont you think that, if we were going to spy or snoop in the region, our ally Israel would know? Are you even trying to justify this attack?

Of course he is. He's got a case of full-blown Corneliuitis and thinks he knows more than the survivors of the USS Liberty.

*snip*

Not sure what that extremely long piece proves other than the Israelis made a positive ID of the ship using no less than 8 recon flights before deciding to sink a scientific vessel in international waters. Then proceeded to attack lifeboats as they we launched and fired on crew trying to evacuate.

Then to cap it all, refused to prosecute the service men involved.

Not sure what that extremely long piece proves other than the Israelis made a positive ID of the ship using no less than 8 recon flights before deciding to sink a scientific vessel in international waters. Then proceeded to attack lifeboats as they we launched and fired on crew trying to evacuate.

Then to cap it all, refused to prosecute the service men involved.

It proves that Ultraextreme Sanity doesn't bother to read things out before posting them.

Not sure what that extremely long piece proves other than the Israelis made a positive ID of the ship using no less than 8 recon flights before deciding to sink a scientific vessel in international waters. Then proceeded to attack lifeboats as they we launched and fired on crew trying to evacuate.

Then to cap it all, refused to prosecute the service men involved.

The Liberty was not a "scientific vessel".

Not unless "science" is military signals intelligence gathering.

It doesnt. I was just correcting (an increasingly and worrying) misreading of why the riots occurred. :)
Yup, I stand corrected. The riots in Paris were economic, not religious. Hmmm . . . Maybe the French could give them jobs as part of the NATO peacekeeping force that seems to be headed for southern Lebanon? :eek:

The Liberty was not a "scientific vessel".

Not unless "science" is military signals intelligence gathering.

Oh sorry, I was confused by the part of the article discussing the torpedos hitting near the 'research areas'.

Even as a signals ship it's pretty far from a legitimate target when its in international waters and not belonging to any side involved in the conflict.

And where does it say that the Liberty was a "spy ship" (Dont you think we would have used submarines for that?), or was "snooping"? Dont you think that, if we were going to spy or snoop in the region, our ally Israel would know? Are you even trying to justify this attack?


You cant be that dumb .

On June 8, 1967 while patrolling in international waters[2] in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) was savagely attacked without warning or justification by air and naval forces of the state of Israel.[3]

Of a crew of 294 officers and men[4] (including three civilians)[5], the ship suffered thirty four (34) killed in action and one hundred seventy three (173) wounded in action.[6] The ship itself, a Forty Million ($40,000,000) Dollar state of the art signals intelligence (SIGINT) platform, was so badly damaged that it never sailed on an operational mission again and was sold in 1970 for $101,666.66 as scrap[7] .


first you ask for a source after saying I dont know what I am talking about...

then when provided with the source....you do not understand enough english to read it ...

Instead of just saying .." well excuse me my bad , I didnt know that "

You dig a larger hole to jump into .

So whats up with that ?

Do you think anything you post from this moment on has a molecule worth of credibility ?

The Liberty was not a "scientific vessel".

Not unless "science" is military signals intelligence gathering.

Another outbreak of Corneliuitis, and now a round of The Plame Game as well.

Even if the Liberty was a spy ship, which there isn't any evidence out there that conclusively proves it, wouldn't it stand that the crew would have known the risks and not bitch about getting hit? And there's that interesting point. Since the U.S. and Israel are shagging each other constantly, why wouldn't have Israel known if it was a spy ship?

And the Israelis verified the Liberty yet decided to hit it anyways.

Bushevik Kahanist.

:rolleyes:

Oh sorry, I was confused by the part of the article discussing the torpedos hitting near the 'research areas'.

Even as a signals ship it's pretty far from a legitimate target when its in international waters and not belonging to any side involved in the conflict.

Apparently, the US government at the time did not have a problem with it, although from the moment the attack began, the sailors involved (as well as the commander of the carrier group in range) had a real problem with the attack.

The US seems to have officially covered it up, which causes the Liberty survivors no end of grief.

But, I would think that it was quite clear that the Israelis didn't want us to see or hear what was going on at the time, and attacked the Liberty to poke our eyes out. It appears that the US government of the time was quite willing to overlook this, despite the casualties.

Even if the Liberty was a spy ship, which there isn't any evidence out there that conclusively proves it, wouldn't it stand that the crew would have known the risks and not bitch about getting hit? And there's that interesting point. Since the U.S. and Israel are shagging each other constantly, why wouldn't have Israel known if it was a spy ship?


It was a spy ship, and that was proven, despite denials from the US government. They knew the risks, and expected to be rescued mid-mission.

Israel KNEW it was a spy ship - that's why they attacked it.

I can't help it if you have the astonishingly ignorant belief that there is no proof that it was a spy ship.

It proves that Ultraextreme Sanity doesn't bother to read things out before posting them.


Pot calling kettle black syndrome again? From you ...I guess I should be suprised ...did you read my ORIGIONAL post ...the one where I claimed the Israelis attacked the SHIP and EVERYONE knew it ?

When I was told It was a plot by the ISRAELIS to make the Americans think EGYPT attacked them ?


HUH I guess not ...its that ADD acting up on you again..take your meds.

It was a spy ship, and that was proven, despite denials from the US government. They knew the risks, and expected to be rescued mid-mission.

Israel KNEW it was a spy ship - that's why they attacked it.

I can't help it if you have the astonishingly ignorant belief that there is no proof that it was a spy ship.

The USS Liberty and AIPAC. Two concrete evidence than when Israel stabs America in the ass, the government says "Thank You Sir, Please May I Have Another?"

And people like you encourage it.

Apparently, the US government at the time did not have a problem with it, although from the moment the attack began, the sailors involved (as well as the commander of the carrier group in range) had a real problem with the attack.

The US seems to have officially covered it up, which causes the Liberty survivors no end of grief.

But, I would think that it was quite clear that the Israelis didn't want us to see or hear what was going on at the time, and attacked the Liberty to poke our eyes out. It appears that the US government of the time was quite willing to overlook this, despite the casualties.

I think this goes a long way towards perfectly describing the institutional racism at the heart of the American government.

A jewish government make a cold and calculated attack on a US ship breaking a shedload of conventions of war in the process and they just shrug.

A muslim looks at them funny and they destroy his country and salt the earth.

I think this goes a long way towards perfectly describing the institutional racism at the heart of the American government.

A jewish government make a cold and calculated attack on a US ship breaking a shedload of conventions of war in the process and they just shrug.

A muslim looks at them funny and they destroy his country and salt the earth.

Don't expect DK to find it a compelling observation. After all, he is Mr. Sterilize The Muslims.

Good point. Being alienated and disenfranchised knows no religious bounds. I still don't get how any of this justifies Hezbollah kidnapping soldiers and launching missles, or makes Isreal's trying to stop them wrong.

These soldiers were in Lebanon when they were captured, as part of an occupying force. They werent giving out candy. Im sure if soldiers were part of an occupying force in the country you lived in, you would not mind them being "kidnapped".

It was a spy ship, and that was proven, despite denials from the US government. They knew the risks, and expected to be rescued mid-mission.

Israel KNEW it was a spy ship - that's why they attacked it.

I can't help it if you have the astonishingly ignorant belief that there is no proof that it was a spy ship.


Israel had NO RIGHT to attack that ship in International waters . ADD that to the fact that they did their BEST to try to ensure there were no survivors to counter whatever BULLSHIT excuse they could come up with .

Read that LONG post that describes IN detail the actions taken that day ..and the spineless response by the US assholes in charge who should be shot for treason .

One day maybe we will find out WHY the Israelis thought that ship had to go ..but anyone that thinks it was an " incident" or an " accident ' is a fool .

The Cold war was more important than our OWN FUCKING SOLDIERS ...

Well Fuck that .

DK there is NO way to defend israel on this ..not to me ..

I think this goes a long way towards perfectly describing the institutional racism at the heart of the American government.

A jewish government make a cold and calculated attack on a US ship breaking a shedload of conventions of war in the process and they just shrug.

A muslim looks at them funny and they destroy his country and salt the earth.

I believe that the American public is less upset about picket ships being attacked (I don't even remember too much fuss about the USS Pueblo, and that was the North Koreans - we didn't invade North Korea after that, either).

Flying airliners into buildings and killing more than 3000 people - well, you have to expect a little payback.

Has nothing to do with racism, and I find it hilarious that Gauthier thinks I'm white.

In fact, everyone in my office is reading this thread, and having a good laugh at Gauthier's expense.

These soldiers were in Lebanon when they were captured, as part of an occupying force. They werent giving out candy. Im sure if soldiers were part of an occupying force in the country you lived in, you would not mind them being "kidnapped".


Again you suffer from brainfartage...I will correct you....

The Israeli soldiers were KIDNAPPED IN ISRAEL by Hezbollah that crossed the border to get them .

WTF ?

Dont you read ? Or even listen to a radio ?

I DK there is NO way to defend israel on this ..not to me ..

I'm not defending it - I'm just saying that it was arranged to both governments' satisfaction, and not to the crew's satisfaction.

I'm not defending it - I'm just saying that it was arranged to both governments' satisfaction, and not to the crew's satisfaction.


And I am saying FUCK the government that thinks they can justify an attack on military personel in International waters BY ANYONE .

They do not represent me . I would gladly take them out back and shoot the bunch of them ..as I said for treason .

So you've been fed propaganda since infancy?
I don't know. Is truth propaganda?

And I am saying FUCK the government that thinks they can justify an attack on military personel in International waters BY ANYONE .

They do not represent me . I would gladly take them out back and shoot the bunch of them ..as I said for treason .

President Johnson was a Democrat, and the Congress at the time was dominated by Democrats.

They thought it was a-OK.

President Johnson was a Democrat, and the Congress at the time was dominated by Democrats.

They thought it was a-OK.
What does that matter?

President Johnson was a Democrat, and the Congress at the time was dominated by Democrats.

They thought it was a-OK.

Well I cant take my vote back for Clinton...but BOB DOLE ??:eek: No FW ..

Democrats do seem to have a different view on maters of military importance...but it wasnt always that way..

What does that matter?
I think it has everything to do with how much you care what happens to military personnel.

I think it has everything to do with how much you care what happens to military personnel.
You mean, politicians regardless of affiliation are dickheads?

Well blow me down....

So, let me get this straight-Israel accidently attacked an American military ship in 1967, and for this you people consider Israel an enemy? Disregarding the fact that we have a flourishing exchange of technology and info with Israel, that they taught American soldiers urban fighting tactics, and that the Israelis are more than happy to help us with anything we need?

Those against Israel have no excuse to hold their incorrect opinions. You read my opening statement in defence of Israel, so you can't argue from ignorance, because you know the facts. Your hatred of Israel thus defines all logical reasoning. I don't want to say anti-Semitism, but...

So, let me get this straight-Israel accidently attacked an American military ship in 1967, and for this you people consider Israel an enemy? Disregarding the fact that we have a flourishing exchange of technology and info with Israel, that they taught American soldiers urban fighting tactics, and that the Israelis are more than happy to help us with anything we need?

Those against Israel have no excuse to hold their incorrect opinions. You read my opening statement in defence of Israel, so you can't argue from ignorance, because you know the facts. Your hatred of Israel thus defines all logical reasoning. I don't want to say anti-Semitism, but...
Oh bull-fucking-shit.

Thats the type of post that stifles debate completely. :mad:

Oh bull-fucking-shit.

Thats the type of post that stifles debate completely. :mad:
By all means, let's have an open, honest debate. I can't wait to demolish you.

Has nothing to do with racism, and I find it hilarious that Gauthier thinks I'm white.

And can you quote where I even cared whether you were white or not? I said you're a Bushevik and a Kahanist. An asshole is still an asshole, regardless of color.

In fact, everyone in my office is reading this thread, and having a good laugh at Gauthier's expense.

They probably had a good laugh with your "Sterilize All the Muslims" ideas too so if this is supposed to make me feel lousy, nice try.

By all means, let's have an open, honest debate. I can't wait to demolish you.
Thats not the point.

You're setting it up so that anyone who disagrees with your post can be easily smeared as 'Anti-Semitic'.

I don't care about you 'demolishing' me. I care about not stifling debate.

By all means, let's have an open, honest debate. I can't wait to demolish you.

If by demolish you mean play the "anti-semite" card, no, noone is going to want to debate with you.

Thats not the point.

You're setting it up so that anyone who disagrees with your post can be easily smeared as 'Anti-Semitic'.

I don't care about you 'demolishing' me. I care about not stifling debate.
I was merely explaining why I think people like Kazus refuse to listen to logic. I laid it all out in my post, the facts, the info are all there.

And can you quote where I even cared whether you were white or not? I said you're a Bushevik and a Kahanist. An asshole is still an asshole, regardless of color.

They probably had a good laugh with your "Sterilize All the Muslims" ideas too so if this is supposed to make me feel lousy, nice try.

Not a Bushevik either, and not a Kahanist.

And everyone here helped turn in someone, so no, they think that's a great idea, too.

So, let me get this straight-Israel accidently attacked an American military ship in 1967, and for this you people consider Israel an enemy? Disregarding the fact that we have a flourishing exchange of technology and info with Israel, that they taught American soldiers urban fighting tactics, and that the Israelis are more than happy to help us with anything we need?

Those against Israel have no excuse to hold their incorrect opinions. You read my opening statement in defence of Israel, so you can't argue from ignorance, because you know the facts. Your hatred of Israel thus defines all logical reasoning. I don't want to say anti-Semitism, but...
I would stop with the anti Semitism bullshit we have already had more then one Israel thread closed because people stamp anyone that disagrees with a countries decision as hating a specific religion.

Here is TG's post in one of them

Lastly, I am not in the least bit sympathetic to the argument that criticism of Israeli security policies is intrinsically anti-semitic, any more than criticism of any nation's policies is intrinsically xenophobic. As far as I could see, there were two anti-semitic posts made by one individual, the background sniping for the most part constituting an attempt to stifle debate. I do not wish to see this type of dogpiling again. Discussion of every nations's foreign policy will be kept open here. Attempts to slur participants based on their position in a debate will be judged harshly. Israel is not a special case.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=492452&page=7

If by demolish you mean play the "anti-semite" card, no, noone is going to want to debate with you.
It's kind of hard to "debate" with idiots who ask me if I've been "raised on propaganda since infancy."

Not a Bushevik either, and not a Kahanist.

And everyone here helped turn in someone, so no, they think that's a great idea, too.

My point exactly.

I would stop with the anti Semitism bullshit we have already had more then one Israel thread closed because people stamp anyone that disagrees with a countries decision as hating a specific religion.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=492452&page=7
Point taken. But let's also refrain from calling defenders of Israel fools, or saying that their case is merely propaganda. It works both ways, you know.

Point taken. But let's also refrain from calling defenders of Israel fools, or saying that their case is merely propaganda. It works both ways, you know.
I agree in that case as it stifles debate as any ad-homonim attack does

While I admit that I personally know very little about the Conflict, and am not particularly articulate or well-learned, from what I've heard/read I would think that the U.S has a moral obligation not to help Israel?

The small amount of information I do know amounts to these websites:

http://www.pej.org/html/print.php?sid=5005

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/lobe111203.html

Hopefully I have not been inaccurate...

Point taken. But let's also refrain from calling defenders of Israel fools, or saying that their case is merely propaganda. It works both ways, you know.
Neither UpwardThrust nor myself said that nor alluded to that.

Your statement was essentially labeling anyone who disagreed with you as 'Anti-Semitic'. It was open and not directed towards anyone is specific- hence my.... uncontrolled outburst.

In future, make the distinction.

While I admit that I personally know very little about the Conflict, and am not particularly articulate or well-learned, from what I've heard/read I would think that the U.S has a moral obligation not to help Israel?

The small amount of information I do know amounts to these websites:

http://www.pej.org/html/print.php?sid=5005

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/lobe111203.html

Hopefully I have not been inaccurate...
For one thing, we share common values with the Israelis. A belief in personal liberty, freedom of religion, a belief in the free market. Secondly, Israel is the Jews' ancestral homeland, and they have as much a right to it as anyone.

I will proceed to read your articles, and I will tell you where they go wrong.

Thanks for taking part.

Again you suffer from brainfartage...I will correct you....

The Israeli soldiers were KIDNAPPED IN ISRAEL by Hezbollah that crossed the border to get them .

WTF ?

Dont you read ? Or even listen to a radio ?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG15Ak02.html

It all started on July 12 when Israel troops were ambushed on Lebanon's side of the border with Israel. Hezbollah, which commands the Lebanese south, immediately seized on their crossing. They arrested two Israeli soldiers, killed eight Israelis and wounded over 20 in attacks inside Israeli territory.

http://uruknet.info/?p=m24569

Ehud Olmert holds "Lebanon responsible for the fate of the missing soldiers," who were captured near Aita al-Shaab on the LEBANESE SIDE OF THE BORDER, that is to say the soldiers violated the sovereignty of Lebanon, a COMMON OCCURRENCE.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3274430,00.html

The Hizbullah said its operatives destroyed an Israeli tank attempting to cross the border into Lebanon.

Israeli ground troops entered southern Lebanon on Wednesday to search for two soldiers captured earlier in the day by Hezbollah. (AP)

(07.12.06, 12:55)

http://english.bna.bh/?ID=47348



Beirut, July. 12 (BNA) The Lebanese Hezbollah movement announced Wednesday the arrest of two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon.
Lebanese police said that the two soldiers were arrested as they entered the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border. Israeli aircraft were active in the air over southern Lebanon, police said, with jets bombing roads leading to the market town of Nabatiyeh, 60 kilometers south of Beirut.



http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1180404.php/Hezbollah_back_in_the_spotlight_after_capturing_soldiers

In the afternoon, the scene changed in the streets of southern Lebanon, which was the target of 32 Israeli raids that mainly targeted areas near the area where the two soldiers were captured in Aita al Chaab, close to the border with Israel.

Well, Im done, your turn.

"This is happening because millions of Palestinians and hundreds of millions of Arabs this month are reaching the same conclusion: The American- and now European-backed Israeli policies have made it clear to the Palestinians that they are not allowed to use any means whatsoever to resist the Israeli occupation of their land and the denial of their national rights. Palestinians cannot fight Israel by attacking civilians, but Israel can do so; Palestinians cannot attack Israeli army targets as they did last week when they killed two Israeli soldiers and kidnapped Cpl. Gilad Shalit, but Israel can routinely attack and destroy Palestinian official targets; and, Palestinians cannot practice electoral democracy and choose their own government, as they did when they elected Hamas and reaped a massive Israeli-American-European boycott, but Israel can boast that it is the only democracy in the region:"

The problem isn't one of resistance. It's one of aggression on the part of Palestinians. They begin with bombing Israelis and shooting rockets at them, and capturing their soldiers. Precisely why Israel retaliates and takes action at the source of these attacks: the Palestinian civlian population. Hence, the culture of victimization within that particular community. If you look at a map of the Middle East, you will see that Israel doesn't even occupy 1 percent of all the territory. Why don't the other Arab states accept the Palestinians as refugees? Because they know if they do, this conflict will end, and they won't have Israel as a rallying point for the different and conflicting segments of their respective populations. Egypt, for example, won't even accept refugees from Gaza. Thus, the Arab states are more of an obstacle to peace than Israel.

That being said, I think it's truly regrettable that Lebanon has to be attacked. From what I've heard, Beirut is a cosmopolitan, tolerant, beautiful city. Kind of a model for the rest of the Middle East, if we were to have our way. Truly a shame.

For one thing, we share common values with the Israelis. A belief in personal liberty,

Personal liberty? Try living in Gaza, see how much liberty they have.

freedom of religion,

Unless that religion is Islam.

a belief in the free market.

Again, unless youre a Muslim.

Secondly, Israel is the Jews' ancestral homeland, and they have as much a right to it as anyone.

Just because a 2,000 year old book says this is your homeland doesnt mean you have some mandate over it. The people that lived there peacefully have as much of a right to live there as well.

Well, Im done, your turn.
Those soldiers weren't venturing into Lebanon. Ever since the withdrawal from most of Lebanon in 87 by Israel, a small southern part was still occupied. Somehow, Hezbollah didn't go about capturing Israeli soldiers for the last 19 years, which means this is clearly an act of aggression on the part of Hezbollah. Not to mention that they shot rockets at Israel.

It would be the equivalent of the governor of Vermont shooting rockets at Canada, and then getting the Vermont National Guard to capture Canadians near to border. How long to you think it would take Bush to send some Marines up there to knock some sense into the Governor, and send back the hostages with profuse apologies?

Secondly, Israel is the Jews' ancestral homeland, and they have as much a right to it as anyone.

I assume then that you advocate the evacuation of North America and the return of the land to it's indigenous population. After all, it is their 'ancestoral homeland' and much more recently than the Jews had a nation in the middle east.

It would be the equivalent of the governor of Vermont shooting rockets at Canada, and then getting the Vermont National Guard to capture Canadians near to border. How long to you think it would take Bush to send some Marines up there to knock some sense into the Governor, and send back the hostages with profuse apologies?

The problem with that metaphor is that the US government has vast military superiority over the Vermont armed forces. Lebanon enjoys no such advantage over Hezbollah.

Those soldiers weren't venturing into Lebanon. Ever since the withdrawal from most of Lebanon in 87 by Israel, a small southern part was still occupied. Somehow, Hezbollah didn't go about capturing Israeli soldiers for the last 19 years, which means this is clearly an act of aggression on the part of Hezbollah. Not to mention that they shot rockets at Israel.

It would be the equivalent of the governor of Vermont shooting rockets at Canada, and then getting the Vermont National Guard to capture Canadians near to border. How long to you think it would take Bush to send some Marines up there to knock some sense into the Governor, and send back the hostages with profuse apologies?

If you send soldiers into my country, and they get captured, how do you have any right to bitch?

Personal liberty? Try living in Gaza, see how much liberty they have.
Unless that religion is Islam.

Again, unless youre a Muslim.
Just because a 2,000 year old book says this is your homeland doesnt mean you have some mandate over it. The people that lived there peacefully have as much of a right to live there as well.
Try living in Gaza if you're a Jew, and suffering daily bombings targeted at you for no other reason than because you are a Jew. Of course, even when you leave, they still hate you and shoot rockets at you, only this time from the north.

Muslims are perfectly free in Israel. Some of them serve on the Supreme Court, and even in the military.

True, a book a mandate does not make. But the Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc. all have a right to live in peace. When one group decides that another does not have that right, you begin to have problems. The Palestinians are that group.

If you send soldiers into my country, and they get captured, how do you have any right to bitch?
If your country attacked mine, then yes, I do.

I assume then that you advocate the evacuation of North America and the return of the land to it's indigenous population. After all, it is their 'ancestoral homeland' and much more recently than the Jews had a nation in the middle east.
No, what I'm saying is that Jews have as much a right to Israel as do Muslims, and anyone else. The Muslims seem to think that the Jews do not have a right to Israel.

Try living in Gaza if you're a Jew, and suffering daily bombings targeted at you for no other reason than because you are a Jew. Of course, even when you leave, they still hate you and shoot rockets at you, only this time from the north.

Um, theres more to it than just being a jew.

Muslims are perfectly free in Israel. Some of them serve on the Supreme Court, and even in the military.

:eek: :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek:

True, a book a mandate does not make. But the Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc. all have a right to live in peace. When one group decides that another does not have that right, you begin to have problems. The Palestinians are that group.

What noone is realizing is that its the Jews that want the Arabs out. So stop wondering why the Arabs are fighting Israel.

If your country attacked mine, then yes, I do.

I attacked you because you invaded me in the '80s and continued to occupy my territory.

The problem with that metaphor is that the US government has vast military superiority over the Vermont armed forces. Lebanon enjoys no such advantage over Hezbollah.
True, which is why Lebanon needed to be invaded. Similarily, Canada would have every right to invade America(where I live), if Bush didn't trip over himself to put the governor vermont back in line in the hypothetical situation I mentioned.

I attacked you because you invaded me in the '80s and continued to occupy my territory.
I invaded you in the 80s because you attacked me. I occupied your territory in an attempt to prevent future attacks on my homeland, but your jihadists just attacked my soldiers instead, so I got so fed up with it all that I left anyway. But I kept a small southern part of your country.

Um, theres more to it than just being a jew.

:eek: :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek:

What noone is realizing is that its the Jews that want the Arabs out. So stop wondering why the Arabs are fighting Israel.
1. No, that's the main reason. I've spoken with Palestinians. They told me that they used to hate Israel and the Jews because they were only told their side of the story-that Israel forced them out. They weren't taught about Israel's motives. Now they live in the West and they realized they were wrong and misinformed.

2. It's true. Muslims do hold positions of authority. Most of them, however, are descendants of the Muslims who chose to stay in Israel when it was invaded by the Arab states in 1948.

3. First of all, there are Arab Jews. Secondly, the Palestinians want the Jews out. The Jews would be more than happy to live in peace, as they had done until the 1920s, with the Muslims.

I invaded you in the 80s because you attacked me. I occupied your territory in an attempt to prevent future attacks on my homeland, but your jihadists just attacked my soldiers instead, so I got so fed up with it all that I left anyway. But I kept a small southern part of your country.

Well we can go back and forth with this. But the root cause is Israels anti-Arab sentiment towards the Palestinians. Every other nation in the region backed the Palestinians.

Well we can go back and forth with this.
Yeah, please don't!

Well we can go back and forth with this. But the root cause is Israels anti-Arab sentiment towards the Palestinians. Every other nation in the region backed the Palestinians.

Don't all these Arab-Israeli Conflict threads just go back and forth?

I dont see Islam hating on China. Or Scandinavia. Or Japan. Or most of Europe.

If you do feel free to enlighten.

.

Hmmm, do the Danish Cartoons jog your memory?

Hmmm, do the Danish Cartoons jog your memory?

You mean the Danish Cartoons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy) which the Muslims were trying to be civil and discrete about asking the government to stop the publication but had to take it outside the country when Prime Minister Rasmussen brilliantly snubbed them instead of listening to their grievances and possibly avert the resulting uproar?

Since when was it the right of foreign powers to decide what goes on in a sovereign nations press?

I should imagine that Israel, and its manifold trangressions, constitute agreat proportion of the Islamic problems regarding the west. Quite simply, Israel is perceived as the instrument of an Islamophobic USA, and thus serves to intensify the antipathy felt for the west by the Islamic world.

Yay for propaganda!yup.

yup.

And yet no one has offered proof against it yet.

Well we can go back and forth with this. But the root cause is Israels anti-Arab sentiment towards the Palestinians. Every other nation in the region backed the Palestinians.
Quite clearly you are completely oblivious to the Palestinians' psychopathic anti-Semitism, or you are completely misinformed. What country do you live in? If it's in Europe or North America, how many times will it take for the Muslims to rant about "imperialist zionism" and "the evil jews" before you realize that the victims are the Jews and peaceful Muslim Arabs of Israel, not Hezbollah or Hamas?

I should imagine that Israel, and its manifold trangressions, constitute agreat proportion of the Islamic problems regarding the west. Quite simply, Israel is perceived as the instrument of an Islamophobic USA, and thus serves to intensify the antipathy felt for the west by the Islamic world.
Like I said in my post, if you take Israel out of the equation, you would still have an Iran trying to get nukes, a Saudi Arabia exporting terrorism, and daily suicide bombers in Iraq. We can't appease the fanatical Muslims. Just like we couldn't appease the Nazis and expect them to act all nice to us afterwards.

And yet no one has offered proof against it yet.Proof of Anti-Islam/Anti-Arab Racist Propaganda?

Quite clearly you are completely oblivious to the Palestinians' .. anti-Semitism... OXYMORON.

Palestineans are Semites.

Like I said in my post, if you take Israel out of the equation, you would .... if you take Israel out of the equation, you would dramatically reduce attacks against the US.

if you take Israel out of the equation, you would dramatically reduce attacks against the US.
Not true at all. In case you haven't heard, there's a little country called Iraq, and there are somewhere to the tune of 100000 Americans still there. Besides, how exactly would you "take Israel out of the equation"? Another Holocaust, hmm? Don't kid yourself, if the Palestinians got half the chance to do so, they would slaughter every Jew in Israel. And then they would slaughter the Muslims who sided with the Jews, for good measure.

OxiMORON.
You could insult me and expose your bigotry and pathetic ignorance. Or we could have a reasoned, open debate. Your call, buddy.

You could insult me and expose your bigotry and pathetic ignorance. Or we could have a reasoned, open debate. Your call, buddy.

I don't know if he is calling you a 'moron', but he is saying your statement was an 'oxymoron'.

Check the dictionary if you're unsure.

Palestinians (Arabs in general) are technically Semitic people also, which was what OD was alluding to in his post.

Edit: OD, baiting people detracts from whatever point you are trying to make.

you dont know what an oxymoron is yet you want a resoned debate.

i assume his point is how can semetic palestinians be anti-semetic? or is the phrase just thrown at anyone the Isreali supporters dislike?

you dont know what an oxymoron is yet you want a resoned debate.

i assume his point is how can semetic palestinians be anti-semetic? or is the phrase just thrown at anyone the Isreali supporters dislike?
I think it's known generally that when someone says anti-Semitic, they mean anti-Jewish in particular. Also, he said OxiMORON, which I take as an insult.

I don't know if he is calling you a 'moron', but he is saying your statement was an 'oxymoron'.

Check the dictionary if you're unsure.

Palestinians (Arabs in general) are technically Semitic people also, which was what OD was alluding to in his post.

Edit: OD, baiting people detracts from whatever point you are trying to make.
He was doing the baiting, my friend.

He was doing the baiting, my friend.
Hence me saying:

OD, baiting people detracts from whatever point you are trying to make.

I think it's known generally that when someone says anti-Semitic, they mean anti-Jewish in particular. Also, he said OxiMORON, which I take as an insult.

i dont think it is in that context. they are semites. so stop calling them anti-semites when you should say anti-israeli. they dont hate jews, they hate the people who stole their land, who happen to be jews.

anti-jew and anti-semetic are different phenomenon by the way

i dont think it is in that context. they are semites. so stop calling them anti-semites when you should say anti-israeli. they dont hate jews, they hate the people who stole their land, who happen to be jews.

anti-jew and anti-semetic are different phenomenon by the way
Technically true, but neverthless, when someone says anti-Semite, they are implying anti-Jewish, and you seem intelligent enough to know that, so why are you so insistent on arguing about something so technical and irrelevant?

Hence me saying:

OD, baiting people detracts from whatever point you are trying to make.
Oh, I thought you meant me. Nevermind, then.

Technically true, but neverthless, when someone says anti-Semite, they are implying anti-Jewish, and you seem intelligent enough to know that, so why are you so insistent on arguing about something so technical and irrelevant?
Not irrelevant when the term used to cover a groups from those that are willing to exterminate the jews (like the Nazi party) to those that oppose a decision a particular country makes the term is too broad. It does not promote discussion and is generally frowned upon on these forums as such.

We have had a whole spat of Israel thread closings because idiots throw the anti-Semite term indiscriminately.

Technically true, but neverthless, when someone says anti-Semite, they are implying anti-Jewish, and you seem intelligent enough to know that, so why are you so insistent on arguing about something so technical and irrelevant?

its not irrelevant. you are trying to styfle debate by branding palestinans 'anti-semetic', and its a false charge.

it comes round to the broader issue of certain posters here (not necessarily you) of labelling any criticism of israel/sympathy for the palestinans/lebanise as anti-semetic.

its lazy, intellecual vandelism

its not irrelevant. you are trying to styfle debate by branding palestinans 'anti-semetic', and its a false charge.

it comes round to the broader issue of certain posters here (not necessarily you) of labelling any criticism of israel/sympathy for the palestinans/lebanise as anti-semetic.

its lazy, intellecual vandelism
But there is a great number of Palestinians who are in fact, anti-Semitic, or anti-jewish, if you prefer. Certainly the ones shooting rockets.

I think it's known generally that when someone says anti-Semitic, they mean anti-Jewish in particular. Also, he said OxiMORON, which I take as an insult.your ignorance is insulting.

your ignorance is insulting.
Again, baiting, and character assisination. Have you even read my opening post, or did you just come here to try and piss as many people off as you can?

But there is a great number of Palestinians who are in fact, anti-Semitic, :rolleyes:

In that case there is a greater number of Jews that are Anti-semites

But there is a great number of Palestinians who are in fact, anti-Semitic, or anti-jewish, if you prefer. Certainly the ones shooting rockets.

you need to stop.

we wont listen when you bring up real anti-semitism.

anyone who believes the palestinains are fighting the IDF/attacking Isreal because they are Jewish is

a: mental

b: mental

or c: deliberetly trying to deflect away from the real issues and underlying causes of the conflict. land.

which are you?

Again, baiting, and character assisination. Have you even read my opening post, or did you just come here to try and piss as many people off as you can?oxymoron is a word used all the time in these forums.

Arabs are not anti-semites.. because they are Semites.

next time use the Words Anti-Jew or Anti-Israel...

:rolleyes:

In that case there is a greater number of Jews that are Anti-semites
you think so? What evidence to you have of this?

you need to stop.
Stop what? My right to free speech? Oh, wait, I'm not being politically correct, am I?

oxymoron is a word used all the time in these forums.

Arabs are not anti-semites.. because they are Semites.

next time use the Words Anti-Jew or Anti-Israel...
Is OxiMORON(note the capitalized part) often used in these forums too?

Fine, whatever floats your boat. I'd much rather discuss the political side to this than the linguistic.

you need to stop.

we wont listen when you bring up real anti-semitism.

anyone who believes the palestinains are fighting the IDF/attacking Isreal because they are Jewish is

a: mental

b: mental

or c: deliberetly trying to deflect away from the real issues and underlying causes of the conflict. land.

which are you?
You're not exactly helping the situation are you :rolleyes:

you need to stop.

we wont listen when you bring up real anti-semitism.

anyone who believes the palestinains are fighting the IDF/attacking Isreal because they are Jewish is

a: mental

b: mental

or c: deliberetly trying to deflect away from the real issues and underlying causes of the conflict. land.

which are you?
Oh, land has everything to do with it. But the fact that one side is Jewish and the other isn't only adds fuel to the fire. What I would like to know is whether you actually read my OP in defence of Israel, and what you think about my reasons. If you disagree with some of my rationale, fine, but make your point in a civilized manner, and then we can have a mutually beneficial debate. I don't how a monopoly on morality, or information, perhaps you could bring something to the table which I haven't brought up in the OP, and which would make me reconsider my beliefs? I would like that very much, as I like to have my beliefs challenged, not reaffirmed.

So, far, regrettably, most of the people who disagree with me say that my opinion is propaganda, or that I'm an idiot, or they bring up ridiculous conspiracy theories.

you think so? What evidence to you have of this?


Stop what? My right to free speech? Oh, wait, I'm not being politically correct, am I?

the point oceandrive is i presume making, i have heard far more anti-arab sentiment from Israelis than anti-jew from the Palestinians. ergo the Jews are more anti-semetic than the Palestinians...

see, I can misuse offensive labels too.....

its not about being PC, its about not trying to crush debate with that cop out phrase. save it for nazis and those who deserve it. or generally grow up and use language properly.

you think so? Yes.. yes I think so.

Semite(arab) missiles are hitting Israel as we speak..

Jews around the World (most of them are not semites) are Anti-arab for that.

If I was a Jew... chances are I would be anti-semite (anti-lebanon).

Just like.. If I was Palestinean-or-Lebanese(semite either way).. I would be very much anti-US/Israel..

In fact If I was Lebanese-or-Palestinean(semite either way) I would hate US/Israel rigth now.

Oh, land has everything to do with it. But the fact that one side is Jewish and the other isn't only adds fuel to the fire.

does it really? if the mongolians took their land, the Palestinains would have reacted differently?

would they fuck.

If you send soldiers into my country, and they get captured, how do you have any right to bitch?

Seven IDF soldiers killed, 2 kidnapped on northern frontier
jpost.com Found 12 days ago
In a meticulously-planned attack by the Hizbullah, terrorists infiltrated into Israel early Wednesday morning and fired anti-tank rockets at an IDF patrol along the western border near Zarit, killing three soldiers and abducting another two. Under heavy fire, IDF troops entered Lebanon to retrieve the ...


http://tailrank.com/posts/562949953726837/Hezbollah_Attack__Two_Israeli_Soldiers_Kidnapped_-_Act_of_War






Lebanese men looking at the remains of Qasmiyeh bridge, hit in an IAF strike Wednesday. (Reuters)



Last update - 10:28 13/07/2006


Reserve IDF division called up in wake of attack; Nasrallah: Prisoner swap only way to free soldiers

8 soldiers killed, 2 snatched in Hezbollah border attacks

By Amos Harel, Avi Issacharoff, Jack Khoury and Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondents, and Agencies

Eight Israel Defense Forces soldiers were killed and two others were abducted Wednesday in attacks by guerillas from the militant Hezbollah organization.

Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said Wednesday evening that a prisoner exchange was the only way to secure the release of the soldiers, who he said were being held in a "secure and remote" location.

"No military operation will return them," Nasrallah told a news conference in Beirut. "The prisoners will not be returned except through one way: indirect negotiations and a trade

The militants attacked two IDF armored Hummer jeeps patrolling along the border with gunfire and explosives, in the midst of massive shelling attacks on Israel's north. Three soldiers were killed in the attack and two were taken hostage.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/737634.html

You can add CNN
FOX
MSNBC
ABC
NBC
CBS
News to the list .
The Hezbollah CAME ACCROSS the BORDER to kiddnap the two soldiers after ambushing a column . Doing recon along the border.


THATS WHY THER IS A WAR ...

YOUR propaganda sites approved and marketed by hezbollah that you so nicely linked to..cant change facts.

Semite(arab) missiles are hitting Israel as we speak..

Jews around the World (most of them are not semites) are Anti-arab for that.

If I was a Jew chances are I would be anti-semite (anti-lebanon).

Just like If I was Palestinean-or-Lebanese(Semite).. I would be very much anti-US/Israel..

I fact If I was either Lebanes-or-Palestinean(semite either way) I would hate US/Israel rigth now.
So, using your rationale, most Lebanese/Palestinians/Muslims in general are anti-Jewish. Let's see, 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, and how many Jews?

I don't think either one of these scenarios are correct, and I will give Muslims the benefit of the doubt when I say that most of them are not anti-Jewish, because most of the Muslims I've met here in America are decent normal people. Maybe it's different in the Middle East, I'm not sure.

http://tailrank.com/posts/562949953726837/Hezbollah_Attack__Two_Israeli_Soldiers_Kidnapped_-_Act_of_War



http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/737634.html

You can add CNN
FOX
MSNBC
ABC
NBC
CBS
News to the list .
The Hezbollah CAME ACCROSS the BORDER to kiddnap the two soldiers after ambushing a column . Doing recon along the border.


THATS WHY THER IS A WAR ...

YOUR propaganda sites approved and marketed by hezbollah that you so nicely linked to..cant change facts.
Excellent point, my friend, but I think it would be better if you left out the last part. I suggest you edit it.

So, using your rationale, most Lebanese/Palestinians/Muslims in general are anti-Jewish. Let's see, 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, and how many Jews?.

Muslims ... most of them are not anti-Jewish,I was very careful to use the word "Arab" and NOT the word "Muslim".

because I do know that "Arab = Semite".

But "Muslim NOT= Semite."
and.. "Jew NOT= Semite."

I was very careful to use the word "Arab" and NOT the word "Muslim".

because I do know that "Arab = Semite".

But "Muslim NOT= Semite."
and.. "Jew NOT= Semite."
And yet you felt free to say that most Jews are against Arabs?

So, using your rationale, most Lebanese/Palestinians/Muslims in general are anti-Jewish. Let's see, 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, and how many Jews?

I don't think either one of these scenarios are correct, and I will give Muslims the benefit of the doubt when I say that most of them are not anti-Jewish, because most of the Muslims I've met here in America are decent normal people. Maybe it's different in the Middle East, I'm not sure.

in the middle east, most people are anti-israeli. its about land, despite how much you want to link the local conflict into a broader jihadist issue so you can gain american sympathy.

dp

in the middle east, most people are anti-israeli. its about land, despite how much you want to link the local conflict into a broader jihadist issue so you can gain american sympathy.
Uh...yeah, I did say that it has a lot to do with land, and I"m also American, and as you can probably tell, Israel already has my sympathy.

Now about the jihadists, they are like environmentalists: they think globally but act locally. Tell me, if Israel isn't part of a global jihad, then what was the point in blowing up that synagogue in Brazil? Or killing tourists in Bali? I could name many more instances, but suffice it to say that the tactics perfected against Israel were later used in the two examples I mentioned, and many others. So, you see, there is a certain segment of the Muslim population that is actively waging jihad, another segment that supports them through monetary aid, and another segment that is just indifferent and silently accepting of it.

and another segment that is just indifferent and silently accepting of it.
Being silent doesn't necessarily mean you accept it.

Thomas More is an example of this.

And yet you felt free to say that most Jews are (anti-)Arabs?Yes.. that is the "feeling" I have..

Arabs-Jews... Jews-Arabs.. I dont see any love.
More like the other way around. Don't you think?

BTW I am going out of my way to use soft words. (you seem rather sensible)

Yes.. that is the "feeling" I have..

Arabs-Jews... Jews-Arabs.. I dont see any love.
More like the other way around. Don't you think?
I fully agree, there is much hate among these peoples. I haven't spoken with too many Jews regarding their personal feelings about Arabs, so I can't comment specifically on whether most of them are anti-Arab. However, I don't think we should jump to generalisations.

It seems like I have gotten you to admit is that there is, in fact, anti-Jewish sentiment among the Arab world, and that it's not just the "evil, imperialist, warmongering Jews" causing this conflict, and I consider that a victory within itself.

Being silent doesn't necessarily mean you accept it.

Thomas More is an example of this.
Oh, you may not like it, but if you do nothing about, then you accept it by default. It's like the American Patriots. They didn't like British rule, but if they were silently accepting, and didn't fight for their freedom, then Americans would still be drinking tea and swearing allegiance to the queen of england.

I don't know who Thomas More was. You'll have to enlighten me on that one.

...and I consider that a victory within itself....

Congrats. (cool, happy ending)

meh.

Congrats. :cool:
Every little one counts!;)

Uh...yeah, I did say that it has a lot to do with land, and I"m also American, and as you can probably tell, Israel already has my sympathy.

Now about the jihadists, they are like environmentalists: they think globally but act locally. Tell me, if Israel isn't part of a global jihad, then what was the point in blowing up that mosque in Brazil? Or killing tourists in Bali? I could name many more instances, but suffice it to say that the tactics perfected against Israel were later used in the two examples I mentioned, and many others. So, you see, there is a certain segment of the Muslim population that is actively waging jihad, another segment that supports them through monetary aid, and another segment that is just indifferent and silently accepting of it.

what have either of those atrocoties got to do with the Palestinians?

the tamil tigers perfected the suicide belt. then the Lebanese adopted it, then finally the Palestinians. suffice to say my arse. do your homework on this.

i have not seen any evidence of any linkups between hamas, hizbollah and al-queada. isreal is being fought because of its occupation of the Palestine and supression of the native population. not because they are Jews. DO you think the reaction would be less fierce if it was the Bulgarians who waded in in 48? The war against Isreal is not seen in the same light as the war against the US. One is local, over land stolen from someone in living memory, one is against the percieved military, cultural and economic imperialism of certain Western states. to compare the two profoundly misses the point.

It seems like I have gotten you to admit is that there is, in fact, anti-Jewish sentiment among the Arab world, and that it's not just the "evil, imperialist, warmongering Jews" causing this conflict, and I consider that a victory within itself.

is that because of their judaism or the fact the occupiers are Jews?

if they were mongolians, there would be a certain anti-mongol sentiment, no?

anti-jewish tends to mean 'i dont like jews, they killed jesus'. so the phrase anti-israeli or anti-zionist is far more appropriate

what have either of those atrocoties got to do with the Palestinians?

the tamil tigers perfected the suicide belt. then the Lebanese adopted it, then finally the Palestinians. suffice to say my arse. do your homework on this.

i have not seen any evidence of any linkups between hamas, hizbollah and al-queada. isreal is being fought because of its occupation of the Palestine and supression of the native population. not because they are Jews. DO you think the reaction would be less fierce if it was the Bulgarians who waded in in 48? The war against Isreal is not seen in the same light as the war against the US. One is local, over land stolen from someone in living memory, one is against the percieved military, cultural and economic imperialism of certain Western states. to compare the two profoundly misses the point.
I ask again, why blow up that synagogue in Brazil? What strategic/political purpose could this have?

Ahh, fuck it, I'll tell you the answer myself. It's to show the dominance of Islamic terrorism, and to strike fear into the hearts of the "infidels." This is something that is being repeated over and over.

Here are the links between Hezbollah/Hamas/al-qaida. I implore you to consider this chart as it will only take 3 minutes of your precious time. There's a link at the bottom of the article.
http://www.slate.com/id/2146230/nav/tap1/


Israel didn't steal that land. Like I said before, Israel is the Jews' ancestral homeland, and they have a right to it as much as anyone else. The 1948 war caused a lot of Palestinian refugees from what I understand, and it is unfortuante that those people were uprooted, BUT the reason they left was because the Arab states decided to make war on Israel, and they didn't want to get caught in between. The Arab states are to blame for this.

And like I said in the OP, we would still have the problems we do in the Mid East even if Israel magically evaporated.

is that because of their judaism or the fact the occupiers are Jews?

if they were mongolians, there would be a certain anti-mongol sentiment, no?

anti-jewish tends to mean 'i dont like jews, they killed jesus'. so the phrase anti-israeli or anti-zionist is far more appropriate
Yes, it's because they are Jews. That's the main reason. The conflict is about the land itself, but the fact that the Jews are occupying Israel is the catalyst for this conflict. The Koran doesn't help either. It views "people of the Book", ie, Christains and Jews as blashpemous.

I suppose there would be an anti-mongol sentiment. But they aren't, so what's you point?

I fully agree, there is much hate among these peoples. I haven't spoken with too many Jews regarding their personal feelings about Arabs, so I can't comment specifically on whether most of them are anti-Arab. However, I don't think we should jump to generalisations.

It seems like I have gotten you to admit is that there is, in fact, anti-Jewish sentiment among the Arab world, and that it's not just the "evil, imperialist, warmongering Jews" causing this conflict, and I consider that a victory within itself.

Jews aren't a people. They are a religious group.
And of course there is ant-Jewish sentiment among the Arab world. There has been anti-Jewish sentiment everywhere Jews have lived ever since Jews existed.
So if one kid always stirs trouble, is it the other kids' fault?

Israel didn't steal that land. Like I said before, Israel is the Jews' ancestral homeland, and they have a right to it as much as anyone else. The 1948 war caused a lot of Palestinian refugees from what I understand, and it is unfortuante that those people were uprooted, BUT the reason they left was because the Arab states decided to make war on Israel, and they didn't want to get caught in between. The Arab states are to blame for this.

And like I said in the OP, we would still have the problems we do in the Mid East even if Israel magically evaporated.


1- What your suggesting, is that based on the fact that the jews occupied modern Israel atleast 1500 years ago, it is technically their. This is absurd, and i am sick of hearing it. If the globe operated by these rules, the world would be very different.

Also, i must tell you, that if Israel magically evaoprated, the main cause of terrorism will die. The middle east will change, probably better. Iran is probablt the only rogue nation in the middle east, much of the other nations are very moderate. The exsistence of Israel has bred terrorism, its that simple.

Uh...yeah, I did say that it has a lot to do with land, and I"m also American, and as you can probably tell, Israel already has my sympathy.

Now about the jihadists, they are like environmentalists: they think globally but act locally. Tell me, if Israel isn't part of a global jihad, then what was the point in blowing up that synagogue in Brazil? Or killing tourists in Bali? I could name many more instances, but suffice it to say that the tactics perfected against Israel were later used in the two examples I mentioned, and many others. So, you see, there is a certain segment of the Muslim population that is actively waging jihad, another segment that supports them through monetary aid, and another segment that is just indifferent and silently accepting of it.

Evidently Islam is now an entirely homogenous entity?

Evidently Sunni's and Shia's massacring each other is simply another component of an evil plot?

:rolleyes:

Incidentally, why does being American render you pro-Israeli by proxy?

1- What your suggesting, is that based on the fact that the jews occupied modern Israel atleast 1500 years ago, it is technically their. This is absurd, and i am sick of hearing it. If the globe operated by these rules, the world would be very different.


SNIP



For starters, if we returned ownership of land to what it was 1500 years ago,
there would not be a single spot of this planet owned by 'muslim peoples.'

That would be magnificent.

As one of those Baghadi foundamentalist philosophers said:
'all change is innovation, and all innovation is mistaken.'

I'd present the events of 632AD is evidence.

For starters, if we returned ownership of land to what it was 1500 years ago,
there would not be a single spot of this planet owned by 'muslim peoples.'

That would be magnificent.
.

It would be better to go back 2000 years and there wouldn't be any christian countries either. Now that would make the world a better place

Yes, it's because they are Jews. That's the main reason. The conflict is about the land itself, but the fact that the Jews are occupying Israel is the catalyst for this conflict. The Koran doesn't help either. It views "people of the Book", ie, Christains and Jews as blashpemous.

I suppose there would be an anti-mongol sentiment. But they aren't, so what's you point?

my point is they are in conflict because they arrived, said we used to live here, get out.

thats why they are hated, not because of their ethnicity or religious beliefs. because they decided to reclaim/steal other peoples land and then treat them rather shabbily afterwards.

anyone who decided to steal their land would have seen the same reaction. the fact they are jews is utterly irrelevant and why are you bringing it up?

and as for that chart.... 'its believed', 'its alledged'. Hamas and Hezbollah are different strands of Islam and despise each other, hence they dont ever work together. you seem to believe all moslems are the same with the same opinions. a very dangerous thing to think. palestinain resistance has nothing to do with al-queada, regardless of the Isreali spin trying to link them.

my point is they are in conflict because they arrived, said we used to live here, get out.

thats why they are hated, not because of their ethnicity or religious beliefs. because they decided to reclaim/steal other peoples land and then treat them rather shabbily afterwards.

anyone who decided to steal their land would have seen the same reaction. the fact they are jews is utterly irrelevant and why are you bringing it up?

and as for that chart.... 'its believed', 'its alledged'. Hamas and Hezbollah are different strands of Islam and despise each other, hence they dont ever work together. you seem to believe all moslems are the same with the same opinions. a very dangerous thing to think. palestinain resistance has nothing to do with al-queada, regardless of the Isreali spin trying to link them.
Have you ever heard what Arab Muslims say? How they talk? Let me tell you something, buddy, they hate the Jews with a vengence, and they often refer to them as dirty, imperialist, immoral, infidels, etc. Anti-Semitism is rampant among Arab Muslims.

Now suppose a bunch of Muslims instead of Jews moved into Israel back during the period when the Jews moved in. Do you think that there would be a war to get those Muslims out? So, you, see, the Muslim Arabs simply don't want to live next to the Jews.

Yes, about that chart. If it is "believed" and "alleged" than that means that intelligent people who know about these things looked at the evidence, and decided that these groups do in fact, have ties to each other. Besides, what authority do you have to say that they are different brands of Islam, and wouldn't cooperate because of this? Don't you think it's possible they hate the Jews more than each other?

Lastly, don't put words in my mouth. I never said all Muslims think the same.

1- What your suggesting, is that based on the fact that the jews occupied modern Israel atleast 1500 years ago, it is technically their. This is absurd, and i am sick of hearing it. If the globe operated by these rules, the world would be very different.

Also, i must tell you, that if Israel magically evaoprated, the main cause of terrorism will die. The middle east will change, probably better. Iran is probablt the only rogue nation in the middle east, much of the other nations are very moderate. The exsistence of Israel has bred terrorism, its that simple.
1-No, what I'm suggesting is that the Muslims' claim that the Jews stole that land are completely false. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to live there in peace and prosperity has a right to live there, regardless of their religion.

2-Iran would still be trying to get nukes, Saudi Arabia would still be exporting terrorism, terrorists would be killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the jihadists would still be waging war against the West, if Israel evaporated. Tell me, if there isn't a global jihad, then why did the Iranian mullahs issue a fatwa against Salman Rushdie, even though he lives in Britain? If he lived in Iran, and wrote The Satanic Verses in Iran, then I suppose Iran as a sovereign nation would be free to execute him, but he is a foreign national. What makes the Iranian mullahs think they can issue death statements on people living in other, non-Islamic, nations? The same thing happened during the MoToons debacle. The only logical conclusion is that they are waging global jihad.

Evidently Islam is now an entirely homogenous entity?

Evidently Sunni's and Shia's massacring each other is simply another component of an evil plot?

:rolleyes:

Incidentally, why does being American render you pro-Israeli by proxy?
If anything, Islam is heterogenous. I never said Islam was homogenous, I said that there is a certain segment of Muslims that support, wage, or accept terrorism. Notice, how I said segement, I didn't say all Muslims are like this.

I'm pro-Israel not because I'm American, but because I'm informed.

The U.S. wants a friend in the Middle East, and Israel is that friend.

The U.S. wants a friend in the Middle East, and Israel is that friend.
And a very good friend at that. :)

The U.S. wants a friend in the Middle East, and Israel is that friend.if you give anyone 13.7 million he/she will say he is your best friend.. as long as you keep giving him money.. he will keep saying that.

real friends do not cost 13.7 millions.

if you give anyone 13.7 million he/she will say he is your best friend.. as long as you keep giving him money.. he will keep saying that.

real friends do not cost 13.7 millions.
First of all, we give them several billion per year in economic and military aid. They use most of the economic aid to pay back debts to us, unlike the Europeans. More importantly, we(well, me and most Americans, I'm not sure what your beliefs are, so I'm not including you in the "we") share common values with the Israelis, such as a belief in personal liberty, free enterprise, democracy, and equality. And it's not exactly a one way street either. As I pointed out in my OP, the Israelis give us a lot of technological aid, they are a loyal ally, and they also help us militarily.

Israel is the REAL model of democracry for the Middle East, not Lebanon or Iraq.

First of all, we give them several billion per year in economic and military aid. They use most of the economic aid to pay back debts to us, unlike the Europeans. More importantly, we(well, me and most Americans, I'm not sure what your beliefs are, so I'm not including you in the "we") share common values with the Israelis, such as a belief in personal liberty, free enterprise, democracy, and equality. And it's not exactly a one way street either. As I pointed out in my OP, the Israelis give us a lot of technological aid, they are a loyal ally, and they also help us militarily.

Israel is the REAL model of democracry for the Middle East, not Lebanon or Iraq.thank you, I really apreciate that.

First of all, we give them several billion per year in economic and military aid. They use most of the economic aid to pay back debts to us, unlike the Europeans. More importantly, we(well, me and most Americans, I'm not sure what your beliefs are, so I'm not including you in the "we") share common values with the Israelis, such as a belief in personal liberty, free enterprise, democracy, and equality. And it's not exactly a one way street either. As I pointed out in my OP, the Israelis give us a lot of technological aid, they are a loyal ally, and they also help us militarily.

Israel is the REAL model of democracry for the Middle East, not Lebanon or Iraq.

personal liberty - compulsory military service.

enterprise - economy is in a shambles

democracy - if your political party doesnt explicitly support Israel as a Jewish state, you cant stand in elections.

equality - please. large numbers of jews leaving to go 'back' to Russia etc complaining about institutional racism. black footballers getting bananas thrown at them at football games. we won't even mention their treatment of the indiginous arab population

why doesnt every country in the world thats a democracy get $1.3m a day and unconditional support?

lebanon is a democracy too...

One of the comments from Haifa recently was from an Israeli muslim

"If the situation here in Haifa was reversed and Jews were the minority, muslims would not allow them to practise their religion"

That rather neatly sums up Islam for me, the religion that says you are free to practise your religion ( "You worship your God, The followers of Islam will worship ours"..... ) made sure Christianity and Judaism are banned in in places like Saudi
Even though there are instructions for followers of other religions to pay muslim rulers a tax so they can worship in peace.

Remember this:
Whether you are a left wing bleeding heart liberal or a right wing fundie nutjob, to the jihadis you are all infidels who can be killed , oh and the same goes for any muslims who dont follow the same sect as the jihadis... see Iraq for an example of this

1-No, what I'm suggesting is that the Muslims' claim that the Jews stole that land are completely false. ..

Its based on the expulsion of roughly 700,000 people from their homes. Its accurate enough, as claims go.


As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to live there in peace and prosperity has a right to live there, regardless of their religion..

Except obviously those in the occupied territories, who have to suffer the attentions of the IDF and fanatic settlers.


I'm pro-Israel not because I'm American, but because I'm informed...

Wonderfull. So you think its ok for one group of religous fanatics with beards to ignore national boundaries, and build colonies on other peoples land, but not ok for a bunch of religous fanatics with beards to ignore national boundaries and fly planes into tall buildings.


we(well, me and most Americans, I'm not sure what your beliefs are, so I'm not including you in the "we") share common values with the Israelis, such as a belief in personal liberty, free enterprise, democracy, and equality. ...

I would have thought it more similar in that both countries are dominated by people who jumped off a boat and ended up dispoessessing the natives.

personal liberty - compulsory military service.


Which many countries at one time had and quite a few still do. Most citizens of Israel understand the need for it, and they learn valuable skills while serving.

Oh, and, while they have the option of serving, Arab citizens of Israel arent required to. I guess they have more personal liberty than the Jews!

Also, the Druze and others also didnt have to serve... but volunteered themselves to. They willfuly decided to take their own liberty away!


enterprise - economy is in a shambles

from the CIA world factbook (copy pasted from wikipedia, since its a bit easier to copy/paste, but link to original provided)

GDP: purchasing power parity - $140.1 billion (2005 est.)

GDP - real growth rate: 4.7% (2005 est.)

GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $22,300 (2005 est.)

GDP - composition by sector: agriculture: 2.8% industry: 37.7% services: 59.5% (2003 est.)

Investment (gross fixed): 17.5% of GDP (2005 est.)

Population below poverty line: 21% (2005 est.) [An estimated 40% of those are lifted from below the poverty line]

Household income or consumption by percentage share: lowest 10%: 2.4% highest 10%: 28.3% (1997)

Distribution of family income - Gini index: 34 (2005)

Inflation rate (consumer prices): 1.3% (2005 est.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html#Econ

Horrible, horrible economy. Oh! I especially like the GDP! 114.3 Billion... which would put the 3 billion in aid given them as uh.... what is that... 2.6% of their income. Huge percentage really.


democracy - if your political party doesnt explicitly support Israel as a Jewish state, you cant stand in elections.


Horrible democracy, much worse than the 2 party system of the United States. I mean, what with a dozen parties holding seats in the Knesset (5 large ones)

Now while the majority of the representatives are jewish... some of the members are even Arabs. And one of the members on the supreme court is an Arab.


equality - please. large numbers of jews leaving to go 'back' to Russia etc complaining about institutional racism. black footballers getting bananas thrown at them at football games. we won't even mention their treatment of the indiginous arab population


Name one right that Arabs dont have that the Jewish population does. While there is racism by the general populace, the government does not have any policies putting racism forward. I would also like you to find a single country that does not have racism by the general populace.

Oh, and can you give me a citation of the bananas being thrown? I've never heard of that.

And immigrants from Russia were quite welcome. From the wikipedia economy article above

Two developments have helped to transform Israel's economy since the beginning of the decade. The first is waves of Jewish immigration, predominantly from the countries of the former USSR, that has brought over one million of new citizens to Israel. These new immigrants, many of them highly educated, now constitute some 16% of Israel's 6.5 million population. Their successful absorption into Israeli society and its labor force forms a remarkable chapter in Israeli history. The skills brought by the new immigrants and their added demand as consumers have given the Israeli economy a strong upward push.

I could find more if you'd like.

To Rock

I actually agree with your original statement, despite the fact that I am not American. From the realpolitik point of view, it is logical for the US to support Israel. The fact that the jews have a super-powerful lobby in Washington only makes it more logical. What the people do have a problem with, is the fact that you guys in the US try to justify all Israeli actions and your approval of them with some grand words like "democracy" and "freedom" and "common values". This is crap for the following reasons:

1. Israel does not belong to Jews. A claim 2000 years old is not a claim at all. They were planted there by the international community, forcing the locals out, and they kept the land by right of force. That's the only right they have, there is no dancing around that hard fact.
2. The Israelis made huge atrocities in the process, which are also justified only by the fact that they won. It's the same case as with the bombings of Japanese and German cities by the allies - the responsible generals weren't sitting in Nurnberg on the same bench with Goering & co only due to the fact that they won.

Long speach short - there is no right side in the Middle East. There is only the side that will, eventually, win. Than they will be right. So it is not the question of choosing the right or wrong side, but the question of simply choosing one and supporting them, or staying out of the mess.

For starters, if we returned ownership of land to what it was 1500 years ago,
there would not be a single spot of this planet owned by 'muslim peoples.'

There wouldn't be Americans either. Or British, or Europeans. There'd be hmmm, Romans, Goths, Aborigine Australians and native Americans. There'd be the Aztecs, Mayans and probably a few others as well. The Chinese are still there occupying the same lands they had 1500 years ago, so no problems there.

Jews would still be dispossesed.


That would be magnificent.


Only if you agree to the amendments.

They use most of the economic aid to pay back debts to us, unlike the Europeans.

If I'm not mistaken, the reason why the Europeans don't pay back those debts, if you're referring to war debts, is because they're already paid.

There wouldn't be Americans either. Or British, or Europeans. There'd be hmmm, Romans, Goths, Aborigine Australians and native Americans. There'd be the Aztecs, Mayans and probably a few others as well. The Chinese are still there occupying the same lands they had 1500 years ago, so no problems there.

Jews would still be dispossesed.



Only if you agree to the amendments.


I'll impose amendments as I see fit.

Name one right that Arabs dont have that the Jewish population does. While there is racism by the general populace, the government does not have any policies putting racism forward. I would also like you to find a single country that does not have racism by the general populace.
Oh, and can you give me a citation of the bananas being thrown? I've never heard of that.
And immigrants from Russia were quite welcome. From the wikipedia economy article above
I could find more if you'd like.

I think you may be wrong.

"The Government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there continued to be problems with respect to its treatment of its Arab citizens"
"The Government did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens, who constituted approximately 20 percent of the population but did not share fully the rights and benefits provided to, and obligations imposed on, the country's Jewish citizens"
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm